In total there are 38 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 38 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes) Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
The scientific method leads us to truths that are less than self-evident, often mind-blowing, and sometimes hard to swallow. In the early 17th century, when Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun, he wasn’t just rejecting church doctrine. He was asking people to believe something that defied common sense—because it sure looks like the sun’s going around the Earth, and you can’t feel the Earth spinning. Galileo was put on trial and forced to recant. Two centuries later Charles Darwin escaped that fate. But his idea that all life on Earth evolved from a primordial ancestor and that we humans are distant cousins of apes, whales, and even deep-sea mollusks is still a big ask for a lot of people. So is another 19th-century notion: that carbon dioxide, an invisible gas that we all exhale all the time and that makes up less than a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, could be affecting Earth’s climate.
I like the writer and have read his stuff in the Wash Post for years. He's one of the better science communicators. Here, he puts his finger on the thorniest issues of science acceptance vs. denial. I have to admit, I become a little uncomfortable when I recognize myself in the following passage:
"If you’re a rationalist, there’s something a little dispiriting about all this. In Kahan’s descriptions of how we decide what to believe, what we decide sometimes sounds almost incidental. Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said, 'Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.'”
I'm not a science communicator, obviously, but I do strongly identify in most cases with the methods scientists have used, and I consider the record of their accomplishments to be trustworthy. I have almost no ability to independently verify their findings, yet I accept them when--that dreaded word--the consensus is that they are the closest to the truth that we do so far have. (What I say applies mostly to the "hard" sciences; I am more sceptical when it comes to social science, psychology, and health/nutrition research.)
"Naive beliefs" also explain well why so many of us refuse to accept the findings of science. We evolved to be strongly influenced by what the person in our group reported to us about our immediate environment and experience, but not so much by what a specialist says about facts of whose existence we're not even aware.
Accepting science seems to equate for some to a loss of control over determining a worldview. Or science is too much a threat to the chosen authority on one's worldview, religion.
I have not read the article, but I do remember that, as a child, I was taught to respect and listen to my elders. As a result, I grew up with many of the common beliefs,including, but not limited to, religion, politics, and science. I think I was in my early teens when the revelation came that when Mr. A and Mr. B (of Ms. in either case), differed 180 degrees on a specific subject, they both could not be right. One (or both) of them had to be at least partially wrong. It took a while for me to reconcile this to myself; in fact I think I had finished college before I could do so.
After a relatively long life, I have come up with my personal parameters for controversial subjects. I try to listen to all the evidence, also trying (often unsuccessfully) to winnow out out emotional appeals, references to "authority," and other extraneous (to me) arguments. If an item is really in question, I fram my opinion along the following lines. "Either A or B is possible: at this time the majority of the evidence points to (take your pick)." Not sure if that is the best way to think, but it works for me.
Love what you do, and do what you love. Don't listen to anyone else who tells you not to do it. -Ray Bradbury
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it. -Robert A. Heinlein
.
When I get involved in vaccine/autism, or evolution/intelligent design, or all humans except those from south Saharan Africa have a tiny percentage of Neanderthal genes in our DNA discussions, my go to statement is, "Hey, I have no stake in this; I just follow the science." But that's not true. I follow as much of the science as I comprehend, but I do not replicate experiments or understand the math. The author writes, "For some people, the tribe is more important than the truth; for the best scientists, the truth is more important than the tribe."
I want to be part of the tribe with the scientists, but sometimes it seems I'm just following along on faith in scientists the same way some people follow their faith in God (or Google.)
Anyway, the article was fascinating and frightening. Thanks for posting it.
"I have a great relationship with the blacks."
Donald J. Trump
I think the short answer is that they are not intelligent. If you doubt, go on Facebook and join various pages dedicated to religion v. atheist or evolution v. creationism or flat earth v. globe earth. You will find yourself arguing with the stupidest groups of morons on the face of the planet. Creationists just can't stop with the "if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys" idiocy, religionists can't stop asking how something came from nothing no matter how many times it's explained to them and flat earthers (or flerfs, as we call them) may be the stupidest people I have ever encountered. It boils down to religion v. science because nearly all flerfs are devout Christians or Muslims. Creationists are, of course, devoutly religious.
For example, I asked why the moon looks upside down if you go to the Southern Hemisphere. A flerf told me to take a paper plate, draw a smiley face on it and tape it to the ceiling. Then stand one side and look up and it will appear rightside up. Now move to the position opposite and note that it now appears upside down. Ta-da!! That's it. That's actually it. So, I said if I stand on one side of it, it will appear on its side. Where does the moon appear on its side? He said as it sets it tilts on its side. Well...yes, it does, but that is predicted by the globe and does not work on a flat earth and besides we should be able to see it on its side when it is at the zenith and yet there is nowhere on earth where this happens and if I'm wrong, prove it. They never did because they couldn't. Intelligent people don't think this way.
In another case, a flerf wanted to know why the earth didn't slope to the left and right when we look at the horizon no matter which direction we face. Because the earth is huge and we are microscopic in comparison and so the horizon looks flat. How could it slope away at the sides in 360 degrees?? Some of them wanted to know why airplanes follow the curve of the earth when they should fly off into space. Yeah!! And they wanted to know how people in the Southern Hemisphere don't fall off--I am not making this up!!! One guy said in Australia planes would look upside down while flying so why don't people in Australia ever talk about all the upside down airplanes zipping around overhead? YEAH!!!! No joke, no exaggeration! Is that intelligent. NO!
One you hear all the time from flerfs is "How can water curve?" See, if you pour water into something, the surface is always flat so how does water stick to the globular earth? You can't explain that gravity is pulling on each and every water molecule and pulling them towards the center of the planet. Why? Because there is no such thing as gravity! Yes, that's right. Gravity doesn't exist, only density. They have actually created a forbidden zone around gravity. You're not allowed to talk about it because it isn't real.
So you say, just look at satellite images, you morons!!! Nope! Fake. All done with CGI and ALL the world's govts are in on it. Oh, and in case you didn't know--there is no outer space!!! See, the earth is flat and stationary. It's surrounded by an "ice wall" and there is a dome over the earth upon which the stars are mounted and the sun and moon are somehow suspended (well, god can do anything, after all). The dome turns. The sun is 33 miles across and 3000 miles up (although they can't agree on this because some of them post photos of the sun in the clouds and point out that some of the clouds are "clearly" passing behind the sun which puts the sun as about 3000 feet not miles. They NEVER explain how this tiny sun can throw off that much heat and light. Nor how it lights only half the earth plane at a time. They can't explain time zones or meteors or why no Arctic or Antarctic explorer has ever seen the ice wall no matter which direction they travel from.
Flerfs ask why no planes ever pass over the poles when, in fact, they do--routinely. They insist distant objects do not vanish under the horizon. They show photos of mirages as proof the earth is flat. They are arrogant assholes and refer to us as "globetards." We are retarded because we believe the earth is a globe, which, they say, is a result of schooling and not experience. If the planet is hurling through space, they say, then why isn't the fragile atmosphere worn away by now? Yep. And they call us globetards. One guy even said that Antarctica is the brain of the flat earth because it looks like a brain.
And who is behind all this globe earthism? NASA!!! NASA, they say, is run by Freemasons who are part of the Illuminati. NASA spells SATAN (if you scatter the letters around and add a "t"). Oh, and the moon landings were fake, of course. The moon is just a lamp the same size as the sun. And it gives off its own light.
And I've only scratched the surface of what these numbnuts believe. Intelligent? No. I'm sorry but NO! They believe this idiotic crap because they are idiots. Period.
DWill wrote: I recognize myself in the following passage: "…the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else...'”
I accept them when--that dreaded word--the consensus is that they are the closest to the truth that we do so far have. (What I say applies mostly to the "hard" sciences; I am more sceptical when it comes to social science, psychology, and health/nutrition research.)
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.
My take on this is that the “tribal science communicators” have contrived a confusion between the hard science of the greenhouse effect and the soft science of decarbonisation. They use the consensus on the hard science of climate change to assert that their political solution of emission reduction is equally scientific, and reject any debate by using unscientific concepts such as moral hazard.
The reasons people reject climate science involve a perception that decarbonisation of the world economy is a highly political agenda. The mistrust of science emerges from the observation that the political agenda promoted by prominent scientific activists is less than honest and evidence-based.
Further, the memetic history of climate activism goes back to the old debates between socialism and fascism, with the socialists seeing all political progress as conditional on state electoral victory by the united popular front of progressive forces. That same strategic vision explains why science communicators are tribal, because their tribe is the political left.
If you are sceptical about the political objectives of the left, it is natural to also become sceptical of the scientific claims that are used to directly support those political objectives.
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.
Mr. Tulip, this is the leading headline on the CNN website right now: Experts say only drastic, immediate change can save us from the dangers of climate change
While its scientific information about the past and present looks highly accurate, its predictions about the future are entirely political.
The summary for policy makers asserts with high confidence that “Warming from [past] anthropogenic emissions … will persist for centuries to millennia.”
This claim is a primary example of political groupthink overwhelming scientific evidence. A focused effort now on solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal could remove the embedded warming from past emissions this century, relieving pressure for drastic economic change. The problem is that the UN system is politically committed to the war on fossil fuels, and is unwilling to discuss strategies that might contest the thinking behind that war.
Debate on climate change is the most vivid example of otherwise intelligent people rejecting science.
Mr. Tulip, this is the leading headline on the CNN website right now: Experts say only drastic, immediate change can save us from the dangers of climate change
The problem is that the UN system is politically committed to the war on fossil fuels, and is unwilling to discuss strategies that might contest the thinking behind that war.
People have always chosen to settle near oceans, lakes and rivers. These may well be the first areas hit hard by climate change. When the policy makers are forced to leave Manhattan, DC, London, LA, most of Florida, and so on, they'll see reason. We should be disciplined enough to prevent this from happening. We humans managed to see reason early enough to prevent the hydrofluorocarbon disaster -- let's hope we can do it again.
"I have a great relationship with the blacks."
Donald J. Trump
