Though I think I'm very naïve myself, I thought Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" was painfully simplistic and hopelessly optimistic. He was as pro-science as it gets, and he hoped everyone else would convert to his worldview once they saw "the light". I'm pretty pro-science myself, and a hopeless romantic, but I don't think that is ever going to happen because it is human to rebel against everything that can be rebelled against. And that's awesome, in my opinion - progress needs naysayers too.
However, this can also be problematic. It's become physically impossible to know everything. We ran out of Aristotles and Galileos simply because there's too much to be known out there, and the ordinary person now often needs to remain ignorant about things that are of the utmost importance in life. Hell, I don't know what people are doing in my own department at uni, and I don't think anyone's got the time to study everything they're working on. Trusting the specialists that studied and grasped what you can't study would be a solution to this problem, but how? Are you willing to believe someone you can't debate?
Perhaps that's why religion is appealing in the misguided debate between science and religion. God is so simple an explanans that even peasants with no education can understand. Here's an interesting article I read this morning and wanted to share with you :)
quote:
The trouble with trusting complex science
There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will do nothing to change this view.
The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on science. Writing recently for the Telegraph, the columnist Gerald Warner dismissed scientists as "white-coated prima donnas and narcissists … pointy-heads in lab coats [who] have reassumed the role of mad cranks … The public is no longer in awe of scientists. Like squabbling evangelical churches in the 19th century, they can form as many schismatic sects as they like, nobody is listening to them any more."
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company – and precious few journalists – with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world. But the problem is compounded by complexity. Arthur C Clarke remarked that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". He might have added that any sufficiently advanced expertise is indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Scientific specialisation is now so extreme that even people studying neighbouring subjects within the same discipline can no longer understand each other. The detail of modern science is incomprehensible to almost everyone, which means that we have to take what scientists say on trust. Yet science tells us to trust nothing, to believe only what can be demonstrated. This contradiction is fatal to public confidence.
Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals, whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels, and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish, yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they'll charge you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals that publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.
But there's a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology – from Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No – casts scientists as sinister schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers. Sometimes this isn't far from the truth. Some use their genius to weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they sell. Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of hurting us.
Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Preston called for a prophet to lead us out of the wilderness. "We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince … We need to be taught to believe by a true believer." Would it work? No. Look at the hatred and derision the passionate and persuasive Al Gore attracts. The problem is not only that most climate scientists can speak no recognisable human language, but also the expectation that people are amenable to persuasion.
In 2008 the Washington Post summarised recent psychological research on misinformation. This shows that in some cases debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government's claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
There's a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in January. It shows that people tend to "take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd". Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, for instance, "tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire". Those with more egalitarian values are "more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted".
These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor. Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. "As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information." The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer report, rather than the information it contained.
While this analysis rings true, the description of where the dividing line lies isn't quite right. It doesn't describe the odd position in which I find myself. Despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts, I spend much of my time defending the scientific establishment from attacks by the kind of rabble-rousers with whom I usually associate. My heart rebels against this project: I would rather be pelting scientists with eggs than trying to understand their datasets. But my beliefs oblige me to try to make sense of the science and to explain its implications. This turns out to be the most divisive project I've ever engaged in. The more I stick to the facts, the more virulent the abuse becomes.
This doesn't bother me – I have a hide like a glyptodon – but it reinforces the disturbing possibility that nothing works. The research discussed in the Nature paper shows that when scientists dress soberly, shave off their beards and give their papers conservative titles, they can reach to the other side. But in doing so they will surely alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to trust them. As the MMR saga shows, people who mistrust authority are just as likely to kick against science as those who respect it.
Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don't want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life's work.
good find, shared this with a few of my scientist friends.
i'd like some feedback from people in the research field (do we have any on here?)
Nrg2Nfinit
the problem with climate change is that the protagonists make drastic unfounded claims that are not peer reviewed which turns off the general listener.
Sure we are effecting climate change there is no doubt about it, but its the tree hugging loonies that are making up that are ruining it for the rest of us. The IPCC is a muck. You can't have political persuaders meddling with the scientific research and drawing their own drastic unfounded conclusions.
Its not an issue about science itself its about how some people in turn may interpret it however they may want (sort of what statistics kind of does). We will always need to have the naysayers to improve our scientific methods.
Religion is simply evolved organized mythology. A god can't be disproven at this point in time but there is no evidence whatsoever to say which religion out there is the right one and thus its fair to say that they are all wrong :p
woscar
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Though I think I'm very naïve myself, I thought Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" was painfully simplistic and hopelessly optimistic. He was as pro-science as it gets, and he hoped everyone else would convert to his worldview once they saw "the light". I'm pretty pro-science myself, and a hopeless romantic, but I don't think that is ever going to happen because it is human to rebel against everything that can be rebelled against. And that's awesome, in my opinion - progress needs naysayers too.
However, this can also be problematic. It's become physically impossible to know everything. We ran out of Aristotles and Galileos simply because there's too much to be known out there, and the ordinary person now often needs to remain ignorant about things that are of the utmost importance in life. Hell, I don't know what people are doing in my own department at uni, and I don't think anyone's got the time to study everything they're working on. Trusting the specialists that studied and grasped what you can't study would be a solution to this problem, but how? Are you willing to believe someone you can't debate?
Perhaps that's why religion is appealing in the misguided debate between science and religion. God is so simple an explanans that even peasants with no education can understand. Here's an interesting article I read this morning and wanted to share with you :)
When you read Carl Sagan, his passion for science oozes from every sentence. If you tend to focus more on the hopeless romantic way that it is written, than on the actual point he is trying to convey then I can see how you would think that it's naive.
I never got the impression that he was trying to convert anyone to his own world-view. It was an attempt to get people to have their own world-view by using their observational and critical thinking skills instead of through childhood indoctrination and dogma.
He does stand up for science a lot throughout the book, and that is understandable given how much crap it gets from people who know very little or nothing about it. He doesn't see the undermining of science, logic, and reason as something positive for society. I couldn't agree more.
Capitalizt
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Perhaps that's why religion is appealing in the misguided debate between science and religion. God is so simple an explanans that even peasants with no education can understand.
Sorry Lira, but the above statement is beyond absurd. God is an incredibly complicated explenation that requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand. Extremely intelligent and rational people devote their entire lives; even to the exclusion of all other pursuits, to the study of theology/God and will readily admit that they don't understand; rather, the total result of all their effort is mearly a slightly better informed belief. Sure, there are people who will use God as a crutch to explain that which they cannot; however, this is a contrition in the face of complexity; not understanding.
I would suggest that the reason some people hold to a stringent disbelief in certain aspects of science is the very same reason others hold to a stringent disbelief in God; a lack of familiarity and/or understanding. People tend to believe what they can observe; believing in the observable is easy. Many people do not have the opportunity to observe complex science at work. A farm-hand in Nebraska doesn't have ready access to oceanic tempeture readings, cannot measure the rate of melt in the antartic ice cap, or see that carbon molecules are sitting in the sky reflecting sunlight back to earth. What the farm-hand can readily observe is that the tempeture does not feel significantly different today then it did last year at this time; consequently, this global warming doesn't jive with what he observes and he's disinclined to believe it. Couple this with the natural confirmation bias that we all have and the farm-hand pays attention to second-hand evidence that supports his belief and disregards that which does not. The end result is that if the evidence supporting his belief is outweighed by the evidence contradicting his belief then he develops a distrust of those who contradict him and dismisses them rather then revisiting his position, as that's the easiser path.
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by denys envy
good find, shared this with a few of my scientist friends.
i'd like some feedback from people in the research field (do we have any on here?)
I have a research position at UiO (University of Oslo) where I study the long-term effect of high radiation on carrots, and I must say I think the article raises some very interesting questions, and I have sent it to my boss, Professor Kråkehatt, to see what his views on the subject are.
Capitalizt
I was too young for Cosmos..but have since watched most of it and read a couple of his books and I frakking love Carl Cargan. He still has plenty of influence..and when I see stuff like this, my respect for him just continues to grow..
Incidentally I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is a great spokesman for science these days. He will never replace Carl, but he has an awesome series on PBS Nova and has appeared many times on The Daily Show and Colbert Report..always getting a great reception from the audience.
P.S.
Have you Sagan fans seen these videos? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO good!!
woscar
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry Lira, but the above statement is beyond absurd. God is an incredibly complicated explenation that requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand. Extremely intelligent and rational people devote their entire lives; even to the exclusion of all other pursuits, to the study of theology/God and will readily admit that they don't understand; rather, the total result of all their effort is mearly a slightly better informed belief. Sure, there are people who will use God as a crutch to explain that which they cannot; however, this is a contrition in the face of complexity; not understanding.
I would suggest that the reason some people hold to a stringent disbelief in certain aspects of science is the very same reason others hold to a stringent disbelief in God; a lack of familiarity and/or understanding. People tend to believe what they can observe; believing in the observable is easy. Many people do not have the opportunity to observe complex science at work. A farm-hand in Nebraska doesn't have ready access to oceanic tempeture readings, cannot measure the rate of melt in the antartic ice cap, or see that carbon molecules are sitting in the sky reflecting sunlight back to earth. What the farm-hand can readily observe is that the tempeture does not feel significantly different today then it did last year at this time; consequently, this global warming doesn't jive with what he observes and he's disinclined to believe it. Couple this with the natural confirmation bias that we all have and the farm-hand pays attention to second-hand evidence that supports his belief and disregards that which does not. The end result is that if the evidence supporting his belief is outweighed by the evidence contradicting his belief then he develops a distrust of those who contradict him and dismisses them rather then revisiting his position, as that's the easiser path.
Actually, what you are saying is what's beyond absurd. You are saying that the theistic explanation "requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand.". Yet, this is what the majority of the population of Earth accept a priori, without educating themselves, reflecting, or studying. So, as the evidence clearly shows, education, reflection, or studies are not a requirement to believe in the theistic explanation of the universe. In fact, it is the most ridiculously simplest explanation to life, the universe and everything. Stop deluding yourself into believing it is complex and that it requires anything more than petty faith to believe in it.
Also, it's pretty naive to think that the reason why so many people distrust science is through their own observational and experimental methods, as simple and flawed as they may be. You even go as far as comparing it to a disbelief in a supreme intelligent being, to which there is no evidence whatsoever. The fact is that the reasons are quite complex and varied. There are people who don't trust science because it generally contradicts their own dogmatic beliefs, then there are people that don't trust it because they don't understand it or haven't bothered trying to, there's also people that don't trust it because they think it's evil and Satan's tool devised with the sole purpose of killing faith.
Moongoose
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry Lira, but the above statement is beyond absurd. God is an incredibly complicated explenation that requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand. Extremely intelligent and rational people devote their entire lives; even to the exclusion of all other pursuits, to the study of theology/God and will readily admit that they don't understand; rather, the total result of all their effort is mearly a slightly better informed belief. Sure, there are people who will use God as a crutch to explain that which they cannot; however, this is a contrition in the face of complexity; not understanding.
Since when? since when has god been a complex explanation to anything? An explanation so complex, that it requires an incredible amount of education to understand no less. How much of an education do you need to understand "god did it" and "its gods plan"? There can be a debate on the moral issues that various religions push, there is place for discussion there, but the core issues, the core questions; where, when, why? The answer to those is always the same. god.
As for the extremely rational people that devote their entire lives to the study of god and still claim that they dont understand...i can make the same claim after a lifetime of study of pink unicorns. But devoting a lifetime of study to those pink unicorns doesnt make them complex, a valid study point or real for that matter.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
Actually, what you are saying is what's beyond absurd. You are saying that the theistic explanation "requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand.". Yet, this is what the majority of the population of Earth accept a priori, without educating themselves, reflecting, or studying.
Acceptance =/= understanding
quote:
So, as the evidence clearly shows, education, reflection, or studies are not a requirement to believe in the theistic explanation of the universe.
belief =/= understanding
quote:
In fact, it is the most ridiculously simplest explanation to life, the universe and everything.
it is only simple if one's inquiries stop at the initial response.
quote:
Stop deluding yourself into believing it is complex and that it requires anything more than petty faith to believe in it.
I agree, it requires nothing more then faith to believe in ANYTHING but as stated earlier belief and understanding are not the same thing.
quote:
Also, it's pretty naive to think that the reason why so many people distrust science is through their own observational and experimental methods, as simple and flawed as they may be. You even go as far as comparing it to a disbelief in a supreme intelligent being, to which there is no evidence whatsoever. The fact is that the reasons are quite complex and varied. There are people who don't trust science because it generally contradicts their own dogmatic beliefs, then there are people that don't trust it because they don't understand it or haven't bothered trying to, there's also people that don't trust it because they think it's evil and Satan's tool devised with the sole purpose of killing faith.
And this differs from my second paragraph how?
woscar
'Moral Hazard' is a textbook example of a Christian who is a tad more intelligent than the bunch and realizes how absurd faith is but is scared less to admit it. So, he comes up with all this "complex, hard to grasp, must be studied, other highly intelligent people dedicate their live to studying it (even scientists!)" bull to delude himself into thinking that there is a justification for his faith.
Ironic thing is, that according to the Bible, the only way to reach salvation and avoid eternal damnation and ass-raping is not through actions but through faith. And according to the Bible's own definition of faith, Moral Hazard is in violation of it by attempting to use his brain. Good thing that hell is all imaginary, right? You might have had more fun if you realized this sooner, though.
