I did not bring religion into the convo . . . others did [deriving a purpose from the question] In this Area . . the D&D we argue fuss and fight about all manner of things many have STRONG beleifs whether it is science religion or politics I was just attempting to educate myself on the 'learning process' of people in general. How do they arrive at the conclusions in which they have. Rocket River
So a bunch of people signed some useless petition (what has a petition ever accomplished?) that was designed to mislead them, after being harangued to sign the petition - big freaking deal. Who knows why they signed it, maybe they were trying to impress the chick with the clipboard, maybe they really believed it, maybe they thought it was funny; who cares, the fact that you are using it as part of some weird attack on science is lame.
Sad . . one cannot question science now? One cannot question how one comes to their conclusion on science now? Is that what you are really saying SamFisher? The simple act of Questioning . . how one comes to beleive one set of scientific ideas . . . is now an attack on Science? Really? Interesting Stance SamFisher . . .. very interesting Rocket River
You are conflating two very different things, and that's why you are getting these responses. (B) Sure, you can ask how Joe Public comes to his conclusion on science, and half the time, that's what you say this thread is about. But... (A) What are you questioning? The process of science? How it has worked since the enlightenment? Then you better bring some heavy hitting thought to this if you want to change the scientific method or point out its flaws! Do you see what I mean? I still don't think most of us understand what you're really trying to ask.
I apologize. It is not about the PROCESS of Science at all. The Scientific Method is pretty straight forward. It is about people's Process of which Science they follow. Science is one thing . . The Science people beleive could be another. At any give time. . their are opposing theories about something or other [Global Climate Change for instance] some people are supporters. . others are opponents. Alot of Supporters point to the general concensus of climate change scientist Alot of Opponents point to the contrasting scientist etc. [I am beginning to hate using an example because then everyone wants to jump out with a AHA!~!! THAT IS WHAT HE REALLY TRYING TO TALK ABOUT!] [Because they are so clever] Supporters and Opponents - have examined the information and processed it them selves. Others have seen a billion commercials saying one of the other and just kind of conceded to the knowledge of the Experts without really looking deep into it. Others still it is just politics. Rocket River
In the specific cases of Global Warming and Evolution, it is quite obvious to me that almost every non-expert who backs the minority opposition side does so because of option (3) in your poll, it supports their preconceived notions.
Okay, I have a better sense now, I think. And I won't jump on the global climate issue. I'll answer your poll now, but I think my best answer is: I trust the consensus but keep my ears open for updates and major debates on a given problem.
I think this is the way to go. The consensus of the scientific community is usually correct, and by that I mean that it usually represents the best knowledge and understanding of the time, but it’s also very important to remember that it is sometimes wrong, and that if you become aware of a compelling competing theory you should be open to hearing what it has to say, in the spirit of good science. Be particularly wary of majority opinions that try to silence minority opinions. That is a fairly good warning sign that the majority opinion has gone astray.
Further, I would distinguish "astray" in their social methods as distinct from "astray" in their scientific work. Some of the GW people (just for instance) see the stakes as some important to the future of humanity that some of them (wrongly) became far too political. That's different from stifling debate because you're insecure about the underlying science.
*ouch* Maybe you just aren't looking? also . . . Sometimes the question is the reason. Seeking the answer is the reason. Kid: Why is the sky blue? SamFisher: Why do you want to know? With out a compelling reason . . . why are you Attacking the sky? Kid: I just wanna know . . . . SamFisher: Not good enough . . . need a compelling reason!!! Rocket River . . . am I among the number of SamFisher Victims now? *grin* SamFisher - Intellectual ClutchFans Assassin S.I.C.A!
Agreed, and that's a good current example. (For anyone who hasn't been follow this discussion here, Bob isn't saying that global warming isn't happening. He's referring to some specific issues that have come up in recent months and years.)
I was in a hurry when I made my last post, so it came out sounding wrong. Obviously, for scientists, questioning scientific results is a good thing and often results in better science. What I meant to say was that the scenario given by RR, with the child asking a question, is not an example of the type of questioning of science that SamFisher is against. The child wasn't even questioning science, he was asking a scientific question.
From Deference to Arrogance: The Decline of Scientific Experts https://risk-monger.com/2024/08/12/from-deference-to-arrogance-the-decline-of-scientific-experts/ excerpt: Arrogantists People react to risk issues emotionally and if they see a public servant in a white coat arrogantly speaking over the heads of the public: about how leaders in their community are wrong; about how they have to accept certain decisions as fact; about how they would have to make sacrifices to their lifestyle because what they say is the truth; about how what they are afraid of, or what they fear for their children, are considered nonsense and they would have to suck it up; … then it is not surprising that people are reacting against these experts. They come across as arrogant – a perception that blinds and deafens how their facts are received and then perceived. Perception is everything as that is what trust is built on. People go to the Internet and try to figure stuff out themselves when they do not trust the person telling them what to believe or do. Regulatory scientists have an image problem. They are seen as arrogantists: people who think and act above the rest of the population and expect everyone else to bow to their expertise. And by “their expertise”, they mean what those within their academic circle think and have declared as the consensus (not what other so-called experts might argue). It is not that people are choosing to believe stupid things because of a lack of intelligence, but rather that they are choosing to be excessively suspicious of advice from arrogantists and their institutions which they neither trust nor respect. Trust is emotional, relational and personal and in today’s social media driven world, we trust people like us, from our tribe and our communities (see my Blockchain Trust series). Science is built on a methodology of hypotheses being strengthened by resisting falsification – an integral humility that hypotheses may be wrong and a willingness to self-correct. Too often, with open and evolving risk issues (from pandemics to chemical exposures to interest rate policies), scientists are acting from a position of infallibility. “Bow to the expert” they tell us. But when arrogantists are wrong, there is then no forgiveness or tolerance. In periods of uncertainty, distrust more commonly influences our decisions than evidence. NGOs, activists and special-interest-driven influencers know this and excel at spreading fear and doubt of the capacity or intentions of our institutions, experts and industries. We no longer trust expert advice, seeking guidance rather from those like us or trying to find things out for ourselves (according to our algorithms). Our common sense is more trusted than expert advice from some faceless bureaucrat. more at the link
