Gnostikosis - 02 July 2010 09:44 AM

jimn - 24 June 2010 07:06 PM

The link between CFCs and the Antarctic ozone hole is extremely well established.  Why would anyone want to despute it?

Because they don’t trust the people involved.

Some guy you don’t know throws some data/information/charts at you that you really don’t understand.

Science is already seen as untrustworthy because some try to tell you that you are an idiot for believing what you believe.

Let’s try to discuss this.

Why is science seen as so untrustworthy?

What role does the media play in explaining the scientist’s science to the layperson’s understanding level?

How has the media fulfilled its duties as the layperson’s window into
understanding what those incomprehensible smart guy scientists are doing, learning?

How much plain jealous resentment might laypeople hold towards smart people?
      How much might that effect who they trust?

Are people influenced by image over content?

These are just starter questions. . .

Science is trustworthy as a methodology for understanding reality.

This methodology requires alot of information, time and effort.

Most people lack the time, or inititive, to aquire anough information to use this methodology themselves.

The scientific method is the BEST we have come up with, and today people throw around ‘science says’ with the same blind faith they used to throw around ‘god says.’

Far more often then not the problem is not the car, but the driver.

There is no way we can know most of the researchers who report their work.  Instead, we have to find other independent researchers who have attempted to replicate the work and see if they were able to repeat the results.  While it’s ad hominum in an argument, checking the credentials and past behavior of those reporting results gives some indication of trustworthiness. 

Occam
Wordpad

Whoops, I just realized Chris123 is really spam pushing his program, so I’ll be deleting all of his posts.

Stormy Fairweather - 03 July 2010 02:56 PM

Science is trustworthy as a methodology for understanding reality.

This methodology requires alot of information, time and effort.

Most people lack the time, or inititive, to aquire anough information to use this methodology themselves.

The scientific method is the BEST we have come up with, and today people throw around ‘science says’ with the same blind faith they used to throw around ‘god says.’

Far more often then not the problem is not the car, but the driver.

The grade schools “teach” by memorization.  It is just as easy to memorize incorrect information as correct information.  Children are not taught to UNDERSTAND things and trust their own comprehension.

psik

Media always give generalized view of scientific theories and invention but some of the concepts require in depth analysis without which many science project looks vague. For example, some people thought LHC project was waste of funds.

So does it come down to us having a society that
is scientifically ignorant,
is not curious,
and would rather believe self created Fairytails rather than look at the real world around them???

Therefore, all the folks off in the outfield waving their arms are just seen as distractions from the Hollyworld movie most everyone else is so obsessed with fixating on.

I’m not sure that American society is especially less curious or scientifically ignorant than in decades past.  However, I find it curious that we (as a society) seem to have this glut of vocal denialists at a time when there is more information more easily obtained than at any previous point in history.  It might be that this plethora of information makes it more difficult for the layperson to make an informed decision on a topic because there’s simply too much information to process.  Given several different viewpoints, each of which appears to be (but is not necessarily) supported by a sizable body of informed individuals, it’s no big surprise that people seem to go with the stance that’s most attuned to their gut feeling.

I’m not sure how big of a role the media plays in the current distrust some people have in science, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be helping science’s case.  Take, for instance, the typical media reports of evolution or climate change.  News stories of evolution vs. creationism almost invariably cast the story as a conflict of differing viewpoints of similar validity and portray one’s acceptance as a personal choice.  Academic freedom is good and all, but in a debate that offers differing truth statements about the world, only one side can be correct and your personal feelings about either side are irrelevant.  And in framing the “controversy” as a battle of equals, pseudoscience is given credibility while science is cast into doubt.