4 ms·

Does it really matter? Most people can believe in witches, intelligent design and what not while doing their jobs good enough. Europe, Far East, Russia trust sc

by borisk 16y ago

Does it really matter? Most people can believe in witches, intelligent design and what not while doing their jobs good enough. Europe, Far East, Russia trust science way more, but it doesn't seem to lead to any significant advantage.

sidww2 16y ago
I'm not so sure. If we are talking about the advantage in terms of the advantage in enhancing scientific knowledge, then certainly things have changed since WWII but pre-WWII, if my knowledge of history is correct, the majority of advances in theoretical science and mathematics happened in Europe. Even today a large number of scientists working in America are foreign-born. Now I don't know how much people trusted science and the scientific consensus in Europe vs America back then but I wouldn't be surprised if Europe was more progressive back then either.
jswinghammer 16y ago
Couldn't agree more. I've never really understood why anyone cares about who believes what when it comes to topics in science. You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree? I'm sort of amazed at the arrogance on display by those who seem bent on making sure everyone agrees with them. It seems like we would be served well by some degree of skepticism of the bishops and the scientific establishment (in all areas). It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. For my part I'm skeptical of the claims of biologists, mainstream economists, climatologists, and those who offer financial advice. I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. I might get made fun of behind my back for doubting these people but that's fine by me. I also didn't take any losses in the latest stock market crash because I saw it coming three years ahead of time and was safely in cash waiting for the market to figure out what I already knew. I take strong positions on economics because the outcome can really affect me and my family. I might be wrong of course but at least I'm going in with my eyes open.
- Jach 16y ago
  http://lesswrong.com/lw/hn/your_rationality_is_my_business/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hn/your_rationality_is_my_business/
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    Seems like the argument here is that because this person can't mind his own business I need to hear about it. Not sure about anyone else but my life is complicated enough without me taking on the problems of other people who aren't asking for my help in the first place.
- blahedo 16y ago
  > You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree? Because we're afraid that that could change.
- FlemishBeeCycle 16y ago
  I don't think this is arrogance, no one is lacking in humility and skepticism. It is more a matter that any and every claim need not be treated with the same sort of gravity as a rigorously investigated subject. The scientists in question are most likely dismissive of people purposefully ignoring evidence that does not fit into their world/political views rather than view points rooted in scientific data. It is absolutely important to care what others' think when it comes to topics in science. We live in a society, and others' views and ideas unfortunately will most likely impact people other than themselves. People are free to be as ignorant as they want in isolation, but the moment they start affecting policy, we should care.
- ewjordan 16y ago
  I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. You're just fine with having the next generation of schoolkids taught that "God Did It (or maybe aliens)" is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, then? Because this fight started with religious zealots trying to prosecute teachers for going against scripture, and it's hard to have any doubt that the clowns pushing Intelligent Design would do something similar if people stopped smacking them down. It might not matter to you whether evolution is right or not, but that's not what the fight is about - the fight is about whether or not scientists should have to poll the idiocracy and make sure they won't offend them before reporting their findings. And yes, I'm arguing slippery slope, maybe - but the argument in favor of worry is a lot more compelling when we've just finished clawing our way up from the bottom. It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. Absolutely. And with climate science, I'd tend to agree with you, we don't know all that much and might want to be careful about how much we trust the preliminary findings - the data appears to be messy, incomplete, and difficult to work with, and the field started out so highly politicized that it's hard to know who to trust. Evolution, on the other hand, is not even in the same ballpark - evidence is plentiful, it all agrees with the theory, and consensus is overwhelming (and one big difference between bio and climate science is that biologists don't tend to go into biology because of political leanings, so there's far less selection bias amongst researchers).
alanh 16y ago
For one: Scientific illiteracy → Biblical literalism & religious fundamentalism → Prop 8, the Texas school board, citizens voting as proxies for religious leaders Relevant to the article, herd immunity is compromised by those misinformed about vaccine safety.
MichaelSalib 16y ago
Do you believe that there are public policy questions whose answers depend on science AND are very important? If so, then it should matter a very great deal. In other words, if you're the kind of person who believes that either climate change is no big deal or that there is nothing that humans can do about it, then it doesn't matter at all. Alternatively, if you think climate change is a big deal and that humans can do something about it, then public understanding of science matters because altering it might kill/save a few hundred million people. Do you think the lives of a few hundred million human beings matter?
- derefr 16y ago
  If there's something everyone needs to do, no amount of education will saturate the population to the point that everyone required to do it, does it. Some people just don't care outside of the here and now, unless they're made to care with a carrot or a stick. You need to have a law either punishing them for not doing it, or rewarding them for doing it (i.e. carbon-neutral business tax credits) for them to pay attention. (And even then, some people still won't care, or will willfully skirt the law. Hopefully this number will be negligible enough to allow the law to still have its intended effect.) Don't think of it as a big, scary, nebulous concept like "justice", though. Call it what it is: game design. The body of law is the game that every citizen of a country is always playing, and like any game, you can encourage paths to be followed, and choices to be made, by putting variable-scheduled rewards and increasing "justified" challenges along those paths. The only people who need to understand the "public policy questions", in a world where public policy is set up as law, are the legislators (the "game designers"). This is simply an argument for better-educated legislators, not a better-educated populace.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Except that we live in a democracy, where people vote for the legislators who they think will do the better job. When the populace believe in stupid things, you'll get legislators who pander to that, while ignoring the important stuff.
    - 16y ago
nzmsv 16y ago
> Europe, Far East, Russia trust science way more They do?

by borisk 16y ago

sidww2 16y ago

I'm not so sure. If we are talking about the advantage in terms of the advantage in enhancing scientific knowledge, then certainly things have changed since WWII but pre-WWII, if my knowledge of history is correct, the majority of advances in theoretical science and mathematics happened in Europe. Even today a large number of scientists working in America are foreign-born. Now I don't know how much people trusted science and the scientific consensus in Europe vs America back then but I wouldn't be surprised if Europe was more progressive back then either.

jswinghammer 16y ago

Couldn't agree more. I've never really understood why anyone cares about who believes what when it comes to topics in science. You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree? I'm sort of amazed at the arrogance on display by those who seem bent on making sure everyone agrees with them. It seems like we would be served well by some degree of skepticism of the bishops and the scientific establishment (in all areas). It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. For my part I'm skeptical of the claims of biologists, mainstream economists, climatologists, and those who offer financial advice. I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. I might get made fun of behind my back for doubting these people but that's fine by me. I also didn't take any losses in the latest stock market crash because I saw it coming three years ahead of time and was safely in cash waiting for the market to figure out what I already knew. I take strong positions on economics because the outcome can really affect me and my family. I might be wrong of course but at least I'm going in with my eyes open.

Jach 16y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/hn/your_rationality_is_my_business/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/hn/your_rationality_is_my_business/
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  Seems like the argument here is that because this person can't mind his own business I need to hear about it. Not sure about anyone else but my life is complicated enough without me taking on the problems of other people who aren't asking for my help in the first place.
blahedo 16y ago
> You can't advance in a career in the sciences without accepting on some terms evolution by means of natural selection so who cares if a bunch of people don't agree? Because we're afraid that that could change.
FlemishBeeCycle 16y ago
I don't think this is arrogance, no one is lacking in humility and skepticism. It is more a matter that any and every claim need not be treated with the same sort of gravity as a rigorously investigated subject. The scientists in question are most likely dismissive of people purposefully ignoring evidence that does not fit into their world/political views rather than view points rooted in scientific data. It is absolutely important to care what others' think when it comes to topics in science. We live in a society, and others' views and ideas unfortunately will most likely impact people other than themselves. People are free to be as ignorant as they want in isolation, but the moment they start affecting policy, we should care.
ewjordan 16y ago
I don't take a strong position on evolution one way or another because the outcome doesn't affect me in any way. You're just fine with having the next generation of schoolkids taught that "God Did It (or maybe aliens)" is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, then? Because this fight started with religious zealots trying to prosecute teachers for going against scripture, and it's hard to have any doubt that the clowns pushing Intelligent Design would do something similar if people stopped smacking them down. It might not matter to you whether evolution is right or not, but that's not what the fight is about - the fight is about whether or not scientists should have to poll the idiocracy and make sure they won't offend them before reporting their findings. And yes, I'm arguing slippery slope, maybe - but the argument in favor of worry is a lot more compelling when we've just finished clawing our way up from the bottom. It seems like the more we know the more we lose sight of what we still don't know and don't proceed with much humility. Absolutely. And with climate science, I'd tend to agree with you, we don't know all that much and might want to be careful about how much we trust the preliminary findings - the data appears to be messy, incomplete, and difficult to work with, and the field started out so highly politicized that it's hard to know who to trust. Evolution, on the other hand, is not even in the same ballpark - evidence is plentiful, it all agrees with the theory, and consensus is overwhelming (and one big difference between bio and climate science is that biologists don't tend to go into biology because of political leanings, so there's far less selection bias amongst researchers).

alanh 16y ago

For one: Scientific illiteracy → Biblical literalism & religious fundamentalism → Prop 8, the Texas school board, citizens voting as proxies for religious leaders Relevant to the article, herd immunity is compromised by those misinformed about vaccine safety.

MichaelSalib 16y ago

Do you believe that there are public policy questions whose answers depend on science AND are very important? If so, then it should matter a very great deal. In other words, if you're the kind of person who believes that either climate change is no big deal or that there is nothing that humans can do about it, then it doesn't matter at all. Alternatively, if you think climate change is a big deal and that humans can do something about it, then public understanding of science matters because altering it might kill/save a few hundred million people. Do you think the lives of a few hundred million human beings matter?

derefr 16y ago
If there's something everyone needs to do, no amount of education will saturate the population to the point that everyone required to do it, does it. Some people just don't care outside of the here and now, unless they're made to care with a carrot or a stick. You need to have a law either punishing them for not doing it, or rewarding them for doing it (i.e. carbon-neutral business tax credits) for them to pay attention. (And even then, some people still won't care, or will willfully skirt the law. Hopefully this number will be negligible enough to allow the law to still have its intended effect.) Don't think of it as a big, scary, nebulous concept like "justice", though. Call it what it is: game design. The body of law is the game that every citizen of a country is always playing, and like any game, you can encourage paths to be followed, and choices to be made, by putting variable-scheduled rewards and increasing "justified" challenges along those paths. The only people who need to understand the "public policy questions", in a world where public policy is set up as law, are the legislators (the "game designers"). This is simply an argument for better-educated legislators, not a better-educated populace.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Except that we live in a democracy, where people vote for the legislators who they think will do the better job. When the populace believe in stupid things, you'll get legislators who pander to that, while ignoring the important stuff.
  - 16y ago

nzmsv 16y ago

> Europe, Far East, Russia trust science way more They do?