Ignorance of Science in the United States

[Falsedawn]

There is also a misconseption about the term "science".

Economy, psychology, sociology etc. are sciences. "Science" often relates to only medicine, physics, biology.

Source?

Because I have come colleagues who would find that patently hilarious.

 

[frandie2b]

Source?

Because I have come colleagues who would find that patently hilarious.

What is your point ?

You don't consider economy, psychology, sociology as sciences ?

 

[SummerStriker]

I think it is pretty obvious that people want the benefits of science without taking part in science.

For example, if I had a blood clot, I wouldn't mind taking aspirin and heparin, because I know what those things do and what the risks are. They will save my life.

I'm not sure I want GMO food, because I don't know much about it and I don't think anyone else does. I think the outcome of it is in the air, so I'll wait until other people have suffered for the perfect formula. Is that greedy? Yeah, so? Is that ignorant? If so, that's a marketing problem. They better get into the elementary school and get the state to start selling their product for them.

 

[Falsedawn]

What is your point ?

You don't consider economy, psychology, sociology as sciences ?

Wait, you're saying they are sciences? The way you structured that post was really weird, I thought you left out the word "not".

I agree with you, I really hate the "hard science vs soft science" dichotomy because there's no real rhyme or reason to it. I hear that fairly often, so I just assumed that's what you were getting at. My mistake.

 

[TheComebackKid]

We could all be brains in jars being fed information and everything we know about the world could be wrong without us really knowing it. Could you be wrong even though your experience is telling you you're right?

Sure, but how is that an example of this?

Only someone truly ignorant would think that their logical and philosophical foundations are completely sound while everyone else's are false.

I asked for an example of either someone or some view point that does this. You didn't provide one.

Through evidence, consensus and utility. For example, The physics orthodoxy with Einstein at the helm at one time believed the universe to be deterministic . Then Bohr and others came along with their new probabilistic Quantum Model that flipped their worldview upside down. They fought and fought over the experiments but in the end the physics world had to concede because the experiments could not be denied. They changed their minds and accepted Quantum Mechanics and a probabilistic universe because of the evidence.

What would it take for you to change your mind about the bible and your god?

Well there isn't anything that could make me change what I believe the truth to be. But new information, new evidence, and a new experience could lead me to conclude that my view is not "scientifically" sound. In other words if my experience and the information I was exposed to started to point scientifically to a different truth I would admit it.

 

[frandie2b]

Wait, you're saying they are sciences? The way you structured that post was really weird, I thought you left out the word "not".

I agree with you, I really hate the "hard science vs soft science" dichotomy because there's no real rhyme or reason to it. I hear that fairly often, so I just assumed that's what you were getting at. My mistake.

Ah, I misspoke a bit. Yes indeed.

My point is that when people, like the TS, talk about "science" and "scientists", they often think about biology and physics. They forget that "science" has a very large meaning.

 

[bushman505]

There is also a misconseption about the term "science".

Economy, psychology, sociology etc. are sciences. "Science" often relates to only medicine, physics, biology.

Well imma wildlife andnforestry biologist so I'm not really mixing up my science. I agree though, political science isn't science.

 

[frandie2b]

Well imma wildlife andnforestry biologist so I'm not really mixing up my science. I agree though, political science isn't science.

On a side note, that seems like a fascinating job.

I have a friend who graduated in Marine Biology in Canada, but couldn't find a job matching his competences when he came back here in France.

 

[Squarechoke]

Holy shit, this is god tier irony considering that you regularly peddle ignorance to try and combat scientific consensus. I literally laughed out loud.

I agree, that was absolutely hilarious. Such perfect display of hypocrisy, especially since it was during an attempt to criticize hypocrisy. His response was also really funny since it was such a clear admission of having nothing to counter it with, but made in a way where he clearly didn't want to admit that.

 

[bushman505]

On a side note, that seems like a fascinating job.

I have a friend who graduated in Marine Biology in Canada, but couldn't find a job matching his competences when he came back here in France.

Well I started from the bottom up, firefighting for the forest service and even teaching middle school biology. Took years to fall into the job I wanted. Im 37 and looking back, I was 30 before I was making any $$$. Now I'm working for the Alaska department of natural resources...just did the gun qualification stuff lolz

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Sure, but how is that an example of this?

I asked for an example of either someone or some view point that does this. You didn't provide one.

Don't you say below: "Well there isn't anything that could make me change what I believe the truth to be"

You are an example of this!

Well there isn't anything that could make me change what I believe the truth to be. But new information, new evidence, and a new experience could lead me to conclude that my view is not "scientifically" sound. In other words if my experience and the information I was exposed to started to point scientifically to a different truth I would admit it.

You have a right to believe whatever you want but you are not in a position to evaluate what is scientifically sound and what is not. You lack the necessary education and experience!

 

[TheComebackKid]

You have a right to believe whatever you want but you are not in a position to evaluate what is scientifically sound and what is not. You lack the necessary education and experience!

Again, many scientific conclusions and methodology are based entirely on logic and philosophy. I am in all kinds of position to evaluate the logical and philosophical conclusions scientist reach based on their data. I am also able to evaluate arguments between different scientists.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Again, many scientific conclusions and methodology are based entirely on logic and philosophy. I am in all kinds of position to evaluate the logical and philosophical conclusions scientist reach based on their data. I am also able to evaluate arguments between different scientists.

Evidence will move philosophy, like I stated before Einstein and most of the Physics community were Determinists and the experimental results from Quantum Mechanics made them concede that the sub-atomic world is Probabilistic.

Science moves Philosophy and it should never be the other way around.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Evidence will move philosophy, like I stated before Einstein and most of the Physics community were Determinists and the experimental results from Quantum Mechanics made them concede that the sub-atomic world is Probabilistic.

Science moves Philosophy and it should never be the other way around.

Hogwash. You can't even begin to analyze data and put it into any kind of context without some level philosophy. When it comes to science in the strict demonstration/observation sense it cuts way down on the philosophy aspect but it doesn't eliminate it. When discussing historical and other kinds of science that cannot be demonstrated and observed, but rather evaluated via circumstantial evidence, well then its 100% philosophy and logic.

How can you determine methodology without Philosophy? Riddle me that one.

 

[Blackened]

Evidence will move philosophy, like I stated before Einstein and most of the Physics community were Determinists and the experimental results from Quantum Mechanics made them concede that the sub-atomic world is Probabilistic.

Science moves Philosophy and it should never be the other way around.

Um, wasn't science created from philosophy? Isn't it just a branch of philosophy?

Why should it never be the other way around?

 

[Blackened]

Such few people understand science at all. It seems the majority that claim they do merely memorize facts scientists say. Couldn't work their way out of a paper bag.

 

[RockstarChris]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-foods-containing-dna/?utm_term=.8c559ffc5747

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...taining-dna/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0cca552277d4

So, according to a survey carried out by Oklahoma State University http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

80 % of Americans support food with DNA being labeled. In case you are also completely ignorant about science, I'll explain to you why this is absurd: almost all food has DNA. Your cereal has wheat/oat/rice DNA, your cucumber has DNA that makes it a cucumber and not a carrot, your steak has cow DNA.

Although the respondents consisted of 1,000 people designed to match US demographics, I'm convinced that an even larger study would demonstrate a widespread lack of knowledge about even basic science information. It demonstrates that people often form strong opinions on things like GMO's without even a semblance of rudimentary knowledge about them. In case you don't trust the Washington Post or think it's "fake news" or whatever, I posted the original study PDF. It's really fucking depressing me that this is the state of science knowledge in the US.

80%? LOL

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Hogwash. You can't even begin to analyze data and put it into any kind of context without some level philosophy. When it comes to science in the strict demonstration/observation sense it cuts way down on the philosophy aspect but it doesn't eliminate it. When discussing historical and other kinds of science that cannot be demonstrated and observed, but rather evaluated via circumstantial evidence, well then its 100% philosophy and logic.

How can you determine methodology without Philosophy? Riddle me that one.

Please define "Philiosphy" here, I want to make sure we're on the same page. As far as methodology goes:

 

[Blackened]

Please define "Philiosphy" here, I want to make sure we're on the same page. As far as methodology goes:

Wouldn't you formulate a hypothesis based on logic?

How was this type of flow chart constructed, historically?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Um, wasn't science created from philosophy? Isn't it just a branch of philosophy?

Why should it never be the other way around?

Because you don't start with a theory and try and make observations and data fit within that theory. You start with observations and build your theory with the data and experiments that are developed.

Wouldn't you formulate a hypothesis based on logic?

How was this type of flow chart constructed, historically?

You would formulate a hypothesis based on your current understanding of the world. A good example is Copernicus, he began with a Geocentric model of the universe (philosophy), made observations and hypothesized that a Heliocentric model explained his data better. Evidence changed his worldview.