• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

Basically, an article about research showing people deny scientific evidence, analyzing why, giving some brief ideas on how one might get through that denial. Of particular interest is the part about how the more educated a person becomes, the more likely they are to deny scientific evidence against a firmly held belief (perhaps because of an increased ability to subvert the information, or a sense of self-assurance).

For fun, see if you can apply the implications of the article to the article itself (really, I know people will anyway, especially anyone that's a creationist, climate change denier, or believes in a link between vaccines and autism). Also read the comments and laugh at their futile resistance.

For me, this sort of thing is like the Dunning-Kruger effect in the way it makes me feel self-conscious and insecure.
 

Rail Tracer

Freaking Ratchet
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
3,031
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Which is why I am agnostic? I believe enough about science, but for what science cannot prove as of yet, that is where that "something else" comes from.

Science reworks itself over time. Once a theory thought of the truth during one day and age, can slightly/completely change in another.

Sort of like how people once believed the world is flat (some people probably still do) and that, now people, say that the earth is round (still not completely accurate.)

For something like climate change denial... what is so wrong with looking for alternative energy for something else like breathing cleaner air and being less dependable on oil alone? If people are going to be in climate change denial, I am sure many are NOT in oil price denial, nor are they in denial when it comes to breathing the smoke coming out of their cars. That is where you get them. ;)

I do have issues with many religions though.
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
Yeah, I've observed this denial / affirmation in myself. It seems like there is very little that can be done about it. One way to test this is to take a book that has the stupidest idea you've ever heard presented with scientific language. Read it so that you concentrate on your reactions. Whenever you hear yourself going "Sigh, ohmygod this is retarded", stop and see where it is coming from. This is how you can see some of the ideas you take for granted. Of course, this doesn't actually prove them right or wrong, but at least you can focus on them and maybe notice some of them being something else than what you thought.
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

Basically, an article about research showing people deny scientific evidence, analyzing why, giving some brief ideas on how one might get through that denial. Of particular interest is the part about how the more educated a person becomes, the more likely they are to deny scientific evidence against a firmly held belief (perhaps because of an increased ability to subvert the information, or a sense of self-assurance).

For fun, see if you can apply the implications of the article to the article itself (really, I know people will anyway, especially anyone that's a creationist, climate change denier, or believes in a link between vaccines and autism). Also read the comments and laugh at their futile resistance.

For me, this sort of thing is like the Dunning-Kruger effect in the way it makes me feel self-conscious and insecure.

There are a lot of things wrong with this.

1. It implies that any person with religious values will reject science as a rule. That is not true.
2. It uses the utmost fringes of religion and society as a test source. By doing so they imply that those people that 'reject' any scientific theory in any way are ignorant and incapable of believing the supposed truth stated in the article which is also not true. And, laughably, it even goes further to say that anyone that disputes this point is one of those people. Nice.
3. It implies that global warming is a fact when it is not. There are just as many scientific studies to prove that global warming doesn't exist at all.

That said, the overall point of the article is good - people tend to defend what they believe. I don't think it can be said though that people will completely ignore evidence to hold onto belief. Beliefs about anything tend to be built on a foundation that includes a multitude of information that provide facets. So, presenting one thing or even a couple things against the entire foundation will not change someone's mind regardless of what their 'beliefs' are - meaning religious or not.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
Very interesting :)

I've noticed the phenomenon, but I guess science has this way of putting the somewhat obvious into a logical structure based on studies and a lot of observation. :)
 

Octarine

The Eighth Colour
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,351
MBTI Type
Aeon
Enneagram
10w
Instinctual Variant
so
For me, this sort of thing is like the Dunning-Kruger effect in the way it makes me feel self-conscious and insecure.

What ever happened to 'the more you know, the less you realise you know overall'?
To me the childlike state of never having complete confidence in ones abilities and knowledge is more natural, with the implicit understanding that there is always more to know. (A philosophy I've had since an early age)
 

poppy

triple nerd score
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
2,215
MBTI Type
intj
Enneagram
5
Pretty neat article, although it does seem kind of obvious. I think in my Psych 202 class they called it confirmation bias?
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
There are just as many scientific studies to prove that global warming doesn't exist at all.

:shock: Do you honestly believe global warming doesn't exist at all?????

Doesn't the CO2 emission raise heat? I mean, it's a fact, so you can't say no to that.

And hasn't the CO2 level grown?

Yes obviously.

So, the planet is warmer, than it would have been without our industry, cars or whatever.

You can't say this doesn't exist at all.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I think some social advocates have attempted to undermine scientific research by saying that it's not humane, particularly on the ultra-feminist front. The whole issue revolves around people tip-toeing around science because they fear confirmation bias. Ideologues seem to be the mothership enemy here.

Speaking of Psych, some of my course material seemed to state that "There a few truths"... followed by some other course basics. I was tempted to argue that point with the teacher, honestly, because it seemed to establish a sort of limit - a reason not to conduct the scientific method.

Thank you MP. I particularly enjoyed the bit about motivated reasoning.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There are a lot of things wrong with this.

1. It implies that any person with religious values will reject science as a rule. That is not true.

I did not detect that. How is this so?

2. It uses the utmost fringes of religion and society as a test source. By doing so they imply that those people that 'reject' any scientific theory in any way are ignorant and incapable of believing the supposed truth stated in the article which is also not true. And, laughably, it even goes further to say that anyone that disputes this point is one of those people. Nice.

Honestly, I suspect you are making those connections more than the article is.

3. It implies that global warming is a fact when it is not. There are just as many scientific studies to prove that global warming doesn't exist at all.

I suppose I could conduct a myriad of so-called studies right now, and I could engineer them to show anything I want. The question is whether or not there are just as many credible stating global warming does not exist as there ones stating it does. I doubt that, considering the vast majority of climatologists believe in global warming.

That said, the overall point of the article is good - people tend to defend what they believe. I don't think it can be said though that people will completely ignore evidence to hold onto belief. Beliefs about anything tend to be built on a foundation that includes a multitude of information that provide facets. So, presenting one thing or even a couple things against the entire foundation will not change someone's mind regardless of what their 'beliefs' are - meaning religious or not.

The article is specifically about how we ignore good evidence, so it focuses on that, but it does mention that people don't completely ignore evidence.

What ever happened to 'the more you know, the less you realise you know overall'?
To me the childlike state of never having complete confidence in ones abilities and knowledge is more natural, with the implicit understanding that there is always more to know. (A philosophy I've had since an early age)

I agree with this approach myself, and I also apply it to matters of morality. I know from experience however that it can be a maddening and painful way to live. I'm not at all surprised by anyone's decision not to follow.

Pretty neat article, although it does seem kind of obvious. I think in my Psych 202 class they called it confirmation bias?

Much of what's discussed in the article is confirmation bias.

I think some social advocates have attempted to undermine scientific research by saying that it's not humane, particularly on the ultra-feminist front. The whole issue revolves around people tip-toeing around science because they fear confirmation bias. Ideologues seem to be the mothership enemy here.

Speaking of Psych, some of my course material seemed to state that "There a few truths"... followed by some other course basics. I was tempted to argue that point with the teacher, honestly, because it seemed to establish a sort of limit - a reason not to conduct the scientific method.

Thank you MP. I particularly enjoyed the bit about motivated reasoning.

Why does the ideology make the ideologue, and why is the ideologue so problematic? I think getting closer to the root of the problem, I'd say ego is the enemy of insight. It is the way people merge themselves with their beliefs that makes it so hard for them to admit error.
 

Octarine

The Eighth Colour
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,351
MBTI Type
Aeon
Enneagram
10w
Instinctual Variant
so
I did not detect that. How is this so?

They won't reject science as a rule, but they will reject scientific findings that conflict with their religion as a rule.

I know from experience however that it can be a maddening and painful way to live.

I think it is the least maddening way to live. Being able to easily accept ones own ignorance and mistakes makes life more enjoyable, at least once such acceptance becomes a habit.
 

ThinkingAboutIt

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
264
MBTI Type
INTP
:shock: Do you honestly believe global warming doesn't exist at all?????

Doesn't the CO2 emission raise heat? I mean, it's a fact, so you can't say no to that.

And hasn't the CO2 level grown?

Yes obviously.

So, the planet is warmer, than it would have been without our industry, cars or whatever.

You can't say this doesn't exist at all.

Affirming the consequent argument = invalid argument.

Just because there is a temperature rise does not mean that it is caused by the current definition of "global warming". The entire debate is about the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming - whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

I do not agree with "global warming" as defined today.
 

Amethyst

¡MI TORTA!
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
2,191
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I don't buy it... ;)
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Why does the ideology make the ideologue, and why is the ideologue so problematic? I think getting closer to the root of the problem, I'd say ego is the enemy of insight. It is the way people merge themselves with their beliefs that makes it so hard for them to admit error.

Well, it's not so much that all ideologues are problematic, it's that those who try to discredit research in the name of political correctness are out of their element.

I agree that ego is the enemy of insight, and that self-righteousness is the enemy of righteousness.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
It doesnt wonder me that people reject science; I think they are fed up, especially by the stories about what all can go wrong with our planet. Many peoplke have developed a more back to the roots, back to nature mentality and science and progress have become somewhat boring. As a scientist one should understand the signs of time and make science intrresting again. One shouldnt always complain about what people are doing wrong but rather try to find ways of getting the intrest one does wish for.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Affirming the consequent argument = invalid argument.

Affirming the consequent is a deductive fallacy. Science is a largely inductive process. They are not relying on deductive premises beyond the parameters of their hypotheses. They are relying on the collection of a sufficient amount of data over a comprehensive enough span of circumstances to make their argument the strongest available argument. Their argument does not merely come down to saying there is a temperature rise, therefore there is longterm man made climate change.

My understanding is that all of the specific subjects that you considered areas of dispute receive a very lopsided amount of support among climatologists.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
It doesnt wonder me that people reject science; I think they are fed up, especially by the stories about what all can go wrong with our planet. Many peoplke have developed a more back to the roots, back to nature mentality and science and progress have become somewhat boring. As a scientist one should understand the signs of time and make science intrresting again. One shouldnt always complain about what people are doing wrong but rather try to find ways of getting the intrest one does wish for.

C'mon this site is the perfect example. Everyone is fascinated by a pseudo personality test called MBTI, and no one is interested in Psychometrics.

Anyone can read a book on Psychometrics if they please, but no, we prefer the psuedo metrics of MBTI.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I was more thinking of natural sciences :D
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
We don't believe science because we put our cognitive faculties to sleep and so believe whatever we are told.

When our cognitive faculties of analysis, evaluation and integration are asleep, we are inclined to believe what we see.

So if we see the Sun go round the Earth, naturally we believe the Sun goes round the Earth. But when we analyse the data, we find the opposite, that the Earth goes round the Sun.

So when our cognitive faculities are asleep, we are intuitive. And when our cognitive faculties are awake, we find most of the world is counter-intuitive.

Modern economics is counter-intuitive, modern democratic politics is counter-intuitive, modern science is almost all counter-intuitive and even modern art tends to be counter-intuitive.

But most of us want to get through the day without too much embarrassment. So like obedient children we turn off our cognitive faculties and carry out the work assigned to us, without any fuss.
 
Top