If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medium)   Why we don't believe science. Here comes the science   (medium.com) divider line 107
    More: Interesting, Jonathan Haidt, so emotional, Ground Zero Mosque, Abdur Rauf, Brendan Nyhan, relative risk, Yale Law School, Stony Brook University  
•       •       •

6849 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 2:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 01:36:49 PM
Brainwashing from birth?
 
2013-06-19 01:42:52 PM
Because science is hard! Sky wizard is easy.
 
2013-06-19 01:53:16 PM
God invented science, subby. If God isn't real, science isn't real, either.
 
2013-06-19 02:33:21 PM
Few people like it when reality conflicts with their preconceived notions, so they react violently because it just HAS to be a conspiracy of some sort.
 
2013-06-19 02:36:39 PM
Oh.  It's Chris Mooney.  <sarcasm> I'm sure this will be an unbiased work with no errors of logic.</sarcasm>
 
2013-06-19 02:45:38 PM
What's this "we" crap?
 
2013-06-19 02:47:34 PM
I don't believe it.
 
2013-06-19 02:48:16 PM

Ricardo Klement: Few people like it when reality conflicts with their preconceived notions, so they react violently because it just HAS to be a conspiracy of some sort.


Yeah, some security beliefs are almost impossible to weed out.  Religions are particularly pernicious.
 
2013-06-19 02:48:32 PM
Because our brain works more off of heuristics than rational analysis.
 
2013-06-19 02:49:22 PM
EVIL RICH - CORRUPT POLITICIANS - CUT EDUCATION - MORONIC MASSES - MAXIMUM PROFIT

THAT'S why we don't believe in science.
 
2013-06-19 02:50:26 PM
Humans make mistakes.
 
2013-06-19 02:53:23 PM
Before reading TFA I didn't know bras and zippers are hazardous on-board a flying saucer. Why didn't you all tell me about this? Do you realize what could have happened?
 
2013-06-19 02:54:07 PM
Them scienticians think they're better'n me!
 
2013-06-19 02:55:17 PM

kid_icarus: Before reading TFA I didn't know bras and zippers are hazardous on-board a flying saucer. Why didn't you all tell me about this? Do you realize what could have happened?


Hilarious indecent space-exposure?
 
2013-06-19 02:57:18 PM
Most of the ignorant masses only believe science that they want to be true. Whether or not it is actually science.
 
GBB [TotalFark]
2013-06-19 03:00:22 PM
Probably because...
tl/dr
 
2013-06-19 03:00:33 PM

FirstNationalBastard: Brainwashing from birth?


At least those brainwashed from birth have an excuse.

Anyone who has ever converted religions has given a lot of insight into the way they wish the world worked.
 
2013-06-19 03:01:40 PM
I don't believe, because science doesn't require belief.  That's the whole point.  Morons.
 
2013-06-19 03:02:00 PM
Author has alien implant.
 
2013-06-19 03:02:15 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Ricardo Klement: Few people like it when reality conflicts with their preconceived notions, so they react violently because it just HAS to be a conspiracy of some sort.

Yeah, some security beliefs are almost impossible to weed out.  Religions are particularly pernicious.


Every time religion ends up accepting reality, it turns out it's not the big threat to religion the religion thought it was.  Religion and science can coexist just fine.
 
2013-06-19 03:02:34 PM
We don't understand it.

Sure we might have a general understanding of scientific concepts but people don't really understand it on any deeper level. We make up for it by being completely convinced of our infallibility though.
 
2013-06-19 03:04:53 PM
Article doesn't seem to load for me.  Anyone else?
 
2013-06-19 03:06:54 PM

ikanreed: Article doesn't seem to load for me.  Anyone else?


Try the original article
 
2013-06-19 03:07:24 PM
Why?  Humans aren't built to be rational.  They're built to survive and breed in their environment, just like everything else.  Rationality is just a tool of mammalian survival intelligence that humans have picked up in cognitive complexity.  It's a a perk, not a requirement.

Objective, testable, and correct understandings of our environment aren't necessarily selected for.  It'll help at a societal level, and civilization benefits greatly from it.  But it's not required for mammalian survival at the individual level.  A devout homeopathic, astrology believing spiritualist is just as likely to survive to procreate as a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.  A fundamentalist, bible-thumping creationist who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories and that the moon landing was staged will have kids as easily as a secular biochemist.

Some of it can be fixed socially with education and exposure, but we have to fight our ingrown issues with fear and xenophobia.  Logical fallacies and biases served us biologically in the past, but they tend to hurt us in a modern societal framework.  That's not easily overcome.
 
2013-06-19 03:09:08 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 03:09:09 PM

Pocket Ninja: God invented science, subby. If God isn't real, science isn't real, either.


pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-06-19 03:10:24 PM
On a related note...
dashie.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-06-19 03:10:33 PM
There's a lot of interesting research into the difficulty in making rational choices. What it basically comes down to is it requires energy & work to make the best decisions. However, it takes considerably less energy and work to make typically adequate decisions. On an evolutionary timescale, the ability to make mostly adequate decisions most of the time appears to win out over devoting greater energy and efforts to making the best decisions.

These shortcuts--that we all take most of the time--are typically formed in childhood and derive from "common-sense intuitions" about the world. These form the basic worldview of any given adult most of his or her life. Being exposed to new information that challenges this foundational view often backfires dramatically in terms of comprehension.

The value of a comprehensive liberal arts education with scientific training is the systematic dismantling of these foundational shortcuts by continuous direct and oblique challenges, with the motivational force of grades serving as an impetus to absorb and incorporate new core values. When one has successfully substantively replaced a portion of that old worldview, it becomes more palatable to reevaluate other foundational views.
 
2013-06-19 03:11:27 PM
Bookmark.   Planning to read this...Later.
 
2013-06-19 03:13:08 PM
Ricardo Klement:

Every time religion ends up accepting reality, it turns out it's not the big threat to religion the religion thought it was.  Religion and science can coexist just fine.

That only happens because theists find new ways to rationalize their delusion to fit new evidence, move the goalposts, and push their imaginary friend into an even smaller gap.
 
2013-06-19 03:14:35 PM

Pocket Ninja: God invented science, subby. If God isn't real, science isn't real, either.


"Oh dear," says Science, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of derp.
 
2013-06-19 03:15:38 PM

Kali-Yuga: Ricardo Klement:

Every time religion ends up accepting reality, it turns out it's not the big threat to religion the religion thought it was.  Religion and science can coexist just fine.

That only happens because theists find new ways to rationalize their delusion to fit new evidence, move the goalposts, and push their imaginary friend into an even smaller gap.


Actually, I think the gap is bigger.  Limiting God to just one vector of creation is, well, a limit.  A broader vision of God is one that includes God setting up the Rube Goldberg device that is our universe.  So it's not really a smaller gap, it's a bigger one.

"Let there be light!"

And there was the Big Bang, and God saw that it was good.
 
2013-06-19 03:16:12 PM

Reverend J: ikanreed: Article doesn't seem to load for me.  Anyone else?

Try the original article


Much better, thanks.  And this seems to reinforce the potential viability of the Socratic method.  Getting people to address just one thing at a time makes a debate follow a more logical, rational course.  It's not foolproof, but seems to dodge a lot of the minefield outlined.
 
2013-06-19 03:16:38 PM

xanadian: Pocket Ninja: God invented science, subby. If God isn't real, science isn't real, either.

"Oh dear," says Science, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of derp.


The world is a poorer place for his absence.
 
2013-06-19 03:16:49 PM

J.Shelby: I don't believe, because science doesn't require belief.


Sure it does.
You have to believe your assumptions.  We believe that the scientific process works.  We believe we live in a systematic universe where all laws apply equally no matter where we are in 4 dimensional space/time.  We believe that what we witness is actually what happened.  We make assumptions that time and C are constant.  We can prove 2+2=4 but we can't PROVE that gravity works the same on the surface of a quasar.  These are pretty good bets but they are still assumptions that we believe without proof.
 
2013-06-19 03:18:13 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 03:19:09 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: Pocket Ninja: God invented science, subby. If God isn't real, science isn't real, either.

[pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com image 296x363]


You've been here way too long to not know who PN is and what it does.
 
2013-06-19 03:20:10 PM

TabASlotB: There's a lot of interesting research into the difficulty in making rational choices. What it basically comes down to is it requires energy & work to make the best decisions. However, it takes considerably less energy and work to make typically adequate decisions. On an evolutionary timescale, the ability to make mostly adequate decisions most of the time appears to win out over devoting greater energy and efforts to making the best decisions.

These shortcuts--that we all take most of the time--are typically formed in childhood and derive from "common-sense intuitions" about the world. These form the basic worldview of any given adult most of his or her life. Being exposed to new information that challenges this foundational view often backfires dramatically in terms of comprehension.

The value of a comprehensive liberal arts education with scientific training is the systematic dismantling of these foundational shortcuts by continuous direct and oblique challenges, with the motivational force of grades serving as an impetus to absorb and incorporate new core values. When one has successfully substantively replaced a portion of that old worldview, it becomes more palatable to reevaluate other foundational views.


You use your mouth purtier than a twenty dollar whore.
 
2013-06-19 03:21:38 PM

MonoChango: J.Shelby: I don't believe, because science doesn't require belief.

Sure it does.
You have to believe your assumptions.  We believe that the scientific process works.  We believe we live in a systematic universe where all laws apply equally no matter where we are in 4 dimensional space/time.  We believe that what we witness is actually what happened.  We make assumptions that time and C are constant.  We can prove 2+2=4 but we can't PROVE that gravity works the same on the surface of a quasar.  These are pretty good bets but they are still assumptions that we believe without proof.


No.  That's the difference.  Most of what you said seems likely at this point.  Subject to future evidence.  That isn't belief.  Your notions about  "4 dimensional space/time" are almost certainly wrong, also.
 
2013-06-19 03:22:12 PM

Ed Grubermann: You've been here way too long to not know who PN is and what it does.


I just had to use the image, it's been sitting on my mind for a while. Also my troll/PN-meter is faulty, I'm very, very tired.

/goes to bed
//yells "Fark yeah, science!"
 
2013-06-19 03:22:41 PM
Well, the commonly believed science of 100 or 1000 years ago was a bit wonky.
 
2013-06-19 03:23:07 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: Pocket Ninja: God invented science, subby. If God isn't real, science isn't real, either.

[pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com image 296x363]


Pocket Ninja is the melding of God and Science, the conjoining of Universal Truth and Objective unreality.
 
2013-06-19 03:23:54 PM

FunkOut: Humans make mistakes.


I first read this as: "Humans are mistakes", which is also an interesting comment.  The question is, "whose mistakes are we?"
 
2013-06-19 03:28:12 PM

DoctorWhat: FunkOut: Humans make mistakes.

I first read this as: "Humans are mistakes", which is also an interesting comment.  The question is, "whose mistakes are we?"



img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 03:28:28 PM

FunkOut: Well, the commonly believed science of 100 or 1000 years ago was a bit wonky.


100 years ago, only among non-scientists.  We already had quantum-farking-physics getting started 100 years ago.  Gene theory was really shaping up well.  The causes, if not solutions to, diseases were become quite apparent.

1000 years ago, there was no science.  I mean the greeks invented the term millennia prior, but the meaning of "scientific method" didn't exist.

Kind of an unreasonable statement.
 
2013-06-19 03:30:56 PM
tl:dr  Probably all BS anyway.
 
2013-06-19 03:32:25 PM

J.Shelby: No. That's the difference. Most of what you said seems likely at this point. Subject to future evidence. That isn't belief. Your notions about "4 dimensional space/time" are almost certainly wrong, also.


Ok your right.  I'll go take my degree in physics back to the University.
 
2013-06-19 03:32:28 PM
Ignorance is bliss. I've found the only way to be objective about certain things is to allow myself to engage in denial and rationalization with other things. I'm a human being, and I can only do so much. To try and do it all is just too taxing and too depressing.

...of course that's probably a BS excuse, but that's how I rationalize my rationalizations.
 
2013-06-19 03:36:00 PM
Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.

Sounds like a liberal conspiracy.  Or if you're an antivaxxer, sounds like a Big Pharma conspiracy.  Or whatever science you don't like, there's some conspiracy, because scientists have so much time on their hands they just like to use it conspiring like crazy.  Because they said Galileo was wrong, and he turned out to be right, so no one can ever be wrong because they're really an undiscovered Galileo.
 
2013-06-19 03:39:13 PM

Raoul Eaton: Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.

Sounds like a liberal conspiracy.  Or if you're an antivaxxer, sounds like a Big Pharma conspiracy.  Or whatever science you don't like, there's some conspiracy, because scientists have so much time on their hands they just like to use it conspiring like crazy.  Because they said Galileo was wrong, and he turned out to be right, so no one can ever be wrong because they're really an undiscovered Galileo.


The amusing thing is it is a conspiracy.  It's a conspiracy to make people stop being quite as wrong through their biases.  And huge institutions like publishers, universities, and governments are in on it.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report