Why Do People Reject Science?

[HuckleB]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/16/3366790.htm

"...


The historical evidence is overwhelming that some of that opposition has been organised by vested interests, often successfully delaying political and regulatory action that posed a perceived threat to corporate profits. The peer-reviewed literature has clearly identified the subterfuge, distortion and manufacture of doubt with which vested interests delayed the control of tobacco, CFCs and sulphur emissions.

Even relatively small threats to profits can cause vested interests to spring into obfuscatory action as is revealed by the case involving the makers of aspirin. Aspirin consumption by children with viral illnesses increases the risk of Reye's syndrome — fatal in one third of all patients — by 4,000 per cent.

When this evidence became known, the aspirin industry geared up a counter-campaign that delayed the introduction of simple warning labels on their products about the risk of Reye's syndrome by more than five years.

...

It is revealing to analyse how far people are prepared to go when they are exposed to belief-threatening scientific evidence. In one study, people dismissed the scientific method itself when confronted with threatening information. People will rather declare that an issue cannot be resolved scientifically than accept evidence that's in opposition to their threatened beliefs.

..."


-------------------------


It's a mildly interesting addition to the topic, IMO.

:hi:

[msongs]

1. why? Mommy told me the bible is true and mommy would never lie to me lol nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. It's an interesting question. See more....

As a scientist (PhD chemistry), I've just always used scientific reasoning to work through things - and it's colored everything I do (my garden is my "lab", the way I roast coffee, analyse information).

But - I have two friends that are not scientists - and they tell me that the world looks very different from their eyes - they have less trust in science, more in their particular experiences and intuitions.

It really is also about paradigms - how information that fits with your own particular paradigm is very believable - but when outside, it is scorned. Think Galileo and how he was treated with his theories about the structure of the solar system - the church locked him up!

I also think that people think science and they think information that doesn't change - but of course, as we learn more, conclusions do evolve - think of the confusion around nutrition.

Great thing to ponder while kayaking (which I am about to do)

[HuckleB]

3. Enjoy yourself! (I'd love to be out kayaking!)

I also suspect that the fact that we don't teach the scientific method to most people is also harmful. Nor do we teach the difference in value of a small preliminary study from larger studies and systematic reviews, which can't help. Concepts of plausibility and consensus seem foreign to most people, as well. In some ways, adding that to learning true respect of others might help move things forward. Alas, I'm far too cynical to have much hope, however.

Like I said, enjoy yourself!

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Ah, a fellow cynic (haven't decided if it is a strength or a weakness!).

I am finding it really helpful in leading a big, all volunteer, world wide project to develop new tomato varieties - I am really good at designing the crosses and observing/recording data - then assimilating it to make decisions going forward.....it is so much fun to see research in action (I kind of feel like Mendel!)

We've got 13 new tomato varieties in seed catalogs over the last few months!

[Eddie Haskell]

4. Because they don't like eggheads, nerds and others who make

them feel inadequate. Because they can't understand the math and mistrust what they don't understand.
Because scientists and techies are sometimes poor communicators. There are lots of reasons.

[jberryhill]

11. +1

It takes a lot of work to understand something beyond the level of a NOVA program on PBS, and not everyone has the aptitude for it.

[Quartermass]

6. I love science. I just hate some of the arrogance and elitist attitudes of some scientists.

And for me, reasonable people base their conclusions on what the facts say, not what a person wants or doesn't want to believe.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

[HuckleB]

7. Interestingly, I see far more arrogance and elitism in those who seem to reject science.

:hi:

[Quartermass]

8. Unlike you, I see lots of arragance in all corners of society. It's not just one group.

But one of the biggest things I've learned about people is that people will see only what they want to see, regardless if they're scientists or not.

[HuckleB]

10. No, it's not just one group.

The thing that is missed though, is that those who work to follow science, understand that the findings are likely to change. I suspect that's why I see less arrogance there compared to those who push religion and pseudo-science.

[unblock]

12. i know used car salesmen who are FAR more arrogant than the average scientist.

arrogance and elitist attitudes are personality traits that, for the most part, defy actual station in life.

anyone, anywhere, can think they are smarter than you, are better informed than you, have better taste than you, are destined for a better afterlife, whatever.

the difference is that science tends to frown upon arrogance and elitism. arguably, the essence of peer-review is the rejection of appeals to arrogance and elitism. other walks of life have no check on such behavior, short of a social smack-down.

[DocMac]

13. How can you love science and have that view?

[Quartermass]

15. I look at other things as well.

I see how people group into their different groups and insult and berate the other groups for not believing in the same things as them and just having different opinions.

I look at behavior as well as what people say. Behavior is often contrary to what people claim and say.

And that's how I've come to my own personal beliefs about science. I've seen how they form into groups and insult and berate other groups for not believing in the same things as they do.

But make no mistake, they are not the only group that does this. Many others do this too, especially in partisan politics.

It's human nature, I suppose, but it's human nature I'd love to see go the way of the dodo and see people really learn to live with one another instead of all this gobbledegook.

[HuckleB]

16. I'm wondering how you've noted this being so prevalent among scientists?

(Especially since it seems anathema to science, and is noted by others, such as myself, at least not compared to those who push pure belief.)

On that note, I'm curious as to why you use the term "belief," when that term has little to do with the concept of science.

[Quartermass]

18. Because sometims a scienctists will believe something before it can be experimented on.

And it's primarily personal experience, to which, I'm sure to you is just anecdotal.

I have nothing more to say on this matter and wish to end this conversation.

[HuckleB]

19. That would make said "scientists" not scientists at all.

That is why the peer-review is so important.

Why end the conversation rather than challenge your preconceived notions? Isn't that what discussion is supposed to be about? It just seems odd that you would post what you posted but not be willing to engage in an actual discussion.

[Quartermass]

21. I don't like discussing things with people anymore.

Because if I say something in the wrong way or have a disagreement, people will get pissed off at me, and insult and berate me to no end in an attempt to correct me and get even angrier and angrier at me if I don't comply. So I don't like discussing things anymore, and will not discuss things anymore.

Sorry.

[HuckleB]

22. Then why are you posting online at all?

:shrug:

[Quartermass]

23. Because I just gotta. I have no other answer and that is

a question I often ask myself.

[DocMac]

24. I have yet to see that behavior.

It's not a stretch to understand that when people are engaged in a discipline to the point where they are so engaged that they appear to be eccentric or reclusive.

You must realize that it takes a great deal of time and effort just to catch up to what is already known. Also, to venture outside of that discipline is to journey into failure. A place most are not comfortable with.

I won't tread on this...but i'll add what I learned from college: I learned that I have much more to learn.

[kestrel91316]

9. Because scientific facts are in conflict with their quasi-religious belief in Teh Woo.

[uppityperson]

14. Because people are emotional beings who look for ways to back up those emotions.

Overall, of course. not a particular person.

[laconicsax]

17. Because it's easier than thinking. n/t

[HuckleB]

20. Today, I have had a couple of "discussions" with those who could care less about science.

Their response is simply, "I don't care. I'm sharing personal experience." Thus, information that might give some context to that experience is not welcome. Challenging one's world view is difficult. On the other hand, isn't that need to challenge one's world view and try to make things better the basis for liberalism?

How is that lost at DU?

:shrug:

[DocMac]

25. Exactly..."I don't care".

Trickle down economics was a theory more than a couple decades ago.

Well, that theory has been proven wrong.

So why would anyone or group think otherwise?

You would think that scientists would be good politicians...wrong.

Politicians are like many here say, theatre. Thus the advisors. But those advisors have an agenda and that includes greed. Politicians and science are like oil and water. They are not really good dance partners.

[HuckleB]

31. And the anti-science crowd strongly believes that it is superior to others.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Humility is missing in politics, and it's also missing in the various forms of anti-science belief systems.

[xchrom]

26. recommend

[CanSocDem]

27. Speaking for myself.....

...I have a problem with the medical industry pretending to have "science" in their corner.

That you would post this vaguely related essay as an endorsement of free-market medicine or as a another of your critiques against alternative therapy is a case in point.

You should have included this summarizing point:

In a nutshell, if people are given an opportunity to take pride in their embrace of free markets and unregulated enterprise, they are subsequently more likely to accept scientific evidence that would otherwise be deemed too threatening to their worldview.

Do you understand this...??? It's saying that if you are OK with a free-market medical industry then you are more likely to have faith in "science". Setting aside, for a moment, the problem of a market based approach to achieving, not PUBLIC health, but your own personal health, one must consider whether "science" serves everybody or just those that can afford it. An egalitarian society promotes the health of all its' citizens and if they DO NOT object to claims that a "happy meal" is good nutrition, they are not promoting 'public health'.

Of course, intelligent people already realize that either there is no attempt to create "an egalitarian society" or that..." rights and goods should be distributed more equally and society should bear partial responsibility for securing the conditions of individual flourishing."

People who choose alternatives to the medical industry are the true pioneers of an enlightened 'egalitarian' society not "scam artists" out to deny "science", as you and your friends like to insist. Progressives pass laws against 'child labour' and, to the best of their ability, industrial malfeasance. These are indications of looking out for the community as a whole. The same with the essays' points about "climate change". Leading the charge against 'climate science' are the industrial interests who fear a loss of personal wealth.

"Perhaps not surprisingly, HI individuals are more likely to resist acceptance of climate science than EC individuals...
...Because implicit in the message we get from climate science is the need to alter the way we currently do business. The spectre of regulation looms large, and so does the (imaginary) World Government or other interventions — such as multilateral agreements — that are anathema to the notion that individuals, not governments or societies, determine their own fate."

But, back to me and why I distrust the goals of science.

If you assumed I lack high school science and math, you are correct. I left early. I had the ability to read and an inquisitive mind. I had a couple of talents that I was born with and they were enough to get me out into the world. I had no prolonged exposure to the 'scientific method' and thus avoided that indoctrination. I accepted what I didn't understand if it served my interests.

However, the longer I lived, the more contradictions I encountered to accepted scientific theory. In my life, I experienced many incidents that defied easy scientific explanations. Being inquisitive and not beholden to any pre-conceived dogma, I strayed into the era of metaphysics and before long I had discovered that there was a lot more room for explanation in this realm of human consciousness. I pursued this avenue of research and found that my life was easier and more fulfilling by taking responsibility for my personal reality. It gave me the wisdom to allow other people to experience their own PERSONAL REALITY.

My only concern was that they should be free to do so, without the overpowering influence of the self-serving private interests of the free market.

The medical industry and its' handmaiden PharmaCorp is a ruthless assault on the American people. I feel sorry for you and have taken it upon myself to attempt to free you from its' myths and subterfuge. I'm sorry that you think it is anti-science. That's a big fat red herring.



.

[HuckleB]

28. I'm shocked. Shocked by the usual obfuscatory response against science.

:rofl:

Thanks for the kick!

[CanSocDem]

29. Well...I was going to make it shorter...just for you.

But knowing you don't read, I thought why bother. It needs a kick for the readers around here.

.

[HuckleB]

30. Awwwwww.

Your feigned superiority is so cute.