Why do people reject science? Researchers shed new light on the topic.

[Chief]

http://www.sciencealert.com/researc...-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance

The issue is that when it comes to facts, people think more like lawyers than scientists, which means they 'cherry pick' the facts and studies that back up what they already believe to be true.

So if someone doesn't think humans are causing climate change, they will ignore the hundreds of studies that support that conclusion, but latch onto the one study they can find that casts doubt on this view. This is also known as cognitive bias.

"We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser," said one of the researchers, Troy Campbell from the University of Oregon.

"People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant."

This conclusion was based on a series of new interviews, as well as a meta-analysis of the research that's been published on the topic, and was presented in a symposium called over the weekend as part of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology annual convention in San Antonio.

 

[Gralin]

 

[Bostonian]

Because one minute they are telling us potatoes are good for us and the next minute they are telling us they are bad for us

 

[Chief]

Because one minute they are telling us potatoes are good for us and the next minute they are telling us they are bad for us

Who are "they"?

This happened over a period of two minutes?

 

[Bostonian]

Who are "they"?

This happened over a period of two minutes?

"They" are the scientists who get paid to come up with data to support a wanted outcome.

Today, scientists' success often isn't measured by the quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It's instead measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process


I think it's that kind element that can make some people question is what i'm being told a paid advertisement or a legitimate piece of work being presented with no bias.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

"Reserachers" would say that.

 

[cannot]

Was there anything about scientists working for companies like big oil or big tabbaco that are encouraged to find certain results?

 

[grumbleguts]

Was there anything about scientists working for companies like big oil or big tabbaco that are encouraged to find certain results?

They aren't scientists.

The word conscience means self knowledge. Con means self, it's little wonder what the rest of the word means.

People who do "research" to find out something that somebody wants to find is not searching for knowledge they are searching for money.

 

[eldorado]

One of the main continuums on the Myer Briggs Personality Scale is the P-J one...where one is placed on a spectrum from highly Perceiving to highly Judging.

I've always (well, since I became aware of this model) thought that this particular dichotomy explains a lot about the individual differences between people that might lead to what we're talking about here.

To grossly simplify, highly judging people tend not to like uncertainty; they want quick judgement, and action. They like structure, and certainty. Perceiving people are more open to uncertainty.

I can't be bothered typing...here's a cut and paste

Judging vs. Perceiving

Judging | Perceiving | So what?



Judging and Perceiving are preferences used in the Jungian Type Inventory. The naming is unfortunately a bit archaic as judging is more than evaluation and perceiving is not about looking at thing.

They are about how we approach life: in a structured way or an open, flexible way.


Judgers approach life in a structured way, creating plans and organizing their world to achieve their goals and desired results in a predictable way.

They get their
sense of control by taking charge of their environment and making choices early.

They are self-disciplined and decisive, and seek closure in decisions. When they ask for things they are specific and expect others to do as they say. They enjoy being experts.

At work, they decide quickly and clearly and work to get the job done.

Perceivers may see them as rigid and opinionated.


Perceivers perceive structure as being more limiting than enabling. They prefer to keep their choices open so they can cope with many problems that the know life will put in their way.

They get their
sense of control by keeping their options open and making choices only when they are necessary.

They are generally curious and like to expand their knowledge, which they will freely acknowledge as being incomplete. They are tolerant of other people's differences and will adapt to fit into whatever the situation requires.

At work, they tend to avoid or put off decisions and like most the exploration of problems and situations.

Judgers may see them as aimless drifters.

It strikes me that these Js are the one's who 'need' the certainty of a world view, which must then be defended from the attacks of those who would undermine their certain world view.

Then, once a certain world view IS established, all the cognitive biases that Gralin listed come into play, to protect that world view (and by extension, their self image)








Anyway, guys, ...BE A "P"!!!!

 

[floodbuster]

Last year there was an international nuclear physicists convention running for 2 weeks here in Adelaide and in my job as a driver I got to meet half a dozen or so of the most amazing people on the planet. One of them was a Puerto Rican fella named Pablo who worked at the Long Island research facility in New York.

I asked him if his country is so religious then how does it sit with him spending the week disproving God's existence and yet praying for forgiveness on the weekend. His answer was that he just has to separate the two and get on with it, I guess he liked my line of questioning as he tipped me really well.

 

[Red mist]

There's three ways. The Donkey, Ass, and Mule.

 

[Duvel]

Was there anything about scientists working for companies like big oil or big tabbaco that are encouraged to find certain results?

Actually, big tobacco and big oil companies did get factual and objective results from scientists, but obviously they didn't like the outcome, so they suppressed the information. Scientists were not permitted to publish the results because it is owned by the tobacco and oil companies.
Tobacco companies either cherry-picked the evidence, or hired other scientists to test other hypothesis or experiment, which could be distorting. Yes there are scientists who wouldn't follow the methodology properly.

A lot of people forget that the results needs to be peer-reviewed. Most results are not worth accepting until it is peer-reviewed.

Take vaccine for example, Wakefield published his study that MMR vaccine caused autism. No other scientists were able to reproduce his results in a peer-review. But that doesn't stop the media and anti-vaccine movement to take the original study as gospel.

So it is not only the issue of scientists research, conflict of interest funding, but also how it is published, the ownership of the findings, and as well public reporting of the findings with or without peer-reviewing process.

 

[Chief]

Was there anything about scientists working for companies like big oil or big tabbaco that are encouraged to find certain results?

But is that sort of thing a reason to abandon the idea of the scientific method in favor of the made up garbage from YouTube loons and charlatans?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cannot]

They aren't scientists..

yes, they are

they are also very well paid scientists

 

[grumbleguts]

Coming from you that's a pretty good vindication of my post.

yes, they are

they are also very well paid scientists

 

[cannot]

Coming from you that's a pretty good vindication of my post.

its not, as you are wrong

they are scientists

and they get paid well

 

[grumbleguts]

its not, as you are wrong

they are scientists

and they get paid well

I can't believe I am stupid enough to try and explain this to you, a scientist is a person who finds knowledge, we can leave the actual definition of knowledge to another thread as it is a massive philosophical aside. We discover knowledge, facts, interactions, causation. We do NOT find desirable results for money, we simply find results, desirable or not. I am not going to continue this discussion because it is not a discussion, but if you persist in posting in this forum it will degenerate even further into the pseudoscience mire that you have tried to drown it in.

 

[cannot]

I can't believe I am stupid enough to try and explain this to you, a scientist is a person who finds knowledge, we can leave the actual definition of knowledge to another thread as it is a massive philosophical aside. We discover knowledge, facts, interactions, causation. We do NOT find desirable results for money, we simply find results, desirable or not. I am not going to continue this discussion because it is not a discussion, but if you persist in posting in this forum it will degenerate even further into the pseudoscience mire that you have tried to drown it in.

so what are the name of say, Monsanto scientists then if not scientist?

http://monetarywatch.com/2017/01/gl...d-cause-liver-disease-much-eating-every-meal/

 

[grumbleguts]

so what are the name of say, Monsanto scientists then if not scientist?

http://monetarywatch.com/2017/01/gl...d-cause-liver-disease-much-eating-every-meal/

If they are not simply observing results and finding the truth but rather after oonly desired results they are propaganda consultants.

 

[Far Kern]

http://www.sciencealert.com/researc...-people-reject-science-and-it-s-not-ignorance

The issue is that when it comes to facts, people think more like lawyers than scientists, which means they 'cherry pick' the facts and studies that back up what they already believe to be true.

So if someone doesn't think humans are causing climate change, they will ignore the hundreds of studies that support that conclusion, but latch onto the one study they can find that casts doubt on this view. This is also known as cognitive bias.

"We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser," said one of the researchers, Troy Campbell from the University of Oregon.

"People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant."

This conclusion was based on a series of new interviews, as well as a meta-analysis of the research that's been published on the topic, and was presented in a symposium called over the weekend as part of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology annual convention in San Antonio.

Here's some stuff from the Guardian that takes a slightly different tack, looking beyond the cognitive issues to the social, and looking at problems in science communication:

https://www.theguardian.com/science...st-in-beliefs-that-are-wrong-and-even-harmful

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox

One of the main continuums on the Myer Briggs Personality Scale is the P-J one...where one is placed on a spectrum from highly Perceiving to highly Judging.

I've always (well, since I became aware of this model) thought that this particular dichotomy explains a lot about the individual differences between people that might lead to what we're talking about here.

To grossly simplify, highly judging people tend not to like uncertainty; they want quick judgement, and action. They like structure, and certainty. Perceiving people are more open to uncertainty.

I can't be bothered typing...here's a cut and paste





It strikes me that these Js are the one's who 'need' the certainty of a world view, which must then be defended from the attacks of those who would undermine their certain world view.

Then, once a certain world view IS established, all the cognitive biases that Gralin listed come into play, to protect that world view (and by extension, their self image)








Anyway, guys, ...BE A "P"!!!!

I agree with this very strongly. I don't mind at all if my potatoes change from delicious and crispy to deadly in two minutes. I don't have to be certain about it, I'll just put them in the pantry until I read otherwise.

 

[stewie griffen]

Because some people are morons

Things change as theories develop. What one made sense suddenly no longer does when one parameter or experiment changes

 

[GreyCrow]

View attachment 330184

The most important one left off is the Informant Bias. ie who is giving the information.

''its in the newspaper it must be true''
''my priest told me and I believe him''
'' my teacher said''
''scientists believe''

Many people tend to let others think for them.

 

[darthbards]

While cognitive bias certainly plays a part I think there are other factors at play. The common layperson has certainly lost some confidence in science. Health an wellbeing would certainly be a big one here. The changing of what's healthy and what isn't does seem to change on a daily basis ,and it seems more than just scientific method. This information is passed of as fact or is at least expressed as such moving down the chain of communication to the public.

Another factor would be the same factor that effects everything else in life these days due to people being smarter and also having more choices to explore alternate options. While science can't move away from scientific method,as it would then no longer be science,it could certainly clean up its act in regard to attitude and acceptance of outside fields and theory that people way wish to consider or explore outside science itself.
Science does come across as negative and aggressive and that no longer appeals in this day and age. The attitude used in the battle (war) between creation and evolution probably doesn't work anymore and science needs to step away from this. I think people are happy to go along with scientific method, but like to explore options outside this. Scientific attitudes puts some off science as many old timers and fuddy duddies cause a backfire type reaction with people's standards in the modern age.
Science could probably just take a chill pill and concentrate on what they do best and not worry so much about things outside its own domain and control.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

While cognitive bias certainly plays a part I think there are other factors at play. The common layperson has certainly lost some confidence in science. Health an wellbeing would certainly be a big one here. The changing of what's healthy and what isn't does seem to change on a daily basis ,and it seems more than just scientific method. This information is passed of as fact or is at least expressed as such moving down the chain of communication to the public.

Another factor would be the same factor that effects everything else in life these days due to people being smarter and also having more choices to explore alternate options. While science can't move away from scientific method,as it would then no longer be science,it could certainly clean up its act in regard to attitude and acceptance of outside fields and theory that people way wish to consider or explore outside science itself.
Science does come across as negative and aggressive and that no longer appeals in this day and age. The attitude used in the battle (war) between creation and evolution probably doesn't work anymore and science needs to step away from this. I think people are happy to go along with scientific method, but like to explore options outside this. Scientific attitudes puts some off science as many old timers and fuddy duddies cause a backfire type reaction with people's standards in the modern age.
Science could probably just take a chill pill and concentrate on what they do best and not worry so much about things outside its own domain and control.

Care to quantify the bolded, because right now all I can think of is people who argue with scientific fact.

 

[darthbards]

Care to quantify the bolded, because right now all I can think of is people who argue with scientific fact.

Lol,just read the part that directly follows the bolded part,you miss that?
I just think the common person is a bit sick of hearing that "scientific studies have found",only to have those findings reversed,sometimes in a matter of weeks. Like I said though,sometimes the information could be misinterpreted,or exaggerated down the line but generally people are a bit over it.
Science needs to re connect and earn back people's trust in some regards.