How do you decide which Science to trust? 1. Is it scientific concensus? Basically the most accepted ideas of the time among the scientific community. or 2. Science that appeals to your 'logic' and 'common sense'. Ideas that if you can follow the logic seems sound even if it is not popular. Rocket River
Generally those things are one in the same. As for "logic", that is a pretty universal standard and isn't usually subjective.
Say we're talking about the environment. Scientist A says global warming is caused by man and we must take measures to protect the planet because it's All Our Fault. Scientist B says scientist A is a totally-wrong, hippie tree-hugger, the environment is cyclical, and there's nothing we've done to make it worse and nothing we can do to make it better. Because it's not All Our Fault Scientist C comes along and says something to the effect that scientists A and B both have points to be made and considered, but we're not getting anywhere with them refuting what the other says because in the end we don't really know either way 100%, and the general public, who aren't scientists, don't know who to listen to anyway, but it doesn't really matter what scientists A and B are arguing about because we need to be responsible and to what our mothers taught us and pick up after ourselves, not be wasteful, not make a mess, and be clean enough that we don't have to move out of the cities just to breathe clean air. Because being irresponsible most definitely IS All Our Fault. The point is that if scientists and politicians and others who would hope for a better world would simply appeal to a persons ingrained sense of responsibility rather than throwing a bunch of numbers at us, we'd get a lot further in life and as a species.
If there is consensus on something, then I'm more likely to trust the consensus even if it is counter-intuitive. But there are things where there is no consensus or where the current hypotheses are not backed by much evidence yet. In those cases it depends. Who are the sources of the different hypotheses, what evidence do they have to support those hypotheses, and how well received those hypotheses are within the scientific community are all important factors in addition to what sounds logical given my limited knowledge. My personal common sense has its largest effect in strengthening my belief in a consensus opinion. If a consensus opinion makes sense to me, I'll probably trust it more. In the cases where a consensus opinion does not fit with my preconceived notions, I might be more skeptical, but I won't dismiss it outright. So I voted for the first option.
I'm smart enough to know what I don't know and therefore must accept the consensus of the scientific community in most instances.
The only axioms I "believe" are those of mathematics and the formal logical derivatives. Everyone else must hop in the "prove it" bus and get busy and I find consensus to be particularly powerful. I am aware of "generational paradigm shifts" and keep that in mind when considering new ideas that challenge the establishment. "Assume X" is dangerous, but necessary to make any progress.
It depends on how confident I am in my expertise on the subject. If I am highly confident, than I will trust my own judgment over that of others. But I am far from an expert on many, many topics.
I am inherently distrustful of "common sense" tests for belief in scientific principals. There are so many instance where it can been proven that what seems logical and obvious turns out to be false, that when people build their arguments on that sort of a foundation, I tend to assume they are wrong.
Your Logic and someone else's Logic may not be the same and in alot of instances. . are not. Esp in the 'softer' sciences Sciences like Sociology/Psychology etc .. . not so much I.e. the effects of Weed, tobacco, etc it seems that the effects of Weed is turning a corner from being the Debil to being acceptable <though I dunno how much of this is social versus hard science> Does spanking your child make them into Psychopaths? Rocket River
I'm talking about this... logic 1: 1+1=2 logic 2: 1+1=3 While technically logic 2 is "logic" (in on the loosest sense of the term, being that since someone considers it logic, it therefor is), it is not logical.
Take it up with RR, he seems to be the one who thinks that there are different standards for what can be considered logic.
Dr. Spock? Since he eschews corporal punishment in child rearing, I don't think he would even consider it.
Seems like a good place to drop another Seinfeld reference. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RiwIeJlQGzs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RiwIeJlQGzs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
If I examine my own opinions for whether they might be wrong, I would say that I devote my efforts to examining whether there are any assumptions that I have made that may not actually be valid when quantified. So I don't assume that they are all wrong, but I assume that if I am wrong, that unsupported assumptions will be the reason why.
