Posts
5847
Joined
3/27/2009
Location
Pasco, WA
US
Edited Date/Time
2/24/2015 7:23pm
Interesting read from National Geographic.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
A few nuggets
This is my favorite
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
A few nuggets
"...Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to what they call confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe...."
"...Sometimes scientists fall short of the ideals of the scientific method. Especially in biomedical research, there’s a disturbing trend toward results that can’t be reproduced outside the lab that found them..."
This is my favorite
"...Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. “We’re all in high school. We’ve never left high school,” says Marcia McNutt. “People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.”..."
When they were showering people with DDT they said "science has proven this is safe". When they approved
GMO corn, they said "science has proven this is safe"
I gave you 2 examples because surely with just one example you wouldn't believe the "common sense"
TM
The Shop
If the research points in a certain direction a lot of product can be sold. Like drugs for instance.
Global warming, climate change.
Evolution, creationism.
Egg yokes are bad, egg whites are good.
Science proves GMOs are good, science proves GMOs bad
I could go on, but I think you get the gist. My personal belief is that you're not to bright if you buy into the theory that science is right when in fact it's been proven wrong more often.
My thread title was just an introduction to the article and to provoke a good discussion. I wasnt trying to convey the message that I believe everything scientists say.
Also to clarify, that was not meant for you. It was for the author of the article you posted.
Science has landed men on the moon.
Science has made the internet possible.
Science has shown how evolutionary processes work.
Science has made it possible for us to see remote planets and stars.
Need I continue?
I don't think people actually follow the dietary guidelines very good but there is an obesity epidemic going on and people still think meat is the devil and diet soda is healthy because it doesn't have any calories in it. I still get weird looks from obese people when I eat a lot of meat and veggies and they say aren't you worried about all that salt and cholesterol? But then they eat a sandwich and drink a juice with more sugar in them than I eat in a day.
Pit Row
You walk around thinking the Earth is flat because you don't believe science or what?
Is there room in your world for some sort of compromise in which you interpret various scientific theories based on the evidence, or is it just black and white for you and science is always wrong.
More engineers worked for NASA then scientist.
Science made the internet possible? Maybe you should make youserlf familiar with Robert Kahn, Mike Wingfield, Paul Baran, Donald Davies and Leonard Kleinrock, the men most responsible for the internet, not one scientist in the group.
Your last one is laughable, an eye glass maker and a bored lawyer had more to do with it then any scientist.
JANUARY 20, 2015
raw data:
"Adjusted" data..
ClimateGate?
The first is a general lack of understanding at a high level, which would include most folks who don't devote their life's work to a specific field of discovery. Some of us (most?) believe that reading an article in a magazine gives us an equal knowledge level as a PhD who's studied a subject their entire adult lives.
The second is that people (generally) are naturally inclined to resist things that make them uncomfortable or that they don't like. When a study comes out that someone doesn't like, the evidence isn't considered if it isn't simpatico with someone's views. It's definitely akin to confirmation bias, but it's even deeper than that.
Obviously manipulating perception, knowing that most people wouldn't look at the scale but simply look at the position of the data points in the field and assume that the graphs could be overlaid on each other.
Funny how that works.
Post a reply to: Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?