5 ms·

I think a lot of the (over)reaction to “dumb” questions is that people of average capability can’t explain the conventional wisdom, and therefore feel an ego th

I think a lot of the (over)reaction to “dumb” questions is that people of average capability can’t explain the conventional wisdom, and therefore feel an ego threat when it’s questioned. To quote the point: > So one should be unafraid to ask “stupid” questions, challenging conventional wisdom on a subject; the answers to these questions will occasionally lead to a surprising conclusion, but more often will simply tell you why the conventional wisdom is there in the first place, which is well worth knowing. I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. Or explain the experiments you can see yourself, eg pendulums or round pools.

gwervc 3y ago
> I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. I've played a few times this game with people on a topic that generates strong feelings (climate change) enough to keep play for awhile, and I have yet to find someone going further than "scientists say". Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper. In general there is a lot of assumed "knowledge" about everything everywhere and it's better not asking questions because it can make people really angry.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- feoren 3y ago
  > a single name of a scientist or paper Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that something is only true if it comes out of the words of a famous scientist is antithetical to science. Compare the temperature of the inside of your car to the outside on a hot sunny day if you want an example of the greenhouse effect.
  - kragen 3y ago
    scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions
    - haswell 3y ago
      > but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why There are a few issues mixed up in this. First, we all hold core beliefs about the world that we can’t justify from first hand experience. Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say”, but they’ve been in the public consciousness for long enough that the beliefs no longer evoke deference to scientific figures, e.g. very few people believe the earth is flat, but would not be able to tell you why, or who was involved in proving this. While climate change deniers may pull the “scientists say” card, and while I think it’s worth being extra wary of claims that falsely invoke science, I think that this kind of science denialism is orthogonal to the ongoing practice/reality of “trusting science”, which is something that most people must do for practical reasons. Put another way, most of us have to “trust the science”, mostly blindly, and there’s very little we can do about that. Helping people discern who they should trust seems like the most important area of focus.
      - kragen 3y ago
        i don't think it's orthogonal at all; i think this kind of science denialism is the inevitable result of the ongoing practice of "trusting science" instead of actually doing science, which is how you can discern who you should trust
      - feoren 3y ago
        > Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say” The beliefs don't "boil down" at all: they form an interconnected web of theory and explanations that support and reinforce each other. You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith, but that's not true. These aren't independent propositions that can be falsified on their own without dragging down an entire body of scientific understanding -- including things you have verified yourself.
- maksimur 3y ago
  I'd say their reaction depends mostly on how you approach them and the discussion. People generally have more pressing issues in their life and prefer delegating them to recognised authorities.
  - kragen 3y ago
    naturally, but obviously argumentum ad verecundiam is the opposite of science
    - maksimur 3y ago
      It's indeed the opposite of science, but the average person doesn't have the time, patience or energy to be doing science. Thus the need to put the trust on people that do because they're often right. If anything, when you see them appealing to the wrong or vague authority, you could provide better options or become one yourself.
    - Tainnor 3y ago
      Even scientists can't help but trusting other scientists. Nobody can rederive everything from scratch.
      - kragen 3y ago
        there's a world of difference between 'the crc handbook says pentamethonium frangonide has a specific heat of 2951 kilojoules per mole per kelvin, but its molar mass is only 502 grams per mole, so that would give a surprisingly high specific heat of 5.9 kilojoules per gram per kelvin, so i'd better check the nist webbook and google scholar, but probably this grammatical-error-filled paper i found in google scholar from three researchers i've never heard of published in a journal i've never heard of isn't a very reliable source and they were probably just copying the crc handbook' and 'scientists say there's a missing link' being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch gives you a lot of information about who to trust
        Tainnor 3y ago
- blackbear_ 3y ago
  > someone going further than "scientists say" What does "going further" mean here, what kind of answer would make you happy?
  - kragen 3y ago
    literally the next sentence in the comment you're replying to, after the one you quoted, is an implicit answer to that question: > Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper.
    - blackbear_ 3y ago
      I really hoped that there was something more substantial than name-dropping before dismissing people's opinions.
      - haswell 3y ago
        Are people’s opinions being dismissed here? I find it unsurprising that many people have no direct awareness of the underlying science behind basic things. That lack of awareness is not an indictment of the science or even the unaware person. Most of us know almost nothing about the world around us relatively speaking. We behave as if we know, but for the most part we’re just repeating/perpetuating beliefs embedded by the current iteration of culture. Direct knowledge is increasingly rare.
        blackbear_ 3y ago
        Yes I completely agree with you. I just don't think that knowing scientists names is a good proxy for having direct knowledge, as the post I originally replied to seemed to imply.
        kragen 3y ago
        i think it is. in any area that i know well, i can name some important ideas, who came up with them, what their arguments were, who was opposed, what arguments they presented against those positions, and so on if you can't name any papers or authors you probably can't explain any of the arguments in the papers either, and if you happen to have chosen the correct authorities to put your trust in, that's most likely purely a question of luck, not epistemic virtue
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
feoren 3y ago
Everyone can explain how we know that. The base of ships disappear before the mast from far away. You can see the tops of skyscrapers, but not the bottom, from the right distance across a body of water. We have photos and video of the Earth. We've flown in planes. We can call up people in different latitudes and compare lengths of shadows or positions of the sun and stars. I'm guessing when you say they "can't explain how we know that", you're discounting photo and video evidence that they've seen; you're discounting the flight trajectory maps they see on planes; you're discounting the nature shows and documentaries they've watched; you're discounting the fact that any other explanation makes no fucking sense; you're discounting the history they learned about Magellan. There's no reason to say that none of that is evidence. They're not blindly following like sheep, they have an enormous body of evidence in front of them and there is no counter-evidence. Stop acting like they're stupid.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I haven’t tried asking many people that, have you? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a noticeable population for whom that sort of example just didn’t come to mind. I don’t think they are stupid, we’re just naturally lazy about essentially meaningless questions that everybody knows the answer to already, in general.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  You can't prove to us that "everyone" understands a thing simply by demonstrating that you understand that thing.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I think that quite reasonably, many just trust what someone told them — eg, of your answers: - trust someone’s photo/video - trust someone’s map - trust someone’s narrative in a video - “everyone else is just wrong!” - trust someone’s narrative about long ago I think it’s fascinating that your examples to drive home how ridiculous you find the question were all about how we just need to trust authorities. (Including you!) There’s nothing wrong with trusting people; I’m just pointing out that most people believe the Earth is round because they trust an authority, and not because they did any of the physical examples in your first paragraph personally. Or understand the logic of why that’s an example.

gwervc 3y ago

> I’m always amazed at how many people insist the world is round, but can’t explain how we know that. I've played a few times this game with people on a topic that generates strong feelings (climate change) enough to keep play for awhile, and I have yet to find someone going further than "scientists say". Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper. In general there is a lot of assumed "knowledge" about everything everywhere and it's better not asking questions because it can make people really angry.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
feoren 3y ago
> a single name of a scientist or paper Unlike philosophy or religion, science does not rest on the laurels of one accomplished prophet. The idea that something is only true if it comes out of the words of a famous scientist is antithetical to science. Compare the temperature of the inside of your car to the outside on a hot sunny day if you want an example of the greenhouse effect.
- kragen 3y ago
  scientific conclusions rest on specific arguments in specific papers by specific people, including specific evidence. the people don't have to be famous or prophets; they just have to provide evidence but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why. it's just as easily used to support false statements as true ones; for example, climate change deniers often say that scientists say we are in more danger of global cooling, or that scientists say that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly exceed anthropogenic emissions
  - haswell 3y ago
    > but it is the antithesis of science to repeat that 'scientists say' something without knowing which scientists say them and why There are a few issues mixed up in this. First, we all hold core beliefs about the world that we can’t justify from first hand experience. Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say”, but they’ve been in the public consciousness for long enough that the beliefs no longer evoke deference to scientific figures, e.g. very few people believe the earth is flat, but would not be able to tell you why, or who was involved in proving this. While climate change deniers may pull the “scientists say” card, and while I think it’s worth being extra wary of claims that falsely invoke science, I think that this kind of science denialism is orthogonal to the ongoing practice/reality of “trusting science”, which is something that most people must do for practical reasons. Put another way, most of us have to “trust the science”, mostly blindly, and there’s very little we can do about that. Helping people discern who they should trust seems like the most important area of focus.
    - kragen 3y ago
      i don't think it's orthogonal at all; i think this kind of science denialism is the inevitable result of the ongoing practice of "trusting science" instead of actually doing science, which is how you can discern who you should trust
    - feoren 3y ago
      > Many of those beliefs boil down to “scientists say” The beliefs don't "boil down" at all: they form an interconnected web of theory and explanations that support and reinforce each other. You're acting like anything that one hasn't independently verified is something one is taking on faith, but that's not true. These aren't independent propositions that can be falsified on their own without dragging down an entire body of scientific understanding -- including things you have verified yourself.
maksimur 3y ago
I'd say their reaction depends mostly on how you approach them and the discussion. People generally have more pressing issues in their life and prefer delegating them to recognised authorities.
- kragen 3y ago
  naturally, but obviously argumentum ad verecundiam is the opposite of science
  - maksimur 3y ago
    It's indeed the opposite of science, but the average person doesn't have the time, patience or energy to be doing science. Thus the need to put the trust on people that do because they're often right. If anything, when you see them appealing to the wrong or vague authority, you could provide better options or become one yourself.
  - Tainnor 3y ago
    Even scientists can't help but trusting other scientists. Nobody can rederive everything from scratch.
    - kragen 3y ago
      there's a world of difference between 'the crc handbook says pentamethonium frangonide has a specific heat of 2951 kilojoules per mole per kelvin, but its molar mass is only 502 grams per mole, so that would give a surprisingly high specific heat of 5.9 kilojoules per gram per kelvin, so i'd better check the nist webbook and google scholar, but probably this grammatical-error-filled paper i found in google scholar from three researchers i've never heard of published in a journal i've never heard of isn't a very reliable source and they were probably just copying the crc handbook' and 'scientists say there's a missing link' being able to, in principle, rederive things from scratch gives you a lot of information about who to trust
      - Tainnor 3y ago
blackbear_ 3y ago
> someone going further than "scientists say" What does "going further" mean here, what kind of answer would make you happy?
- kragen 3y ago
  literally the next sentence in the comment you're replying to, after the one you quoted, is an implicit answer to that question: > Each person wasn't able to cite a single name of a scientist or paper.
  - blackbear_ 3y ago
    I really hoped that there was something more substantial than name-dropping before dismissing people's opinions.
    - haswell 3y ago
      Are people’s opinions being dismissed here? I find it unsurprising that many people have no direct awareness of the underlying science behind basic things. That lack of awareness is not an indictment of the science or even the unaware person. Most of us know almost nothing about the world around us relatively speaking. We behave as if we know, but for the most part we’re just repeating/perpetuating beliefs embedded by the current iteration of culture. Direct knowledge is increasingly rare.
      - blackbear_ 3y ago
        Yes I completely agree with you. I just don't think that knowing scientists names is a good proxy for having direct knowledge, as the post I originally replied to seemed to imply.
        kragen 3y ago
        i think it is. in any area that i know well, i can name some important ideas, who came up with them, what their arguments were, who was opposed, what arguments they presented against those positions, and so on if you can't name any papers or authors you probably can't explain any of the arguments in the papers either, and if you happen to have chosen the correct authorities to put your trust in, that's most likely purely a question of luck, not epistemic virtue

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

feoren 3y ago

Everyone can explain how we know that. The base of ships disappear before the mast from far away. You can see the tops of skyscrapers, but not the bottom, from the right distance across a body of water. We have photos and video of the Earth. We've flown in planes. We can call up people in different latitudes and compare lengths of shadows or positions of the sun and stars. I'm guessing when you say they "can't explain how we know that", you're discounting photo and video evidence that they've seen; you're discounting the flight trajectory maps they see on planes; you're discounting the nature shows and documentaries they've watched; you're discounting the fact that any other explanation makes no fucking sense; you're discounting the history they learned about Magellan. There's no reason to say that none of that is evidence. They're not blindly following like sheep, they have an enormous body of evidence in front of them and there is no counter-evidence. Stop acting like they're stupid.

bee_rider 3y ago
I haven’t tried asking many people that, have you? I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a noticeable population for whom that sort of example just didn’t come to mind. I don’t think they are stupid, we’re just naturally lazy about essentially meaningless questions that everybody knows the answer to already, in general.
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
You can't prove to us that "everyone" understands a thing simply by demonstrating that you understand that thing.
zmgsabst 3y ago
I think that quite reasonably, many just trust what someone told them — eg, of your answers: - trust someone’s photo/video - trust someone’s map - trust someone’s narrative in a video - “everyone else is just wrong!” - trust someone’s narrative about long ago I think it’s fascinating that your examples to drive home how ridiculous you find the question were all about how we just need to trust authorities. (Including you!) There’s nothing wrong with trusting people; I’m just pointing out that most people believe the Earth is round because they trust an authority, and not because they did any of the physical examples in your first paragraph personally. Or understand the logic of why that’s an example.