OT: Why Do People Reject Science - Wrap Up

[snuginarug]

The article you present ends...

one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.

I think that is a pretty hard task. The media latches onto anything that they think viewers or readers might find interesting, with the sole aim of selling their product. The media doesn't really care if an "interesting" theory is one that has been investigated rigorously by numerous groups of scientists, or if it is a rogue theory cooked up by some crackpot that has not been sufficiently explored or tested. As long as it is interesting to the public, it is presented deadpan. This would help explain, in part, why there appears to be so much turn over in scientific theory. The media has cluttered things up with easily disproved theories. I think of this as "pop science." The more the media does this, the more suspicious some become, and the more gullible others become. I find it really frustrating to deal with someone who saw something on Dr Phil, swearing up and down that it must have validity because it was on his show. But I also find it frustrating when people ignore the worldwide consensus of scientists on the topic of something that has been rigorously studied by a multitude of separate research teams over the course of decades. I think this gullibility and this suspicion are both due to our poor performance in science and math education for youths. The United States continues to lag behind other developed countries in this area, and we are paying for it in so many different ways. I am the daughter of scientists. No thanks to the educational system, I am vaguely aware of some of the elements of a well constructed study. I am no expert, but I do better than my classmates simply because they were never taught such things, while I learned it at home. It is very sad.

[RocketGirl]

How about some research about how great the turnover is in science? Meaning how often science is replacing previous pronouncements with newer, contradictory science.

A lot of people really don't "get' how science works. It is cumulative, with new science adding building blocks onto old science. New technology for measuring things comes about, and allows old results to be looked at with precision that might not have been possible when you did your paper - but science wins, because the body of knowledge is ultimately added to. Unfortunately, most media don't understand how science works either, and their goals are way different (ratings! ratings!). So they seize upon the findings of a single paper to trumpet it in the news, and then they seize upon the next one too, without ever looking at the big picture or how different studies might actually fit together.

If you're a scientist, you do research knowing that sometime in future somebody will repeat it with new and better instruments. You look for every possible flaw in what you do, and you try your best to make sure you've thought of everything, and then you put your work out there, including your exact methods, for other scientists to confirm or refute. And they will. That's how it works. It isn't easy, in fact it can be darned uncomfortable, but it works.

The thing that scientists are expected to do is to take the results of several years of hard labor, and put it out there for other scientists to dissect. Publishing your work is, first and foremost, a request for a reality check. You do your best to make sure that what you put out there is strong and can be defended, because not just your friends, but your competitors and your worst enemies are all going to have a go at it, and that's what you want them to do. You'll publish it and present it in meetings, and their job is to pick at it to find weaknesses. They'll take it back to their labs and try to duplicate your results. If they find serious flaws, they will say so, in print, and then everybody has a responsibility to re-test all sides of the argument and figure out which answers are correct and why.

If on the other hand, they try it and get the same results that you did, then your paper joins the ranks of results that help move science forward, and they might even publish results that add to yours.

And you will do exactly the same, when they present their work. Your job will be to be fair but utterly merciless in determining whether the science is strong and valid.

That's peer review. It is a self-correcting process and is not for the faint of heart.

To see science results that contradict one another actually means the process is working as it should. A single study, published, is just a beginning. A whole series of studies by different people that all show similar results, now that means you're on to something profound. That's why important decisions and scientific truths are never, ever based on one single study. They are based on having bunches of scientists around the world come to similar conclusions, using a wide range of types of evidence and lots of different approaches.

That's the kind of science that moves knowledge forward.

[RocketGirl]

Perhaps you could tell me when you have ignored one of my links, otherwise the ignore is kind of wasted

And there is nothing more pointless than a wasted ignore

Oh, this snuck up on me and had me chortling out loud. Good thing I'm not masked up right now

[NightMonkey]

The article you present ends...

one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.

In other words start brainwashing them at an early age.

Science is not the problem. It's the scientists. All are human and just like the rest of us come with their own inadequacies, biases, and tendencies to lie, cheat, cut corners, pursue unelightened self-interest, and pave roads to hell with good intentions.

Trust 'em but verify and know the downside risks of your trust and have contingency plans.

Mars, I have often wanted a 'Like' button on the forum. Now that you mentioned it, an 'I Ignored Your Post' button might be a good addition also.

(Just kidding Mars. I always read your posts and even an occasional link. )

[snuginarug]

Trust 'em but verify

YES! Yes indeed. And in order to do so, one must be educated in scientific method. Brainwash them early to trust in scientific method, and then they will be able to evaluate for them selves whether a study is constructed and carried out in a competent manner, whether enough evidence has been amassed or if it is a flash in the pan, etc.

I criticized a poorly constructed and interpreted study a person quoted as gospel. (A correlation between tattoos and a history abuse as a child, in A VERY SMALL SAMPLE drawn from a FORENSIC UNIT... means all people with tattoos were abused as children.) She demanded "Where is another study that says otherwise!" I explained that the study in question was inadequate and poorly interpreted, therefore of little use by itself. She shrilly demanded a different study and did not even understand that a study COULD be flawed. It was on Dr Phil, she told me, so it must be true. This type of blind acceptance and gullibility is just as bad as paranoid rejection of all science. Both are born of ignorance. Teaching the scientific method would go a long way to dispelling these irrational responses.

Of course there are idiots everywhere and no amount of education will rid us of THEM.

[idamtnboy]

Unfortunately, science as a whole gets painted with the mistrust created by the shortcomings and conflicts of the self-interested that emerge with time. Years ago respected researchers said cigarette smoking had benefits. We now know a lot of that research was paid for the tobacco companies and was inherently biased, if not flat out wrong. Today we hear reports of drugs such as Viox where negative test results were suppressed and a bad drug was allowed on the market. And now we have food scientists all over the country telling us that our food is perfectly safe, in spite of the fact that nearly all of it is laced with all sorts of chemicals that aren't in it naturally. Opposing them are the whole and organic food advocates, with at least some anecdotal evidence on their side. Have scientists done a 50 year study of food additives and their effect on humans? I don't know of any. I eat chemically laced food every day but that doesn't stop me from wondering if that isn't at least partially responsible for my diabetes, high blood pressure, and cholesterol issues.

Then there's legal suppression of potentially really valuable information. Case in point, a settlement several years ago in Pennsylvania about water well contamination and gas well fracturing. From what I understand there was a lot of study and testing done that played into the final settlement, but all that was sealed as part of the settlement. There just might be some real pertinent information in those sealed records that we could use today in the fracturing debate. In that case all we can do is replace the scientific knowledge gained in that case with speculation. And of course, speculation is pretty much 100% guided by self interest and personal thinking.

What's the answer? Have every scientist be employed by the Government and have their findings become public? Not practical. Pass a law that all scientific research results are excluded from all legal and corporate secrecy rules? Won't sail. The scientific community has a tough task on their hands to demonstrate their credibility to everyone, especially those who don't want to believe them.

[NightMonkey]

What's the answer? Have every scientist be employed by the Government and have their findings become public? Not practical. Pass a law that all scientific research results are excluded from all legal and corporate secrecy rules? Won't sail.

I am pleased to see that you understand the limits of government.

IMO, a moral citizenry that does the right things regardless of laws is the key to a good society. But not to forget that the rule of law is also required. You just hope that the preponderance of citizens respects and supports the rule of law.

But that is getting off the topic.

[NightMonkey]

OT: Why Do People Reject Science

Doctors are certainly "men of science" and are perceived as scientists by "people". So here are some current examples of their failures.

First article,

For several uncomfortable years, Dr. Evaristo Badiola was completely clueless about why he rarely had sufficient energy and he continued to gain weight despite plenty of exercise.

Badiola, a psychiatrist who practices at Brain Chemistry Center LLC in Lakeland, kept getting sleepy during in the day, taking frequent naps, over the course of the past five years. Exercise, which he thought would give him more energy, did just the opposite.

"I still exercised, but I was gaining weight," he said.
http://www.theledger.com/article/201111 ... 9454?tc=ar ,

So here we have a practicing psychiatrist (scientist) who knew nothing about the symptoms of sleep apnea! Imagine how many patients he may have treated with drugs because he failed to recognize that their problems were caused by sleep apnea. The drug treatments were counterproductive!

Second article - http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 82753.html

This article shows how the dental profession is moving in on the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea. This is a strong indication that GPs (scientists) are failing to recognize sleep apnea in their patient and get them help.

OT: Why Do People Reject Science

Because of the scientists!

[fuzzy96]

OT: Why Do People Reject Science

Because of the scientists!

laptop=495.00
internet forum=free
that answer=priceless

[mars]

OT: Why Do People Reject Science

Because of the scientists!

No NightMonkey - because they are ignorant and misinformed - and are not inclined to educate themselves. This is why we can have wars based on lies, and the politicians get away with it, even when proved wrong. And people die

Democracy depends on a well-informed population, and today we have a misinformed population.

If you had bothered to do a search on the simple question - Who Is A Scientist" - you would have learned that a "practising psychiatrist" is not a scientist, just a practising psychiatrist; and the dental link is not science, but marketing. Did you not read as far down as the third paragraph of the "About Henry Schein, Inc" section, which finished with the statement -

"We caution that these factors may not be exhaustive and that many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. Accordingly, any forward-looking statements contained herein should not be relied upon as a prediction of actual results. We undertake no duty and have no obligation to update forward-looking statements."

And do read what went before it.

NightMonkey - you are taking news items and marketing tools and thinking you are reading science. Did you not read what Snuginarug and RocketGirl had to say? Well thought out and well written posts that we all can learn from, and you just treat them with a total lack of respect.

You could not even find out what a scientist was before spouting off your nonsense.

Have a look at -

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... scientist/

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2010/08/who ... entist.php

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

which has this to say -

Exoheretics

According to Carl Sagan, exoheretics satisfy the following criteria:

* they are usually non-scientists
* they publish their heretic (pseudo-)scientific theories not in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but elsewhere such as books, preprints, esoteric magazines
* their arguments can usually be understood by lay people
* their theories can either easily be disproved by scientists who are experts in their fields or their statements cannot in principle be disproved (statements such as "the planet Venus is hot", "the cat is a holy animal"), because the statements are either vague or not scientific

Famous examples of exoheretics are Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Däniken, Charles Berlitz, Johannes Lang, Hanns Hörbiger.

Simply put - You do not do your homework., and somehow think that disrespecting what others say makes you right.

Perhaps because you are too busy "Slapping The Monkey"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRHkDs1 ... re=related

(see how respect gets you a lot more than slapping )

cheers

Mars

PS When this was written NightMonkey had a signature that read "Lawrence, why are you slapping the Monkey". He changed his signature when the above post appeared

[snuginarug]

What's the answer? Have every scientist be employed by the Government and have their findings become public? Not practical. Pass a law that all scientific research results are excluded from all legal and corporate secrecy rules? Won't sail. The scientific community has a tough task on their hands to demonstrate their credibility to everyone, especially those who don't want to believe them.

You make a very good point... corporations pervert both individual scientists and our court systems. It IS hard to know who to trust. This is especially true with the FDA and drug corporations... scary, eh? My rule of thumb is, if in doubt, mistrust corporations. Not scientists in general.

You give four examples of unethical and dishonest practices involving scientists. Good examples! One, cigarette companies (Big Business). Two, pharmaceutical companies (Big Business). Three, agribusiness (Big Business). Four, the owners of the fractured gas well. You do not specify which company was involved in this particular case, but i am assuming it was one of the big energy companies. Again, Big Business.

I think I would have to agree, in part, with NightMonkey... scientists who sell their integrity and ethics to the highest bidder DO make it hard for some people to give credibility to scientists in general. One bad apple...

And, I have to say, that is a really snappy quote.

OT: Why Do People Reject Science

Because of the scientists!

[backsavekkk]

yeah?

[BlackSpinner]

How about some research about how great the turnover is in science? Meaning how often science is replacing previous pronouncements with newer, contradictory science.

Just saw a clip on NBC Today show where a doctor (scientist) is explaining with great enthusiasm that robotic surgery of the airways is very easy, easy recovery, and very effective for obstructive sleep apnea. I know that is the media that you are suspicious of (rightly so IMO) but in the clip you see the doctor using her own words. Now do any members here believe that CPAP will be made obsolete by newly developed robotic surgeries as the doctor (scientist) leads me to believe???

Math doesn't change. 2 + 2 will always equal 4.

Science on the other hand marches into history.

This just proves how badly you have been educated. You obviously did not take ANY courses in science or math for that matter. Yes 2+2 will always equal 4 in the decimal system of whole numbers - IF you define 2 and 4 to be what YOU think they are. Math changes all the time too. Only in the media are science pronouncements touted as contradictory, real scientists involved know that they are just variations on the original theories or incorporate them. But you don't know that because you don't understand the first thing about science, you just want to use the products, cheaply. You don't even know that a doctor is NOT a scientist, he is like an engineer, using the concept developed by scientists to produce applied methods and products.

And yes science marches into history - it is supposed to do that. That is the whole aim of science! to advance knowledge. The moment you try to stop it your society will come crashing down. China in the 14th century was far advanced compared to Europe but the emperor got a message from his imaginary friends and executed all the scientists and the empire feel flat on its face in a generation. Greece and Rome had robotic machinery, but the early Christians burnt down the libraries and closed the schools...

Luckily the rest of the world will take over from the USA. You had better start learning Chinese.

[M.D.Hosehead]

Mars, I appreciate your links.

In particular the Bloom-Weisberg article:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html

is so fitting in this thread, and leads to this mind-bending tautology:

Can a scientific understanding of science rejection lead a science rejector to reject science rejection? Probably too much to hope for.

[NightMonkey]

I think I would have to agree, in part, with NightMonkey... scientists who sell their integrity and ethics to the highest bidder DO make it hard for some people to give credibility to scientists in general.

Before you agree with me too much, let me point out that I did not say that.

I would however say that "scientists who sell their integrity" never had any integrity to start with.

Waiting for a high enough price is not integrity.