3 ms·

> _believe_ that an asterisk indicates that something is true Attitudes like this bug me so much. From my experience it is a big part of what makes people that

by km3k 13y ago

> _believe_ that an asterisk indicates that something is true Attitudes like this bug me so much. From my experience it is a big part of what makes people that are not familiar with science not trust scientists.

vacri 13y ago
The story is so much simpler than that. People not familiar with science don't trust scientists because they want to stick to their own known story. Change is scary, and people generally don't like it unless it significantly improves their living conditions. It doesn't matter how rigorous scientists are with their methodology, my 'new age' mother isn't going to stop believing in fairies in the trees because scientists say there's no proof. Or when she talks about higher and lower vibrations, she is puzzled when I ask her "vibrations of what? what is it that's vibrating?". This isn't important to her story, and is merely a detail that makes life less enjoyable, so she ignores it. A less obnoxious version of ICP's "scientists are ruining life by explaining things" during their 'how do magnets work' phase. Saying that people don't trust scientists because of p values is a bit like saying people don't trust plumbers when they use blue plumber's tape instead of gray. People don't like plumbers because they don't show up on time and charge through the nose - things that change your own story.
- km3k 13y ago
  That's a good point too, but not what I was trying to get at. I realize now I wasn't clear enough. I was talking more about people that recognize science as a good thing and tend to follow what is presented as scientific facts, but aren't specifically trained in it. The problem I see is that some scientists are taking data that points toward a conclusion, even if it isn't well supported or rigorous data and talking as if it is absolutely certain and proven. This degrades people's trust in scientists, and likely science in general. It's also a problem of the media too, since they're the ones promoting the scientists that act in this way.

by km3k 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

The story is so much simpler than that. People not familiar with science don't trust scientists because they want to stick to their own known story. Change is scary, and people generally don't like it unless it significantly improves their living conditions. It doesn't matter how rigorous scientists are with their methodology, my 'new age' mother isn't going to stop believing in fairies in the trees because scientists say there's no proof. Or when she talks about higher and lower vibrations, she is puzzled when I ask her "vibrations of what? what is it that's vibrating?". This isn't important to her story, and is merely a detail that makes life less enjoyable, so she ignores it. A less obnoxious version of ICP's "scientists are ruining life by explaining things" during their 'how do magnets work' phase. Saying that people don't trust scientists because of p values is a bit like saying people don't trust plumbers when they use blue plumber's tape instead of gray. People don't like plumbers because they don't show up on time and charge through the nose - things that change your own story.

km3k 13y ago
That's a good point too, but not what I was trying to get at. I realize now I wasn't clear enough. I was talking more about people that recognize science as a good thing and tend to follow what is presented as scientific facts, but aren't specifically trained in it. The problem I see is that some scientists are taking data that points toward a conclusion, even if it isn't well supported or rigorous data and talking as if it is absolutely certain and proven. This degrades people's trust in scientists, and likely science in general. It's also a problem of the media too, since they're the ones promoting the scientists that act in this way.