Thread: Sense About Science.

As a disclaimer, I am not a scientist. I am a mildly educated lay-person who is just cranking through his basic math and physics for my major, so I am by no means a peer-reviewed scientist. I do, somehow, end up in constant debates with people about the nature of science and how it actually works. There is a tendency in the public to view science with a certain level of skepticism, it seems.

Now, I for one have always been a fan of skepticism, it tends to keep you on your toes and allow you to distinguish between good and bad information. Overall, however, there seems to be a public trend toward outright distrust of scientific information or theories.

The particular fields I often run into that people have problems with are certain levels of cosmology (the Big Bang, the forces of nature, things like that), global climate change (anthropogenic in nature), and evolution. I have yet to hear anyone try to disprove Faraday's equations, but perhaps that shouldn't be surprising.

It's honestly kind of embarrassing to think about how much time one can spend telling people that they are dead wrong, but unfortunately there are a lot of people now that believe that "you can get science to say anything you want". I am quoting my uncle, specifically, but I hear this from a lot of other science deniers.

So what are some interesting characteristics of these types of skeptics? Well, they tend to be smart, obviously. All of the science deniers I've met have been smart enough to cherry-pick their data to suit their preferred conclusion. But one of the things I have noticed in particular is their amazing ability to pick a single data point and ignore the rest, assuming that for some reason that one data point disproves the entire framework of what they are trying to deny. Creationists got particularly good at this when they mentioned our lack of ancient whale fossils. Unfortunately for them, we now have said fossils. But for quite a while they were proudly "poking holes in the theory of evolution" as they would say, because of a lack of these transitionary links. This is a good example of cherry-picking, in my opinion.

Climate change deniers are no different. They will point to a single year where record low temperatures were seen and say "Haha! Global warming is a fraud!", while happily ignoring the massive amount of satellite and earth-based data showing a clear warming trend. People who dislike the Big Bang do similar things. They say things like "well where did EVERYTHING come from? how can you know that?" They will take things such as how we do not know what happened before T= 10^-43 seconds and try to say that because we do not know that, the whole theory falls apart. Often times they will even try to insert God in that particular time frame, but that's beside the point.

What I often hear from these people are phrases such as "think for yourself" or "science doesn't know everything". Well of course science doesn't know everything, because if it did, it would STOP. What I find most interesting though is this phrase "think for yourself", as if urging us to believe that data is not a reliable form of making one's conclusions.

The "think for yourself" thing usually comes up right around the time they realize that you won't be convinced by what they read in the NY Times or on Conservapedia. If you begin to cite peer-reviewed studies or use the scientific method as a way to show that things can be verified, they often default to this phrase. I've heard it countless times from many different people, and the implications are interesting. Are they under the impression that we are not thinking, or is it that if we do not agree with their position that we are not thinking, in their eyes?

Often times I'm sure these people feel the same way about us (science literate types). They probably often feel that we disagree with them strictly because they do not agree with us. I've heard people say that science is "tyrannical" in that it does not allow opposing viewpoints. While it is clear that this is not true, and there isn't really a need for me to preach to the choir, I find it interesting that they feel this way. Perhaps it is the mountain of data that seems to so proudly shake off their preferred notions that bothers them. Maybe it's just as simple as they want to believe something and feel bothered that someone else finds them to be wrong. Overall, there is a lot to be said for this.

After such a rant, my question is this:

Have you ever dealt with science-denier types? What was the conversation like? Why do you think they are so reticent to accept scientific theories and data? On top of that, are they even worth debating? I happily await your replies.

I think a big factor is that science is always changing, and some people don’t buy into knowledge that changes over time. The media, even the less biased outlets, are always noting when the scientific understanding of something changes. Chocolate is good for you, then it’s bad for you, then good again. Estimates of the size of the Pacific trash gyre are always changing. Biodiesel is a good alternative to fossil fuels, then it isn’t. Impact causes breast cancer, then upon further study, it doesn’t. All the while, the Bible, Koran, etc always say the same thing. In an age of media overload where science can seem to flip-flop, some people find it comforting that someone said definitively “this is the truth” and never changed their mind.

Related to that is the fact that the scientific method doesn’t exactly prove things; it suggests that ideas are correct until they are disproven. I think the lack of certainty involved in real science is a turn off to people who like their information black or white.

Another reason, IMHO, is that some people conceptualize the world in such a way that science just doesn’t mesh with their worldview, perhaps because science doesn’t give them answers that they’re looking for, like if they live a good life, they’ll get to spend eternity on a cloud sipping space brandy with Hemmingway for all eternity. There was a phenomenon in New Guinea called cargo cults, where cargo from white folks arrived from the sky (via planes), and they built mock runways and mock radio towers to try to bring cargo, which they thought was supernatural. Well, eventually they took one of the cargo cult’s charismatic leaders on a trip to Australia to see where cargo really came from. They also showed him a museum of aboriginal culture. The shaman saw this, but his worldview was such that it made no sense that people lived in cities and had manufacturing jobs to generate cargo. It was just too much. He left believing that the museum relics were what was bringing the cargo, and the white people were getting all of it because they stole them from the indigenous. That’s an example of why new information has to fit into a person’s/culture’s world view or they will regard it with disbelief and skepticism. I imagine this is part of the anti-science movement too.

On a less scholarly note, I think some people are just dumb and science makes their head hurt.

my father in law falls into this catagory.after going through several religions, he has settled on greek orthadox.he is very intelligant,but every time i bring up a new discovery or possible theory, his retort is always"well god said so and that is the absolute truth".i find it easier to just not talk to him.even though i have shown him more evidence for ancient aliens than he can show me for a "god",he still refuses to be open minded.i consider myself an openminded-skeptic.i will entertain the possibility until you can show me i am wrong.i will then happily modify my views and beliefs.i also love the argument he makes that science is just trying to prove god doesnt exisit,or that to know the universe is to know god and that is a sin.i dont ever recall science as a whole making its prime directive to disprove the exisitance of god.and if gaining knowledge about the universe is a sin,then label me a sinner.

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

Originally Posted by John Partika

Have you ever dealt with science-denier types?

Definitely! What bothers me most is how often they were practicing scientists.

Originally Posted by John Partika

What was the conversation like?

It varies with their level of understanding. Some are very basic others are very in-depth. Many scientists are very resistant to change and willing to ignore or twist data to suit their bias. They are frequently impervious when confronted with alternative explanations based on new data.

Originally Posted by John Partika

Why do you think they are so reticent to accept scientific theories and data?

Science in theory is objective, but in practice it relies heavily on faith and culture. Today scientists have become as popular as TV and movie stars, at the expense of their credibility. There is so much spin placed on science today that no one without a very thorough grounding can separate fact from fiction, so...

Originally Posted by John Partika

There is a tendency in the public to view science with a certain level of skepticism, it seems.

We should be thankful for good healthy skepticism rather then the blind allegiance that plagues religion. If you do not take anything else from this board at least remember to always question reality.

Originally Posted by John Partika

On top of that, are they even worth debating?

Sometime, sometimes not. Fanatics whether religious or scientific are not usually open to new ideas or debate, but those who are willing to learn can be interesting if not productive.

Originally Posted by John Partika

All of the science deniers I've met have been smart enough to cherry-pick their data to suit their preferred conclusion. But one of the things I have noticed in particular is their amazing ability to pick a single data point and ignore the rest, assuming that for some reason that one data point disproves the entire framework of what they are trying to deny.

It is interesting to note that you cherry-picked only a few controversial, even with in the science community, points, to the exclusion of all others, on which to base your assessment. You are, I am sure, aware that NASA is publicly funded. Without a great deal of faith in their practice of science, that source would quickly dry up. Although faith in the medical industrial complex is waning, faith in medical science is at an all time high. This has unfortunately lead to the exploitation of science and the public's unwavering faith, by pharmaceutical companies as well, as sometimes, by the FDA and the USDA.

Originally Posted by John Partika

"think for yourself"

That is good advice, regardless of the source.

Originally Posted by John Partika

(the Big Bang, the forces of nature, things like that), global climate change (anthropogenic in nature), and evolution.

It is also noteworthy that the the only areas that you mentioned are very controversial. When I was your age, evolution ruled the roust. I have sat through some of the most inane, on both sides, debates imaginable. Now scientists argue with each other in public about things that a few years back would not have even been discussed in the public forum.This cannot help but generate confusion among general public.

One of the definitive books that covers this topic is Thomas E. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed.

Bump.

This is a great topic, and merits further discussion!

Originally Posted by John Partika

The particular fields I often run into that people have problems with are ... global climate change (anthropogenic in nature)...

It's honestly kind of embarrassing to think about how much time one can spend telling people that they are dead wrong, but unfortunately there are a lot of people now that believe that "you can get science to say anything you want". I am quoting my uncle, specifically, but I hear this from a lot of other science deniers.

I see some of this with respect to what I call "soft science," that is, systems which are very complex, not well understood, with some significant as of yet unknowns, as well as a few gray areas. Global warming seems fairly straightforward, right? After all, it's just the average of thermometers around the globe. Not exactly. It's a collection of thermometers, some of which have existed for a long time, but many others which have arisen only in the last couple of decades. Changing weather patterns and growing "concrete jungles" have significantly altered some of the readings. Adjustments have been applied in an attempt to mitigate the changes, but they're largely educated guesses.

Regardless, I do believe in global warming. I simply doubt how much of the effect is anthropogenic in nature. I don't do so based on heresay, but on volumes of detailed records, some of which span a couple hundred years (city temps and sunspot activity (number and duration of cycle), some of which span hundreds of thousands of years (Vostok Ice Data). The data itself says, "This has happened before," and we know it's (both temp and CO2 concentrations) have happened many times long before man ever rose to any prominence on our planet.

In light of this, I've read the top 14 IPCC reports out there, understand them quite well, and can spot the singlemost critical flaw which these scientists can't seem to shake. They correlate rising temps with rising CO2 levels, and based largely on their knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, assume it's the cause, rather than merely being a correlated factor. Meanwhile, absent from the IPCC reports are credible (meaning complete) mention of other factors, some of which are well-known, others of which are not. Sometimes the IPCC reports mention one aspect of a factor that will not have an effect on GW while ignoring another aspect of the same fact that will. In the end, they dismiss the factor as relevant because of the one aspect while either ignoring or perhaps simply omitting the other aspect.

At best, that's sloppy science. At worst, they may be doing it intentionally. The billions of dollars governments spend on GW research is certainly a huge incentive to misrepresent the science.

So what are some interesting characteristics of these types of skeptics? Well, they tend to be smart, obviously. All of the science deniers I've met have been smart enough to cherry-pick their data to suit their preferred conclusion. But one of the things I have noticed in particular is their amazing ability to pick a single data point and ignore the rest, assuming that for some reason that one data point disproves the entire framework of what they are trying to deny

Actually, this is the sort of thing I see happening with those in the AGW camps.

If you begin to cite peer-reviewed studies...

The conclusions of countless peer-reviewed studies have later been overturned in light of new data, or often, merely employing a more complete approach to the old data.

...or use the scientific method as a way to show that things can be verified...

The scientific method is only as good as accuracy in which it's used. As a statistician and technical writer, I'm appalled at how sloppy some scientists have been with respect to their employment of both statistics and the scientific method.

Are they under the impression that we are not thinking, or is it that if we do not agree with their position that we are not thinking, in their eyes?

No. I'm under the impression that when legitimate contradictions in the data arise, and I see those contradictions being dismissed either for the wrong reasons or merely out of hand, it raises questions with respect to the legitimacy of the "science" being used.

I've heard people say that science is "tyrannical" in that it does not allow opposing viewpoints.

I think it would be more accurate to say that when it comes to more complex, less well-defined and understood systems, particularly those involving vast sums of government research dollars, "science" has become highly politicized, if not taking a back seat to politics altogether.

A lot of people don't even know which sciences are well understood and which are at the frontiers. That scientists claim their science hobby horse is "mainstream" while the other guy's is ATM doesn't help the matter. Hawking was "right" until Suskind proved him wrong and then Hawking claimed Suskind was wrong and that he was also wrong and pointed to a whole new direction. Good thing for Einstien that the first attempts to show his predicted gravitational deflection of stars near the limb of the sun failed or he would have "proven" wrong.

The "mainstream" (for reasons including political and financial) poh poh and woo woo the little guy who admits to the truth that frontiers are not set in stone. Some are not even set in sand. Who remembers the oat fiber fad? Once upon a time it was "common knowledge" that dietary fiber was good for ya. Then someone in the FDA asked if there was any science to back that up. Turns out there wasn't. So the first real scientific study was funded, a source of fiber was chosen and it turns out that fiber is good for ya. The news was released and the source of the fiber was oats. The public imagination (failing to understand the science involved and being more familiar with oats than with this mysterious stuff called "fiber"" took oats as the magic substance. Who's going to deny it? It's not like oats are bad for ya.

Human caused global warming? The basic science isn't even there. You can't even discuss the lack of basic science with believers in human caused global warming. Critics of AGW don't point to the basic lack either.

Basic stuff like the quantity of co2 rises and falls by 10 to 20% from summer to winter for well known reasons and that the rise or fall differance from year to year is of the same magnitude and also for well known reasons. But the systems causing the rise and fall and variences are not well enough monitored to conclude that the 1% input of co2 from man can't be absorbed as all the rest is by all those chaotic and insufficiently monitored systems of absorbtion and emission and is the cause of global warming. It's like claiming that spitting in a thunderstorm makes the thunderstorm worse. Then they have invented this whole "tipping point" scam. Fear mongering to the point of flat eartherism. They claim there's an edge out there that we could tip off of. They don't make a case that there is an edge, that we're near the edge, or that we could go over the edge even if we tried. But if we go over the edge that would be bad.

As to the OP. I don't have much trouble talking to people about science unless they are dishonest. Then it's written all over everything they say. But then it's not even about science anymore. Be honest and nature will reveal the truth. Unfortunately it won't provide funding.

Originally Posted by astrotech

A lot of people don't even know which sciences are well understood and which are at the frontiers.

Can we delineate this on BAUT?

That scientists claim their science hobby horse is "mainstream" while the other guy's is ATM doesn't help the matter. Hawking was "right" until Suskind proved him wrong and then Hawking claimed Suskind was wrong and that he was also wrong and pointed to a whole new direction. Good thing for Einstien that the first attempts to show his predicted gravitational deflection of stars near the limb of the sun failed or he would have "proven" wrong.

The "mainstream" (for reasons including political and financial) poh poh and woo woo the little guy who admits to the truth that frontiers are not set in stone. Some are not even set in sand. Who remembers the oat fiber fad? Once upon a time it was "common knowledge" that dietary fiber was good for ya. Then someone in the FDA asked if there was any science to back that up. Turns out there wasn't. So the first real scientific study was funded, a source of fiber was chosen and it turns out that fiber is good for ya. The news was released and the source of the fiber was oats. The public imagination (failing to understand the science involved and being more familiar with oats than with this mysterious stuff called "fiber"" took oats as the magic substance. Who's going to deny it? It's not like oats are bad for ya.

Not at all. In fact, it's far better for us than wheat products.

Human caused global warming? The basic science isn't even there. You can't even discuss the lack of basic science with believers in human caused global warming. Critics of AGW don't point to the basic lack either.

Don't know about the critics, but I was banned from BAUT for attempting to discuss the science, and I do mean science, of anthropogenic global warming vs global warming as a well-known scientific fact.

BAUT admins and mods? Idiots. At least the ones who banned me. I received some PMs and e-mails of support from some of the more rational mods.

Basic stuff like the quantity of co2 rises and falls by 10 to 20% from summer to winter for well known reasons and that the rise or fall differance from year to year is of the same magnitude and also for well known reasons. But the systems causing the rise and fall and variences are not well enough monitored to conclude that the 1% input of co2 from man can't be absorbed as all the rest is by all those chaotic and insufficiently monitored systems of absorbtion and emission and is the cause of global warming. It's like claiming that spitting in a thunderstorm makes the thunderstorm worse. Then they have invented this whole "tipping point" scam. Fear mongering to the point of flat eartherism. They claim there's an edge out there that we could tip off of. They don't make a case that there is an edge, that we're near the edge, or that we could go over the edge even if we tried. But if we go over the edge that would be bad.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a huge, multi-Billion-dollar business. That said, they've "proven" their case, yet have had many detractors, often from their own ranks. The industry is routinely flouted by mainstream media, yet those who speak out against it are rarely given the time of day.

As to the OP. I don't have much trouble talking to people about science unless they are dishonest. Then it's written all over everything they say. But then it's not even about science anymore. Be honest and nature will reveal the truth. Unfortunately it won't provide funding.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Honesty is always the best policy. Sadly, most forums are run based on adherence to the politically correct mainstream.

Not us!

We're in it for the REALITY.