Why we Resist Science

[Katy]

Resistence to science, article

Stem cells, global warming, evolution, vaccination - why do some scientific ideas push political and societal hot buttons? Proving that scientists can study practically anything, a pair of psychologists considered "resistance to science" as a subject in its own right. And they found deep roots, childhood ones, to some of the contention that increasingly crowds public discourse on science issues.

[Iolaus]

The premise there is absolutely disgusting, that if anyone disagrees with "science" they are to be relegated to the abnormal, therefore dismissed, controlled against their will. More disgusting perhaps than the Catholic Church in its heydey. Will things never change.

[DHodges]

The premise there is absolutely disgusting, that if anyone disagrees with "science" they are to be relegated to the abnormal, therefore dismissed, controlled against their will. More disgusting perhaps than the Catholic Church in its heydey. Will things never change.

From the article:

In 2005 for example, the Pew Trust found that 42% of poll respondents think people and animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, a view that is tough to reconcile with evidence from fossils. Many people believe in ghosts, fairies and astrology.

People don't disbelieve science because they have something better, they don't believe it because they have pre-existing bullshit beliefs that they don't want challenged.
The basic issue is...

"A lot of scientific ideas are fundamentally at odds with religious ones,"

[ChochemV2]

.
Source

Americans are especially resistant to science, unfortunately. I find it rather depressing that the largest financial powerhouse on the planet is controlled by theistic lunatics...

[Carl G]

From the article: Many people believe in ghosts, fairies and astrology.

People don't disbelieve science because they have something better, they don't believe it because they have pre-existing bullshit beliefs that they don't want challenged.

How do you, or science, know there is definitely no ghosts, fairies, or astrology?

How do you know why people who disbelieve science do so?

What do you mean by "science", anyway? The official establishment version? That would be like saying the Vatican has the corner on spiritual truth.

[DHodges]

How do you, or science, know there is definitely no ghosts, fairies, or astrology?

Fairies, ghosts and astrology are bullshit.

How do you know why people who disbelieve science do so?

From living in America. It's obvious.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I've been reading Vonnegut's Timequake recently, in which he attributes to fictional sci-fi author Kilgore Trout the observations that "Science never cheered up anyone. The truth about the human situation is just too awful." In fact, if you pay attention to what scientific theories are most often questioned, they tend to be the more unpleasent ones. If it's announced that a new vaccination is found for some disease or other, folks aren't all up in arms about the scientific establishment lying in order to secure funding or whatnot. On the flip-side, if it's announced that a correspondence has been found between the average temperature of the planet and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, folks who know nothing about such things get all riled up and call foul. If the observed truth of matters pleased us, we would have no need for religion.

[Faust]

I've been reading Vonnegut's Timequake recently, in which he attributes to fictional sci-fi author Kilgore Trout the observations that "Science never cheered up anyone. The truth about the human situation is just too awful." In fact, if you pay attention to what scientific theories are most often questioned, they tend to be the more unpleasent ones. If it's announced that a new vaccination is found for some disease or other, folks aren't all up in arms about the scientific establishment lying in order to secure funding or whatnot. On the flip-side, if it's announced that a correspondence has been found between the average temperature of the planet and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, folks who know nothing about such things get all riled up and call foul. If the observed truth of matters pleased us, we would have no need for religion.

Wait, do you agree with the global warming theory?

[Carl G]

How do you, or science, know there is definitely no ghosts, fairies, or astrology?

Fairies, ghosts and astrology are bullshit.

How do you know why people who disbelieve science do so?

From living in America. It's obvious.

You didn't answer my questions. You sound like one of those people with pre-existing bullshit beliefs that they don't want challenged.

I've seen your profile up on theabsolute.net. I thought you were into logic and enlightenment. What's with the knee jerk reactions.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The US has a history of being a morally superior nation. Good morality does not require facts.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Faust,

Wait, do you agree with the global warming theory?

Carbon dioxide traps heat. It even works with water vapor to trap more heat then said water vapor alone. Light warms the Earth's surface creating heat. Thus, an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can cause an increase in temperature. Matters are much more complicated then that obviously, but it is very likely that the planet is heating up as a result of human activity.

[Tomas]

Resistence to science, article

Stem cells, global warming, evolution, vaccination - why do some scientific ideas push political and societal hot buttons? Proving that scientists can study practically anything, a pair of psychologists considered "resistance to science" as a subject in its own right. And they found deep roots, childhood ones, to some of the contention that increasingly crowds public discourse on science issues.

.

Dumb and dumber
Lay down, and good bye.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran

.

[DHodges]

You didn't answer my questions. You sound like one of those people with pre-existing bullshit beliefs that they don't want challenged.

Asking someone to disprove the existence of fairies is not a legitimate question, designed to get at truth. It is a gambit. It is a game. It's bullshit.
You know what the deal is with fairies: it's bullshit. There is no reason to take it seriously.

I've seen your profile up on theabsolute.net. I thought you were into logic and enlightenment. What's with the knee jerk reactions.

Low tolerance for bullshit these days. Allergies.

[brokenhead]

Carl G wrote:

What do you mean by "science", anyway? The official establishment version? That would be like saying the Vatican has the corner on spiritual truth.

There is no "official establishment" version of the sciences, since scientific learning is always expanding - and in some areas, being discarded (for example, phrenology.) Accepted science changes all the time. What we have - thankfully - is peer review. (When peer review breaks down, that's a troubling sign. For example, peer review in the form of publication concerning discoveries in atomic physics was squelched beginning in the early 1930's by the U.S. government.) The Establishment, meaning broadly governments, universities, and other potential funding bodies, often ignores academic consensus, in fact. You see that right now with the ideological rift on global warming.

It all comes down to money. No big surprise there. Science that can become profitable technology receives the venture capital. When science in some field starts making investors money, that's when it has become established until something better turns up. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'd rather live on a warming globe now than on the non-warming one two hundred years ago.

Still, why do people bemoan paradigm shifts like the one from astrology to astronomy, or more accurately, to modern cosmology? Could it be because the acceptance of astrology has profited more people than the acceptance of general relativity, even though the latter has been largely confirmed by experiment and the former is inherently all but immune to the scientific method? Few people understand general relativity and those who do have a tough enough time justifying their expertise. Physics PhD's do not study this branch of physics in anywhere near the numbers of those who pursue particle dynamics, for instance. Let's not bash them over the head because they make no claims that understanding space-time curvature will affect our daily lives. Astrologers can’t predict one’s future or prospects, either, yet they’ll make astonishingly beautiful and involved castings for well-to-do clients, in exchange for substantial sums, without misgivings.

Personally, I begrudge no one making a living from endeavors like astrology. Astrology and other types of divination are sadly not the most reprehensible livelihoods out there. Scientific study of the paranormal does happen and is interesting, at least to me, but when there are few peers reviewing those studies and forming any semblance of an academic consensus, they remain on the fringe.

[Tomas]

You didn't answer my questions. You sound like one of those people with pre-existing bullshit beliefs that they don't want challenged.

Asking someone to disprove the existence of fairies is not a legitimate question, designed to get at truth. It is a gambit. It is a game. It's bullshit.
You know what the deal is with fairies: it's bullshit. There is no reason to take it seriously.

I've seen your profile up on theabsolute.net. I thought you were into logic and enlightenment. What's with the knee jerk reactions.

Low tolerance for bullshit these days. Allergies.

.......


-tomas-
Hahahah and more LOL...


Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.

[Faust]

Faust,

Wait, do you agree with the global warming theory?

Carbon dioxide traps heat. It even works with water vapor to trap more heat then said water vapor alone. Light warms the Earth's surface creating heat. Thus, an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide can cause an increase in temperature. Matters are much more complicated then that obviously, but it is very likely that the planet is heating up as a result of human activity.

CHRIST, here we go again....

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 913#p47913


http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html


http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Ev ... x?Event=12


No, it isn't "likely" at all that the planet is heating up because of us. Also, it's not the "planet" that is heating up, it's the surface of the earth. If global warming is correct, the atmosphere and troposphere should be heating up, but it's not.

[ChochemV2]

How about this: global warming threads always turn into complete bullshit because either side can support their fanatical belief in either side of the argument with a never ending stream of links? If anyone here is an environmental scientist or something like that, I welcome a post, however, if we're all armchair scientists can we realize an argument on global warming will never get anywhere.

[Faust]

How about this: global warming threads always turn into complete bullshit because either side can support their fanatical belief in either side of the argument with a never ending stream of links? If anyone here is an environmental scientist or something like that, I welcome a post, however, if we're all armchair scientists can we realize an argument on global warming will never get anywhere.

The thing is is that global warming is politically motivated, that's the key part.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Low tolerance for bullshit these days. Allergies.

I like that - allergic to bullshit.

Faust and Cho -

Thinkers do not have to be experts on particular areas to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Thinkers look at the available evidence and reason from there. Sheeple passively say "Aw, leave it up to the experts to tell us what to believe."

[ChochemV2]

Thinkers do not have to be experts on particular areas to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Thinkers look at the available evidence and reason from there. Sheeple passively say "Aw, leave it up to the experts to tell us what to believe."

This is an issue which you can only argue through other people's hard work. This isn't a "Does God exist?" kind of topic it's a "Does science actually prove humanity has the capacity to raise the planet's temperature"? There are plenty of people on either side of the fence who can "logically" prove that global warming is either real or fake through "evidence" and it's become so politicized and tied to people's individual political beliefs that a reasonable global warming discussion is almost completely impossible.

I've participated in maybe a dozen different global warming threads across four boards and all I can tell you is: both sides are probably wrong and a middle road is probably correct. It's possible humanity could destroy our planet, however, unlikely that my town will become beach front property in the near future. The planet is definitely warming, however, we aren't the only cause because it's likely we are in a natural cycle of global warming. We may have accelerated the process a bit but we realized pollution is bad a while ago for health reasons and have been trying to keep people from dying from lung disease for a few decades now.

[Carl G]

Thinkers do not have to be experts on particular areas to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Thinkers look at the available evidence and reason from there.

Wouldn't anyone who looked at the available evidence then be an expert?

Anyway, what the fuck is a reasonable conclusion? Is it what you call a best guess opinion when you lack certainty? Why conclude something if you are not sure?

[Faust]

Thinkers do not have to be experts on particular areas to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Thinkers look at the available evidence and reason from there. Sheeple passively say "Aw, leave it up to the experts to tell us what to believe."

This is an issue which you can only argue through other people's hard work. This isn't a "Does God exist?" kind of topic it's a "Does science actually prove humanity has the capacity to raise the planet's temperature"? There are plenty of people on either side of the fence who can "logically" prove that global warming is either real or fake through "evidence" and it's become so politicized and tied to people's individual political beliefs that a reasonable global warming discussion is almost completely impossible.

I've participated in maybe a dozen different global warming threads across four boards and all I can tell you is: both sides are probably wrong and a middle road is probably correct. It's possible humanity could destroy our planet, however, unlikely that my town will become beach front property in the near future. The planet is definitely warming, however, we aren't the only cause because it's likely we are in a natural cycle of global warming. We may have accelerated the process a bit but we realized pollution is bad a while ago for health reasons and have been trying to keep people from dying from lung disease for a few decades now.

It's a high chance that we didn't contribute to the warming at all, and I don't agree about the "middle road" thing. Also yes the air pollution does damage our lungs and we should wear masks or something, but that doesn't have to do with "global warming."

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Faust13,

No, it isn't "likely" at all that the planet is heating up because of us. Also, it's not the "planet" that is heating up, it's the surface of the earth. If global warming is correct, the atmosphere and troposphere should be heating up, but it's not.

According to most early climate models the rise in temperature should be about the same on the surface and in the atmosphere. You're correct. Nevertheless, those models failed to take into account several factors including the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and the effects of burning fossil fuels. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program had reported in May of 2006 that the found discrepancy had been reconciled in light of more recent and thorough research into such things.