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

[GreyCrow]

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.

Vegemite can give you cancer
Milk gives you cancer

I have read and seen so many things can give me cancer that I have switched off. So in that respect you're point is well made.

 

[darthbards]

Vegemite can give you cancer
Milk gives you cancer

I have read and seen so many things can give me cancer that I have switched off. So in that respect you're point is well made.

I would have thought the point was pretty straight forward and explained before questioned to be honest.
Eggs must have flip flopped countless times over the years,butter also,red meat,it's good,it's bad,it's good,it's bad.
There would be numerous examples.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

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.

You saying you "think" is not quantifying "the common layperson has certainly lost some confidence in science".

You say health and wellbeing would be a big one? You have some figures to back this up I presume?

 

[darthbards]

You saying you "think" is not quantifying "the common layperson has certainly lost some confidence in science".

You say health and wellbeing would be a big one? You have some figures to back this up I presume?

You seriously don't think people have lost confidence in this regard?
I think your even outlining one of the points I made in the third paragraph. Science is starting to come across very aggressive also,which turns people away beyond the layperson in this day and age.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

How do people lose confidence in science? Science is just factual.

Its like looking at a quadratic equation and taking offence.

They should have a problem with lobbyists, propaganda merchants and liars in general.
Especially as its science that educates them on what's true and what isn't.
Smoking kills. People know this thanks to science. People are only aware of it because of scientists.
So how can they use it as an example in why they have lost confidence in science?

I've lost confidence in people, in humanity. But how do you lose confidence in science?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

You seriously don't think people have lost confidence in this regard?
I think your even outlining one of the points I made in the third paragraph. Science is starting to come across very aggressive also,which turns people away beyond the layperson in this day and age.

I seriously don't.

 

[darthbards]

How do people lose confidence in science? Science is just factual.

Its like looking at a quadratic equation and taking offence.

They should have a problem with lobbyists, propaganda merchants and liars in general.
Especially as its science that educates them on what's true and what isn't.
Smoking kills. People know this thanks to science. People are only aware of it because of scientists.
So how can they use it as an example in why they have lost confidence in science?

I've lost confidence in people, in humanity. But how do you lose confidence in science?

Smoking though is only one example,what about all the other things that are relevant to a humans health and wellbeing?
As also mentioned,people beyond the 'layman' are more than happy with scientific method,but humans have become far more inquisitive and curious about things beyond what is perceivable to the human mind,or in different facets of spiritualality.
When it is suggested to them by old time fuddy duddies that they are nothing but lobbyists,or propaganda merchants or liars for goodness sake,they turn away from science,which is quite natural. An inquisitive mind has no interest in buzzwords,insults or hysteria.
As was also outlined,science might need to take a chill pill and just concentrate on its own scientific endevours and allow people to delve into others,whilst also encouraging scientific methods without making it all some kind of hysterical competition or 'war'? People are far different today to what they once were.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Smoking though is only one example,what about all the other things that are relevant to a humans health and wellbeing?
As also mentioned,some beyond the 'layman' are more than happy with scientific method,but humans have become far more inquisitive and curious about things beyond what is perceivable to the human mind,or in different facets of spiritualality.
When it is suggested to them by old time fuddy duddies that they are nothing but lobbyists,or propaganda merchants or liars for goodness sake,they turn away from science,which is quite natural. An inquisitive mind has no interest in buzzwords,insults or hysteria.
As was also outlined,science might need to take a chill pill and just concentrate on its own scientific endevours and allow people to delve into others,whilst also encouraging scientific methods without making it all some kind of hysterical competition or 'war'? People are far different today to what they once were.

Science isn't sentient. Why are you trying to give it human characteristics?

The problems you are claiming of science, is actually the human element.
That same human element is involved with "the human mind,or in different facets of spiritualality."

So what you are actually saying. Is that the people that don't understand the science look for something easier to understand, like homeopathy.

You have a problem with humans, not science.

 

[darthbards]

Science isn't sentient. Why are you trying to give it human characteristics?

The problems you are claiming of science, is actually the human element.
That same human element is involved with "the human mind,or in different facets of spiritualality."

So what you are actually saying. Is that the people that don't understand the science look for something easier to understand, like homeopathy.

You have a problem with humans, not science.

Sounds like you want to go to war over some innocent comments lol.
The question wasn't what is science,we all know that,and of course it's important, as is it's relevance.
The question of the thread was why people might turn away from science. My comment was not in regard to scientific method,but rather the attitudes of some people surrounding it that can have a negative effect.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Sounds like you want to go to war over some innocent comments lol.

Sounds like you want to go to war over some innocent comments LOL.

The question wasn't what is science,we all know that,and of course it's important, as is it's relevance.

I didn't explain what science is. I pointed out how your criticism isn't a criticism of science, but a criticism of humans.
And that you went from criticising the human error element of scientific research, to praising the human error element in pseudo-science.

The question of the thread was why people might turn away from science. My comment was not in regard to scientific method,but rather the attitudes of some people surrounding it that can have a negative effect.

See above explanation and try to take a moment to understand it.

 

[darthbards]

Sounds like you want to go to war over some innocent comments LOL.

I didn't explain what science is. I pointed out how your criticism isn't a criticism of science, but a criticism of humans.
And that you went from criticising the human error element of scientific research, to praising the human error element in pseudo-science.


See above explanation and try to take a moment to understand it.

Not criticising humans at all. I actually said they are becoming more intelligent and enquisitive.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Not criticising humans at all. I actually said they are becoming more intelligent and enquisitive.

You attempted to give human traits to science, and criticise them.

 

[sataris]

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.

In some cases this is quite valid,

I'll believe my Ophthalmologist when he tells me what's wrong with my eyes, rather than try and diagnose myself...

 

[cannot]

In some cases this is quite valid,

I'll believe my Ophthalmologist when he tells me what's wrong with my eyes, rather than try and diagnose myself...

newton did his own eye experiments

 

[GreyCrow]

In some cases this is quite valid,

I'll believe my Ophthalmologist when he tells me what's wrong with my eyes, rather than try and diagnose myself...

You can see this Informant Bias in the messaging surrounding the Essendon players. ''but you trust the club doctor otherwise who can you trust'' without focusing that the club doctor wasn't that happy with the program himself.

 

[Cmarsh]

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

Not just big corporates either. My wife's friend was a researcher for the Garven Institute. She left due to the Institute's management showing bias by expecting certain results from research and rejecting research findings not fitting with it's agenda.

 

[HARKER]

How do people lose confidence in science? Science is just factual.

I've lost confidence in people, in humanity. But how do you lose confidence in science?

Exactly. We may choose to dislike the quality of science being dished up, but we can't possibly be anti-science...........Well, we can, but that would be very silly to do so. Science by nature endeavours to answer questions with proof......Religion not so much.


science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

How do people lose confidence in science? Science is just factual.

Its like looking at a quadratic equation and taking offence.

They should have a problem with lobbyists, propaganda merchants and liars in general.
Especially as its science that educates them on what's true and what isn't.
Smoking kills. People know this thanks to science. People are only aware of it because of scientists.
So how can they use it as an example in why they have lost confidence in science?

I've lost confidence in people, in humanity. But how do you lose confidence in science?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0

Science isn't infallible because it is the rhetoric of men. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bath water, but skepticism of scientific fact, unless you completely understand it's principles, isn't necessarily unhealthy.

 

[M Malice]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?_r=0

Science isn't infallible because it is the rhetoric of men. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bath water, but skepticism of scientific fact, unless you completely understand it's principles, isn't necessarily unhealthy.

i have 100% confidence in scientific law, although i may have less confidence in various scientific theories eg. the theory of Anthropogenic climate change, i have 98% confidence in although i have 100% confidence in the theory of evolution via natural selection.

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html pasted below-

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Good to see this board going about as well as expected.

 

[Chief]

Good to see this board going about as well as expected.

... huh?

 

[JackOutback]

How do people lose confidence in science? Science is just factual.

Its like looking at a quadratic equation and taking offence.

They should have a problem with lobbyists, propaganda merchants and liars in general.
Especially as its science that educates them on what's true and what isn't.
Smoking kills. People know this thanks to science. People are only aware of it because of scientists.
So how can they use it as an example in why they have lost confidence in science?

I've lost confidence in people, in humanity. But how do you lose confidence in science?

Science is ever-changing; what seems correct one day can be proven incorrect the next. Most scientific theories are wrong and that's not a bad thing; scientists strive to prove theories wrong until it seems they are unable to. When he said people were losing confidence in science, I didn't take that to mean they were losing confidence in the scientific method, just the way results are presented, they way some seek to manipulate science for their own gains, obfuscate results etc. As you say, the problem is always going to be humans.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Science is ever-changing; what seems correct one day can be proven incorrect the next. Most scientific theories are wrong and that's not a bad thing; scientists strive to prove theories wrong until it seems they are unable to. When he said people were losing confidence in science, I didn't take that to mean they were losing confidence in the scientific method, just the way results are presented, they way some seek to manipulate science for their own gains, obfuscate results etc. As you say, the problem is always going to be humans.

You have to understand that he is calling for flath earth theory to be taught in schools, and calls science a religion.
He points out that the big bang is just as likely as the earth being flat. And that there is no proof of gravity.

And yes the pursuit of truth and answers is excellent, and we are human and fallible. But the scientific method, and scientific fact are not wrong.

Interpreting the results incorrectly, or pushing an agenda, isn't science.

Its like blaming a hammer, when you hit your thumb instead of the nail.

 

[darthbards]

You have to understand that he is calling for flath earth theory to be taught in schools, and calls science a religion.
He points out that the big bang is just as likely as the earth being flat. And that there is no proof of gravity.

And yes the pursuit of truth and answers is excellent, and we are human and fallible. But the scientific method, and scientific fact are not wrong.

Interpreting the results incorrectly, or pushing an agenda, isn't science.

Its like blaming a hammer, when you hit your thumb instead of the nail.

Looks like your on the wrong thread mate. This board is for serious scientific discussion,if you'd like to discuss conspiracy,take it there.

 

[JackOutback]

You have to understand that he is calling for flath earth theory to be taught in schools, and calls science a religion.
He points out that the big bang is just as likely as the earth being flat. And that there is no proof of gravity.

And yes the pursuit of truth and answers is excellent, and we are human and fallible. But the scientific method, and scientific fact are not wrong.

Interpreting the results incorrectly, or pushing an agenda, isn't science.

Its like blaming a hammer, when you hit your thumb instead of the nail.

I haven't read the other threads. But as I say, when people suggest they are 'losing confidence in science', I take it as shorthand for losing confidence in scientists or those manipulating science for their own gains. I wouldn't imagine anyone is saying they have no confidence in facts (except for Donald Trump, of course).