Social People with extreme anti-science views know the least, but think they know the most: study

Grenz said:
Would it change with 20 more? How about 30? How many more times would they have to test this in order for you to grant it at least some validity?
Click to expand...
You didn’t understand my point, and you don’t seem interested to. So why do I want to randomly fight with you?
 
When you dont understand something, you rebel against it. Or so go the people you are focusing on.
 
skold said:
People who think evolution is a hoax and God zapped everything into existence....

..oh, hey there TCK
Click to expand...
@TheComebackKid knows there are problems with a sophisticated narrative like evolution. Evolution is very general in what we know, despite the specificity at times, given its scope. He's correct about the nonsense associated with the assuredness surrounding evolution. It is vague, though elegant in its general ability to be confirmed. It's akin to history, shadowy and built on foundations of sand.
 
Grenz said:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-the-least-but-think-they-know-the-most-study

Cliffs:

- Recently, researchers asked more than 2,000 American and European adults their thoughts about genetically modified foods.

- Across four studies conducted in three countries — the U.S., France and Germany — the researchers found that extreme opponents of genetically modified foods “display a lack of insight into how much they know.” They know the least, but think they know the most.

- Genetically modified foods are a nonpartisan issue, Fernbach said. “People on the right and the left both kind of hate GMO’s,” even though the majority of scientists consider them to be as safe for human consumption as conventionally grown ones.

- The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics, but the more their “self-assessed” knowledge — how much they thought they knew — increased.

TLDR: People with the least understanding think they know the most, are too ignorant to understand the level of their own ignorance.

We see this every single time when a topic like evolution is discussed on this board. The people who think the earth if 7,000 years old simultaneously believe that they understand paleontology, geography, biology and genetics just as well or better than those with PHDs. It doesn't end there either, pay attention to the most extreme opposition in any given thread that goes counter to what the generally accepted evidence is. It's usually held by those with the poorest understanding of the evidence, while believing themselves to have the most competency on the subject out of anyone on this board.

"I don't believe the earth is round, but I don't really know much about the subject..." - said no one ever
Click to expand...

You can't just blame the right anymore. Leftist are science illiterate and still try to end debates with "Because science." My gf is one; she doesn't understand anything about science, but she just assumes it's "always on her side." I have to explain really basic things to her.

Lefties are actually getting worse, because they confuse their politics with an understanding of science; literally. Religious folks can do the same, but it's gaining steam faster on the left.
 
Joe265 said:
You didn’t understand my point, and you don’t seem interested to. So why do I want to randomly fight with you?
Click to expand...

All I did was point out that you didn't seem to have read the link, because your condemnation of the study suggested as much. But let's see if I did understand your original point before commenting:

Science isn’t represented by one issue.
Click to expand...

True obviously. But this phenomenon has been observed in a wide variety of topics, going beyond science. As some have pointed out, this study appears very much a Dunning-Kruger knock-off.

A person’s respect for science isn’t determined by the position they take on one issue.
Click to expand...

Also true, but the study wasn't about respect for science.

Such horrifically unscientific conclusions from a report claiming to back science.
Click to expand...

They came up with a hypothesis, tested it, and the results confirmed the hypothesis. Adding to that, similar - maybe even identical - results have been observed elsewhere. How is this unscientific?
 
Grenz said:
They exist...you can observe one in this very thread.
Click to expand...
O2rl.gif
 
Sherbro, I'm just too sick of these self serving "studies" anymore. The topic alone, that someone PAID for the research to be done, ensured that it was done for use for political purposes.

Michael Crichton was right

Michael Crichton on consensus science
Editor: This is a good response to someone who says, “But all those scientists can’t be wrong!” Crichton was referring to science in general, not specifically evolution, but what he says is apt for evolution. Dr Crichton had a career in science and medicine before he became a famous writer. He wrote some well-known science fiction novels such as The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park, and the long-running TV medical drama ER.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grenz said:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-the-least-but-think-they-know-the-most-study

Cliffs:

- Recently, researchers asked more than 2,000 American and European adults their thoughts about genetically modified foods.

- Across four studies conducted in three countries — the U.S., France and Germany — the researchers found that extreme opponents of genetically modified foods “display a lack of insight into how much they know.” They know the least, but think they know the most.

- Genetically modified foods are a nonpartisan issue, Fernbach said. “People on the right and the left both kind of hate GMO’s,” even though the majority of scientists consider them to be as safe for human consumption as conventionally grown ones.

- The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics, but the more their “self-assessed” knowledge — how much they thought they knew — increased.

TLDR: People with the least understanding think they know the most, are too ignorant to understand the level of their own ignorance.

We see this every single time when a topic like evolution is discussed on this board. The people who think the earth if 7,000 years old simultaneously believe that they understand paleontology, geography, biology and genetics just as well or better than those with PHDs. It doesn't end there either, pay attention to the most extreme opposition in any given thread that goes counter to what the generally accepted evidence is. It's usually held by those with the poorest understanding of the evidence, while believing themselves to have the most competency on the subject out of anyone on this board.

"I don't believe the earth is round, but I don't really know much about the subject..." - said no one ever
Click to expand...

For many people it is not the safety of the food that is a concern but the possible reduction in genetic diversity of the crops leaving them vulnerable.
 
The flip side of this topic is.................

Here are two retarded unscientific statements.

1) all GMOs are evil and unsafe

2) all GMOs are totally safe and there are no problems



I see the same bullshit about vaccines. To say they're all good or all bad is purely unscientific. Each should be judged on its own evidence and research.

We did all the usual vaccines in my household, those that are backed by a ton of research and proven effective.

We don't bother with flu shots.

The annual influenza vaccine is literally the least effective vaccine available on the US market and it gets to skip all the safety testing the other vaccines go through before their brought to market on the basis that there's no time to test a new version and have it ready every year.

The Dr at the CDC who headed the team that engineered the new DTP vaccine wrote an oped explaining scientifically why the flu vaccine is bullshit, but the reality is that the CDC sells more doses of the flu vaccine every year than all other childhood vaccines combined.

I don't think GMO's are inherently anything. Every strain, just like every vaccine, should be judged on its own merits and its own evidence.

Where I think things get sketchy is breeding GMO plant strains for herbicide and or pesticide tolerance and then increasing the doses used of the herbicide or pesticide. This is actually a serious issue with designing plants for glyphosphate tolerance and then using higher levels of glyphosphate.

It's not that GMO = poison, but glyphospate literally is poison.
 
Last edited:
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
You can eat your chicken and drink your milk that was pumped full of steroids and a daily supply of antibiotics but I try my hardest not to eat that.

I try and buy food that doesn’t use factory farming practice so. Especially when it comes to meat
Click to expand...

Yet you rip on people that raise and grow the foods using the practices you like.
 
I haven't seen or heard much fuss about GMO locally of late. Seems to have died off a bit as an issue.
At one stage there was quite a lot of activism focusing on introducing what amounted to warning labels on consumer products.
 
Ruprecht said:
I haven't seen or heard much fuss about GMO locally of late. Seems to have died off a bit as an issue.
At one stage there was quite a lot of activism focusing on introducing what amounted to warning labels on consumer products.
Click to expand...
I've never seen any credible evidence of harmful GMOs. Hopefully that trend continues to die off.

It annoys me when I buy stuff with "GMO Free" or "USDA Organic" like that's a selling point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,125
Messages
55,468,665
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top