Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Which one are you?

 

"Science," lol...

 

Its because Science is often proven wrong. Remember, the Earth used to be flat according to "Science". :MARIS61:

 

And so we come to the downward slope of the curve, as worries about practicalities and survival will once again take the forefront, and we will lose the luxury of abstract thought. We return to the animal form, the animal law, the animal life... soon, we will have forgotten everything we'd learned, and our self-extinction will be complete. The only animal that committed self-genocide out of boredom.

 

It's because science is DESIGNED to be proven wrong, for fuck's sake.

 

DON'T QUESTION ANYTHING. JUST BELIEVE WHATEVER I PUT IN FRONT OF YOU

 

Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.

 

10 Our Fathers, 10 Hail Marys and 1 Act Of Contrition

 

Well it appears to me that people with political agendas very often use the word science, scientist, and scientific Knowledge to imply authority and often tell just a piece of the story
to sell their agenda.

Here is a copy of a discussion I have had with an economist I read daily. I now think I will stop since he sure seem like a Koolaid drinker uncovered..

His daily post to start the conversation;
"Economical Environmentalism


The US government offers tax credits to promote "good" behavior such as buying an electric car or weatherizing a home. Regrettably, these plans are regressive. The top 20% of earners receive 90% of electric car credits and 60% of weatherization credits. Alternatively, impose a tax on carbon emissions
that costs tax payers as much as the current schemes. For the same cost, more pollution will be eliminated and more equitably. "


MarAzul

"Holy Crap! I sure hope this is a joke that went over my head. You normally don't seem to drink the Koolaid.

Elliot

Dude, we can argue about greenhouse gases and their impact on the economy. But, we cannot possibly argue that gives big rich people $7"500 off
their taxes to buy a Tesla is totally stupid. At a minimum, stop the election trick car tax credit.

Elliot

MarAzul

Dude? No, I can't see why we have tax credits for electric cars. It is also equally stupid to think a Carbon tax will have any effect on the interglacial cycle.
It does accomplish wealth transfer though.

Elliot

Dear MarAzul:


As an economist, I must totally disagree. By taxing something, you get less of it. Taking carbon will reduce our consumption of it. In Europe gas taxes are high. As a result engine displacement size over there is much smaller than it is here. I bet a tax of 50 cents a gallon would solve most of our oil problems. Taxes have huge behavioral effects.

MarAzul

Yes, I totally agree. But I am not at all sure why you want everyone to avoid using oil though.It would be grand if we had a mobile fuel first. Toyota is working on a hydrogen auto, that would be super.A natural gas machine would be wonderful now that we have so much, but we have no infrastructure for either to use in autos. So a tax on oil is sure premature unless you just want all Americans to walk, well I guess only the poor ones.
Sounds very elite.

Elliot

Dear MarAzul:

I really do not care how you travel as long as you incorporate the externalities that are caused by your behavior. And with gasoline only incorporating the cost to pump it, refine it and transport it, it does not include the social cost that results in my butt being fried. That is why taxes are critical in this situation.

MarAzul

Man you have sucked the Koolaid jug dry! Your butt isn't being fried by the actions of any of your 330 million countrymen. If they all bought a camel to ride today and shunned oil forever, it would change nothing about the interglacial cycle. The seas have risen 192 feet or so since the last great Ice age, probably has a couple feet to go, no matter what the hell you advocate.
The CO2 is about the same as this point in the last cycle, the only difference is, Man is the dominate species this time instead of the Woolly Mammoth.

As an economist, I'm sure you know our economy would screech to a halt with such a major change, even with all the jobs shovelling camel shit.This reminds me of Obama selling Obama care, If you like your health care, you can keep it! Complete bull shit and accurately predictable. The ACA slapped a TAX on employers that provide health care to retirees, and it made it legal for them to drop our coverage. Just like you said, Tax it and you get less of it. I didn't expect anything other than what we got, the shaft. Obama and dems got what they want though, we had to join the pool of insurance buyers to pay for those that don't have it and have not earned it. But at least Obama knew what behavior he wanted us to switch to doing. You don't seem to have a clue, just take their money, to hell with the alternatives.

Fry your butt! Geez, that is a shortage of information to believe such a thing, let alone try to sell it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we are done, he isn't a sweet water economist anyway.

 

It was flat according to religion.

This was first debunked by scientists.

The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.

 

Some science cannot be proven wrong

 

Why is this even news to anyone?

Any person or special interest group that has an agenda will ignore science if the science proves their agenda is wrong. Otherwise they would need to change sides or close their special interest group. Many of the special interest groups are big business, and have many high paying jobs to protect.

Even worse are the special interest groups that use only the science from a study that supports their agenda, yet ignore the science in the same study that weakens their agenda. It happens so often now that when a special interest group quotes science to support their agenda, I will read the entire study to learn the truth.

The real problem is, too often the misleading information from special interest groups is repeated so often, honest good people begin to believe it.

 

Its all about the money. Science is purposely left open to new information and tries to account for all variables, certain dubious people take advantage of this. For instance, you can not prove that cigarettes cause cancer. However after years and years of studies and public outreach campaigns, it is now generally accepted that they do to the point that some people are going to read this and think Im stupid because I said you cant prove cigs cause cancer. (go ahead look it up). This is despite the industry experts who preached otherwise for decades.

Leaded gasoline is another example of this. Used as an anti knock in engines for years we were poisoning our environment and people, despite the counter "science" from the auto industry. Most people dont realize how bad this problem actually was into the 70s and 80s. Our oceans were getting loaded up with lead in the top layers and an estimated 68 million children were exposed to toxic lead levels from the 20's to 80's. Shit was getting out of control, till we finally overcame the industry scientists.

Same thing is happening today with everything you mentioned. Of course some people on the green side take advantage as well, greed is a human characteristic. This is no reason to dismiss the subject all together though.

 

I dont know if this is to much of a tangent but when I was watching news on Cecil the lion, and they were interviewing locals on the subject one phrase stuck out to me. "in Africa, if it pays it stays" The idea was that if you want amazing wild life in Africa then you need to find a way to make it more profitable to keep them around then to kill them. I think that concept applies to many things in life, for better or worse, if it pays it stays.

 

Actually, it is true. Science is designed to be "proven wrong" in the sense that scientists know there is no "absolute truth". There is only best approximation. That is why Newtonian science got supplanted by quantum mechanics, for example. Newton's laws worked, and stil do, for the macroscopic world but broke down at subatomic level. Incidentally it is how you distinguish science from religion and pseudoscience. Einstein, for example, when he published relativity not only included proofs but also disproofs, experiments that would show he was wrong. Darwin did the same. Imagine a preacher or politician saying "if this happens I am proven wrong and that's fine because it establishes facts". Any scientific hypothesis must have the ability to be proven false (falsifiable).

This may be one problem with understanding science. We get demands for "absolute proof". Can you absolutely prove this drought, this hurricane, was caused by global warming. No, but it can be shown that global warming theory predicts more droughts and more extreme weather and that is happening. Can you absolutely prove this person died due to smoking and not some genetic predisposition to cancer? No , but it can be shown that smokers have a much higher rate of cancer. And so forth.

Religion, OTOH, claims to offer absolute. God said it, end of inquiry. We saw this in the famous Ham/Nye debate when Ham (or was it Hamm?) kept saying "a book written 2000 years ago answered every question". Accepting there are no absolutes, no revealed truths, can be hard.

Scientists also carry some blame. Many of them simply don't consider it worth their while to explain to the "unwashed masses" what's in it for them. And science is often taught either very poorly or not at all in schools; I became a biologist in spite of, not because of, the science I took in high school, although I did have a fabulous teacher, Mr. Dick Battelle, in junior high. Memorizing unconnected facts is boring. And leaving out evolution from biology is like trying to teach chemistry without mentioning atoms.

Also, it must be said, there are those with vested interest in scientific ignorance. Fundamentalist religion, of any type, do not tolerate the idea of questioning. The oil and gas industry pours billions into climate change denial. Coca-cola is paying scientists to claim that exercise, not reducing sugar, is sufficient for weight loss. (Side note, I have 4 lbs. left of the 51.2 I needed to lose. There were weeks when I had an indulgence - a holiday or some special occasion, and in those weeks even when I ramped up my workouts to punishing levels I did not lose weight. At best I stayed even. I know anecdote is not evidence, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.)

Throw in the fact that science has been misquoted (social Darwinism never came from Darwin) and abused to promote racism, sexism, homophobia, torture, genocide. This gives opponents of science ammunition to say all science is bad because Nazis claimed biological basis for their racial "theories".

Interestingly, opponents of science have no problem with technology. They take to the Internet, Twitter, et al, all the technology enabled by basic research, to denounce basic research.

Not an exhaustive list but a partial FWIW.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific fact

And don't toss out Religion as the only outlier for bending science. The liberals and conservatives have done their fair share of twisting the facts

 

I would definitely agree with this, except for when something is a scientific fact. I definitely like that you used "people" instead of others that try and only pin this on religion.