4 ms·

How non-scientists think about science and science-denial

22 points by vixen99 9y ago

haberman 9y ago
Scientific theories and predictions should be presented to the public with a confidence attached. When people group gravity, evolution, dark energy, global warming, economics, psychological theories, etc. under a single banner of "science", it obscures the fact that some of these things can be modeled with far greater certainty than others.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  > Scientific theories and predictions should be presented to the public with a confidence attached. Theoretically, that's what peer-review is all about. Is your theory published in Nature? High confidence. Is your theory a FoxNews piece on a 'recent study'? Low confidence.
  - laingc 9y ago
    Having any kind of confidence in the peer review system is, in my opinion, horribly misplaced. Particularly with regard to Nature, the following website might interest you: http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retractions/ http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retrac...
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      It's all relative I guess.
- tpeo 9y ago
  I'm somewhat flattered that you think that the man on the street might count economics among the "sciences", because from my experience laymen are already pretty skeptic when it comes to economics. Psychology too, though to a lesser degree. In fact, it seems that so long as the subject in question isn't completely opaque to them, they might be tempted to generalize from limited experiences and will start holding strong opinions of their own despite whatever it is that experts say. Which I think can be fine, specially if the experts don't have a great track record (e.g. economics and psychology). But it can also get absurd pretty quickly, like when people point out some huge snowstorm in their town in response to "global warming", as if that proves anything.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Frogolocalypse 9y ago
Why all of this 'all or nothing' attitude to everything? Dare I suggest that this comes from an almost uniquely American attitude to winning things? There is good science, and bad science. Scientific study is produced by people, with all of their faults, and it is a refinement and rethink over time that turns "established fact!" into nuanced understanding. If this isn't recognized, it is used by some to say "that fact turned out to be wrong! Therefore that science is wrong!". It isn't like that. Science comes from a question, or many questions. Scientists (i.e. people) use observation to turn those questions into what they think are answers. It is this process that is science, not the facts that they produce. If all you do is focus on facts, you can't critically analyze why something shouldn't be correct, and further science by thinking about how you can explain why this isn't the case. So you end up with arguments about facts instead of arguments about why observations and perceptions are different, which is what science is supposed to be about. My 2.2c.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  Exactly. Vaccines: good science Cold fusion: bad science PTSD: good science Aryan Race: bad science All or nothing is indeed the wrong way to look at it.

22 points by vixen99 9y ago

Scientific theories and predictions should be presented to the public with a confidence attached. When people group gravity, evolution, dark energy, global warming, economics, psychological theories, etc. under a single banner of "science", it obscures the fact that some of these things can be modeled with far greater certainty than others.

Frogolocalypse 9y ago
> Scientific theories and predictions should be presented to the public with a confidence attached. Theoretically, that's what peer-review is all about. Is your theory published in Nature? High confidence. Is your theory a FoxNews piece on a 'recent study'? Low confidence.
- laingc 9y ago
  Having any kind of confidence in the peer review system is, in my opinion, horribly misplaced. Particularly with regard to Nature, the following website might interest you: http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retractions/ http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retrac...
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    It's all relative I guess.
tpeo 9y ago
I'm somewhat flattered that you think that the man on the street might count economics among the "sciences", because from my experience laymen are already pretty skeptic when it comes to economics. Psychology too, though to a lesser degree. In fact, it seems that so long as the subject in question isn't completely opaque to them, they might be tempted to generalize from limited experiences and will start holding strong opinions of their own despite whatever it is that experts say. Which I think can be fine, specially if the experts don't have a great track record (e.g. economics and psychology). But it can also get absurd pretty quickly, like when people point out some huge snowstorm in their town in response to "global warming", as if that proves anything.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Frogolocalypse 9y ago

Why all of this 'all or nothing' attitude to everything? Dare I suggest that this comes from an almost uniquely American attitude to winning things? There is good science, and bad science. Scientific study is produced by people, with all of their faults, and it is a refinement and rethink over time that turns "established fact!" into nuanced understanding. If this isn't recognized, it is used by some to say "that fact turned out to be wrong! Therefore that science is wrong!". It isn't like that. Science comes from a question, or many questions. Scientists (i.e. people) use observation to turn those questions into what they think are answers. It is this process that is science, not the facts that they produce. If all you do is focus on facts, you can't critically analyze why something shouldn't be correct, and further science by thinking about how you can explain why this isn't the case. So you end up with arguments about facts instead of arguments about why observations and perceptions are different, which is what science is supposed to be about. My 2.2c.

paulddraper 9y ago
Exactly. Vaccines: good science Cold fusion: bad science PTSD: good science Aryan Race: bad science All or nothing is indeed the wrong way to look at it.