The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science

Post Reply New Topic

https://medium.com/mother-jones/adfa0d026a7e

When I saw the title, I just thought, "BURRRN!! !"

Where is the condensed version?

Just skimmed the article, but it appears to be pro-science, and mocking anybody who believes anything different. It's this type of 'we are right and you are wrong' arguing that led me to Charles Fort. The fact that they mention Global Dumbing in the title is a dead giveaway. "You foolish un-enlightened people better believe what we scientists tell you and shut up."

My condensed version:

-Emotionally charged situations can trigger the fight or flight response; this includes emotionally charged data.

-The way this response manifests in response to data is for people to dig in their heels and defend their position. Unsophisticated people will just deny with 'nope, nope, nope". Sophisticated people will create logical rationalizations. [which is why some PPR threads can get to 20 pages, all those logical rationalizations]



-how to get around this: when presenting new information to an entrenched person, avoid triggering an emotional response

My personal take:

It is often said that people hold certain ideas out of ignorance and that education will counter that ignorance. But according to this article (which I believe, since it is in line with personal experience), people will only change their ideas in response to new data if that new data doesn't threaten their values and is presented in a way that triggers no emotional response.

Personal example:

Many, many religious people have attempted to convert me to their religion via education in the form of pamphlets etc. They believe that the only reason I am not a member of their religion is because I am ignorant of certain data (usually the Bible but sometimes also Watchtower magazine) and if they expose me to that data, I will change my mind. This has never worked. Their pamphlets trigger an emotional reaction of "threat to science". The only people who have ever got me to even consider the possibility of God are scientists who frame their speculations within a scientific framework, such as Isaac Newton's famous watchmaker analogy or more recently some scientists who put God outside the universe as the initiator of the Big Bang. These approaches don't trigger the "threat to science" emotional reaction.

"Everyone is stubborn and won't change their minds" sounds like the basic gist of things here.

Thats what Charles Fort argued against.

I was able to convince my wife on certain points I had by using the bible as a context. I affirm that this article is actually true.

Even in the scientific age, people still refuse to believe in science.

Some people, perhaps. I am convinced that physical science has produced the greatest opportunities for prosperity and health compared to any other approach. Religion and Superstition are Losers, with a capital "L".

Philosophy is mostly useless. It consists of hot moist air that is expelled in such a ways as to to teach us anything too useful.

ruveyn

Why do you believe this is so?

Well, I agree with you that modern science has produced great prosperity and health. As for religion being a loser, and philosophy being just hot air - well, I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

Science is NOT a religion. One does not believe in it. Science is a methodology and one can use it, either well or badly.

ruveyn

Very true.