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

[JuniorSonGoku]

But what if a person fully understands the reasoning and the data and simply disagrees with the majority of the scientific community. They're still being unscientific?

Again, there seem to be semantic issues here.

Scientists spend years studying, researching, and working to reach a competent understanding of their speciality. Not to mention they are constantly competing with and suspect to criticism by other scientists.

Additionally, they have access to academic and scientific resources that the average person does not.

Can a person on their own upset the current scientific consensus? Yes, it is possible. However, it is MUCH more likely for a scientist within the field after years of work to do so.

 

[meauneau]

Considered pseudo scientific by who tho. Who makes that determination?

The scientific community. It is the only line of defence, the only thing that demarcates between what is actual science from what is pseudo science, bad science and science fraud.

 

[meauneau]

This is where problems arise. People uneducated about the current rigorous scientific methodologies and standards should not be making claims about what constitutes as evidence.

No, you should never just go along with the consensus, but you shouldn't make claims if you don't fully understand the reasonings and data for why there is a scientific consensus.

If a lay person doesn't go along with the scientific consensus then what should he go along with? How would he determine whether or not to accept what is the scientific consensus? It's not like he will test the theories himself.

 

[JuniorSonGoku]

If a lay person doesn't go along with the scientific consensus then what should he go along with? How would he determine whether or not to accept what is the scientific consensus? It's not like he will test the theories himself.

This is a very good question, and has continued to be a political, social, and perhaps philosophical problem in countries, especially those with educational deficiencies, such as the U.S.

I do not claim to have an for answer that, so all we can do is be as scientifically educated as we can. That stated, the general population's beliefs should have no real connection to the validity of the scientific research and data that had been completed.

 

[Joe265]

hi Joe265,

among a significant portion of the electorate, a person's respect for science hinges on whether the science dovetails with their own dogma.

i'll give you an example;

a coal miner who is just over the moon with Mr. Trump's rhetoric on bringing back coal probably thinks AGW is absolute bullshit. just a load of rubbish bought to you by "scientists with an agenda who are just competing for grant money".

that same coal miner, though, develops a sincere and robust respect for science when an oncologist tells him he has has black lung.

- IGIT

I’m not sure what your point is other than human beings are full of biases.

 

[IGIT]

If a lay person doesn't go along with the scientific consensus then what should he go along with? How would he determine whether or not to accept what is the scientific consensus? It's not like he will test the theories himself.

hello meauneau,

in the US, most of the "anti-science" debate circles around AGW.

evolution used to get batted around, but since the power of evangelicals seems to be on the wane, it doesn't get discussed any longer.

so, to answer your question, regarding the bolded;

if you favor robust and ironclad protections for the 2nd amendment...
and if you believe that central americans are raping and drug dealing and pillaging through the land...
and if you believe President Obama was a muslim...

then, it thusly follows that you don't believe in AGW.

that's how its done in the United States, at any rate. that's how the lay person "tests" scientific theory.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

I’m not sure what your point is other than human beings are full of biases.

hi Joe265,

my point is that among a huge portion of the electorate, those biases form the basis of whether an individual accepts or rejects scientific findings.

- IGIT

 

[meauneau]

This is a very good question, and has continued to be a political, social, and perhaps philosophical problem in countries, especially those with educational deficiencies, such as the U.S.

I do not claim to have an for answer that, so all we can do is be as scientifically educated as we can. That stated, the general population's beliefs should have no real connection to the validity of the scientific research and data that had been completed.

People working the field of the philosophy of science have proposed an answer and it has to do a lot with the scientific community and the mechanisms that filter out what is not scientific. Search for the "demarcation problem in science".

 

[meauneau]

hello meauneau,

in the US, most of the "anti-science" debate circles around AGW.

evolution used to get batted around, but since the power of evangelicals seems to be on the wane, it doesn't get discussed any longer.

so, to answer your question, regarding the bolded;

if you favor robust and ironclad protections for the 2nd amendment...
and if you believe that central americans are raping and drug dealing and pillaging through the land...
and if you believe President Obama was a muslim...

then, it thusly follows that you don't believe in AGW.

that's how its done in the United States, at any rate. that's how the lay person "tests" scientific theory.

- IGIT

People don't think about the way they think. They don't see their inconsistencies, they biased thinking and can't tell when some information is relevant or not.

 

[Joe265]

hi Joe265,

my point is that among a huge portion of the electorate, those biases form the basis of whether an individual accepts or rejects scientific findings.

- IGIT

That’s how cognitive bias works, and its not simply contained in stances on politics or science. And the original point is that there isn’t a convenient litmus test for judgement.

 

[MikeMcMann]

What is an "anti science" view?

The serious answer is

- someone who dismisses the scientific community and scientific studies and evidence and results in favour of supporting or holding to a position they may have on faith but that does not have valid scientific support or backing.

They generally tend to dismissing rather than trying to debate as they do not have countering facts to debate with.

 

[franklinstower]

My gut is smarter than most people brains. GTFO with all your numbers and facts and "theories". They are just theories you know......

 

[IGIT]

That’s how cognitive bias works, and its not simply contained in stances on politics or science. And the original point is that there isn’t a convenient litmus test for judgement.

hi Joe265,

sure, but generally speaking, there is a point where cognitive bias gives way to acknowledging the situation before you.

regarding AGW, the phenomenon you're referring to is very tenacious among a large portion of the electorate.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

People don't think about the way they think. They don't see their inconsistencies, they biased thinking and can't tell when some information is relevant or not.

hi meaureau,

i'm not disagreeing, but that is the way tens of millions of lay people weigh findings from the scientific community here in America regarding AGW.

- IGIT

 

[meauneau]

hi meaureau,

i'm not disagreeing, but that is the way tens of millions of lay people weigh findings from the scientific community here in America regarding AGW.

- IGIT

I agree with you. This also affects the way science progresses too. Social factors play a big role.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Wow. Id say ignoring contrary evidence and just going along with consensus is the exact opposite of science.

You are speaking about 'skepticism' within science which is not only necessary but vital and a PART of the scientific method.

But that is not the same as 'Joe saying I don't believe the world is not flat. I am skeptical of the science'.

Joe has every right to hold his own uninformed and even idiotic views on any topic. But we should not mistake his skepticism as a challenge to the science.

'Skepticism' such as it is, is a PART of the scientific method. The skepticism is put forth based on science, and itself is testable, provable or refutable.

Too many people make the error of think them being a skeptic simply based on a 'belief system' is the same thing and healthy and its not. Its ignorance.

 

[zebby23]

If a lay person doesn't go along with the scientific consensus then what should he go along with? How would he determine whether or not to accept what is the scientific consensus? It's not like he will test the theories himself.

A lay person takes sciences word for it 99% of the time. You trust that science and engineering make the plane you fly in safe, you trust the doctor knows what medicine to prescribe when you have the flu and you trust the science behind almost everything so I would just trust science and not think too much more than that. If science is wrong they will figure it out long before the lay person does.

 

[Joe265]

hi Joe265,

sure, but generally speaking, there is a point where cognitive bias gives way to acknowledging the situation before you.

regarding AGW, the phenomenon you're referring to is very tenacious among a large portion of the electorate.

- IGIT

To be specific, the GMO issue, like most of science, isn’t a binary choice of acceptance and understanding. That is a shallow political bastardization of science.

 

[zebby23]

My gut is smarter than most people brains. GTFO with all your numbers and facts and "theories". They are just theories you know......

Donald is that you?

 

[IGIT]

To be specific, the GMO issue, like most of science, isn’t a binary choice of acceptance and understanding. That is a shallow political bastardization of science.

joe265,

i was thinking more about the acute, and oddly partisan, disagreement over AGW.

i haven't thought much about GMOs, though.

when i consider how hugely fat my fellow Americans are, consuming genetically modified food seems less pressing than just cutting down on the ice cream, pizza and Dr. Pepper.

- IGIT