Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Or Why People Don’t Believe
First: Follow the bouncing conclusion.
Fact: chocolate is bad for you. Oh, wait, Fact: chocolate is good for you. No, wait again, fact: “chocolate is bad for you.” Get the picture? Too many times “science” has reported this, that and the other thing as “fact” and then turned around and said, “no, wait….”
Honestly speaking though, science rarely says such things. They say, “this study supports the hypothesis that chocolate is good for you” or with “further study” always necessary. The “Fact: Chocolate is bad for you” is derived from a reporter reading the study and “boiling down” the findings for the average reader. After all who wants to read: “In our study of rats we fed them a 30 units of cacao power per day for 30 day and then measured their body fat. In doing so we found that they gained 15% body fat and and an increased propensity to develop heart conditions over the next twelve months. We believe that this finding may be extrapolated to humans” rather than “Dark chocolate was found to increase body fat in mice and may lead to higher rates of heart attacks” leading to “it may do the same in humans” and concluding with “Chocolate is bad for you.”
It is the propensity of the media to “simplify” and thus to “distort" the actual findings of science which has often led to the misrepresentation of scientific thought. And thus, those who are paying attention tend to distrust science since it is (to them) always changing it’s mind.
Second: Extrapolate, extrapolate, extrapolate.
Science is about measured observations. Behind all the fancy talk and procedures, you measure things. You measure things compare the measurements and try to account for the differences you find in those measurements. The scientific method is about ferreting out the causes of those differences and there are some pretty fancy ways of doing so. In all that though, you end up with degrees of probability because you can’t measure every instance of most things. You can measure waves on the ocean, but not every wave on every shore, every day. So you take a sample and you extrapolate from that sample. You discover patterns within the measurements, you focus on theories of why that pattern of measurements is as it is, you try to account for all the variables, and eventually you develop an understanding that predicts future waves pretty well. You call that you model and use it to do predictions in which you continue to measure, continue to account for the differences and eventually have most of those differences figured out….but not all.
Now here’s the thing. As you figure out the causes for the differences you use other models of reality to account for those differences. You may use certain mathematical approaches, certain assumptions about the way the ocean floor behaves, the way currents move, and so on and so on. You may rely upon many other models to account for the measurements you make. Seldom do you actually look at those models and question them. You are a specialist measuring waves, not currents, ocean breezes, storms, sand movement, shipping, cloud cover, and all that. You measure waves and how they impact the land. So any model you come up with is almost always based upon a set of models from other sub-disciplines. And they rely upon yours, in part for their interpretation of their data. All very complex, and all very complicated. And all presented as “fact,” because it’s stamped “Scientific” on the envelope.
Third: Where’s the Revolution, Baby?
Thomas Kuhns “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” points out that science becomes more and more rigid as time goes on and more and more of the measurements are accounted for by the theory. But not all. A scientific revolution occurs when enough the measurements are not accounted for and an new theory is put in place which accounts for more of the data points. His argument is that, at first, the new theory is resisted, sometimes violently. In fact, before the theory is accepted there is often a long period of “circling the wagons” and “cutting off debate” and “closing ranks” and “shutting down opposing opinions” through “funding cuts” and “periodical blacklisting.” A scientific revolution is a messy, messy thing.
But in the end, Kuhn says, if the new “paradigm” accounts for more of the data then the shift is made, out with the old, in with the new.
That’s how it’s supposed to work anyway. But notice that there is a long period of “circling the wagons” and “cutting off debate.” You would think scientists would not do that. But of course, being on the “winning” side of a debate means more publishing, higher pay, and prestige, so the “old guard” resists.
Now add to that, politics. Political commitments mean real dollars. Real prestige. Real fame and fortune. So the “science” of the old guard moves into the mainstream ahead of anything new and since it’s “scientifically proven” debate about how to apply it is truncated, with those who might disagree thought of as “naïve,” or worse, "conservatives." (LOL)
The process is pretty clear, and circular. First, a particular paradigm about the matter gains wide support from multiple fields, all of which look to fields outside their expertise for confirmation of the paradigm. The paradigm shows itself useful in a wide range of disciplines and thus it becomes the “fact” underlying all that science. It is the “structural framework” in which interpretation of the measurements is made.
The politician pick it up. The use that paradigm to fund research. Research based upon and supporting the paradigm is okay, everything else “fringe science.” Money flows to the center and the fringes are thought of as places where promising young scientists destroy their promising young careers.
Politicians and the media, science itself, becomes more rigid. Avenues of descent are closed by funding starvation or outright black listing. The free marketplace is neither free nor in any recognizable place.
Fourth: Who do you Trust?
And what of the disbelievers? They know the process. They therefore, don’t trust the politicians or the media, and the more those in the scientific community “close ranks” or “circle the wagons” the more they don’t believe them too. It is the uniformity of belief in the scientific community which causes the disbeliever to doubt. For his experience has rightly been, that science does not measure theory, but physical things and then extrapolates from them according to a usually un-provable model often derived from countless other sub-models themselves dependent upon fields outside the expertise of the scientist developing that sub-model, and all tied neatly into a package by some overarching paradigm. The overarching conclusions are drawn from a long string of assumptions based upon a field of largely unquestioned theories about all sorts of stuff interwoven and mutually supporting (and sometimes undermining) each sub-fields under the label “science.”
And once completed the whole thing gets the sacred imprimatur, “it’s science.”
The disbeliever has been burned by “science” before. He wants nothing to do with the long string of assumptions, observations, qualifications and most of all over-arching paradigms and disbelieves because he is a scientific agnostic. He doesn’t believe in science because the science he has received is too religious for him. It is too tyrannical and closed minded. To him it foists its’ conclusions on the world and the world’s politicians start writing laws as if the current “scientific” theory is the absolute truth of the gods.
Science keeps changing it’s mind on the small things, and is close minded and narrow in it’s thinking at the other end. The disbeliever finds evidence that has been ignored, data that has been cooked, science reported in service to a political agenda, contrary points of view belittled, contrary beliefs discounted and even qualified scientists fired and removed from their position for questioning the basic model. (It matters not if the scientist was actually fired for that reason so long as that reason appears to the disbeliever as an accurate assessment).
Now this distrust is not just of science. It’s fundamental distrust of any authority. The government, science, the media, all these have proven themselves, to the disbeliever, to be untrustworthy. To the disbeliever they are all one and the same for they are intertwined. One supports the other and the whole thing is anything but free and open. To the disbeliever they entire edifice is nothing more than a scheme to keep those in power in power and to enhance their control of everybody else. There is nothing free and democratic about it.
At the core then, the disbeliever is a skeptic. His experience has taught him that no matter how sophisticated the argument the one making the argument is not a god. He may be wrong, and, to the disbeliever, is more often wrong than right. The only place where mistakes might be rare is in the actual measurements, but even there data gets cooked, measurements not supporting the conclusion are thrown out, and conclusions not supported by the preponderance of evidence are stated as if they are not in question.
To the disbeliever science is a human endeavor and subject to the weaknesses of humans. Hubris, conceit, fudging, outright lying, backbiting, stealing, plagiarism, and all that, are just as present in science as anywhere and the disbeliever therefore considers all scientific declarations as suspect, and the more distant they are from the actual measurements, the more they rely upon un-provable over-arching models of reality, the more they are suspect. And in their own disbelief, for course, these scientific agnostics, these scientific skeptics, are just being human.
AJ
First: Follow the bouncing conclusion.
Fact: chocolate is bad for you. Oh, wait, Fact: chocolate is good for you. No, wait again, fact: “chocolate is bad for you.” Get the picture? Too many times “science” has reported this, that and the other thing as “fact” and then turned around and said, “no, wait….”
Honestly speaking though, science rarely says such things. They say, “this study supports the hypothesis that chocolate is good for you” or with “further study” always necessary. The “Fact: Chocolate is bad for you” is derived from a reporter reading the study and “boiling down” the findings for the average reader. After all who wants to read: “In our study of rats we fed them a 30 units of cacao power per day for 30 day and then measured their body fat. In doing so we found that they gained 15% body fat and and an increased propensity to develop heart conditions over the next twelve months. We believe that this finding may be extrapolated to humans” rather than “Dark chocolate was found to increase body fat in mice and may lead to higher rates of heart attacks” leading to “it may do the same in humans” and concluding with “Chocolate is bad for you.”
It is the propensity of the media to “simplify” and thus to “distort" the actual findings of science which has often led to the misrepresentation of scientific thought. And thus, those who are paying attention tend to distrust science since it is (to them) always changing it’s mind.
Second: Extrapolate, extrapolate, extrapolate.
Science is about measured observations. Behind all the fancy talk and procedures, you measure things. You measure things compare the measurements and try to account for the differences you find in those measurements. The scientific method is about ferreting out the causes of those differences and there are some pretty fancy ways of doing so. In all that though, you end up with degrees of probability because you can’t measure every instance of most things. You can measure waves on the ocean, but not every wave on every shore, every day. So you take a sample and you extrapolate from that sample. You discover patterns within the measurements, you focus on theories of why that pattern of measurements is as it is, you try to account for all the variables, and eventually you develop an understanding that predicts future waves pretty well. You call that you model and use it to do predictions in which you continue to measure, continue to account for the differences and eventually have most of those differences figured out….but not all.
Now here’s the thing. As you figure out the causes for the differences you use other models of reality to account for those differences. You may use certain mathematical approaches, certain assumptions about the way the ocean floor behaves, the way currents move, and so on and so on. You may rely upon many other models to account for the measurements you make. Seldom do you actually look at those models and question them. You are a specialist measuring waves, not currents, ocean breezes, storms, sand movement, shipping, cloud cover, and all that. You measure waves and how they impact the land. So any model you come up with is almost always based upon a set of models from other sub-disciplines. And they rely upon yours, in part for their interpretation of their data. All very complex, and all very complicated. And all presented as “fact,” because it’s stamped “Scientific” on the envelope.
Third: Where’s the Revolution, Baby?
Thomas Kuhns “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” points out that science becomes more and more rigid as time goes on and more and more of the measurements are accounted for by the theory. But not all. A scientific revolution occurs when enough the measurements are not accounted for and an new theory is put in place which accounts for more of the data points. His argument is that, at first, the new theory is resisted, sometimes violently. In fact, before the theory is accepted there is often a long period of “circling the wagons” and “cutting off debate” and “closing ranks” and “shutting down opposing opinions” through “funding cuts” and “periodical blacklisting.” A scientific revolution is a messy, messy thing.
But in the end, Kuhn says, if the new “paradigm” accounts for more of the data then the shift is made, out with the old, in with the new.
That’s how it’s supposed to work anyway. But notice that there is a long period of “circling the wagons” and “cutting off debate.” You would think scientists would not do that. But of course, being on the “winning” side of a debate means more publishing, higher pay, and prestige, so the “old guard” resists.
Now add to that, politics. Political commitments mean real dollars. Real prestige. Real fame and fortune. So the “science” of the old guard moves into the mainstream ahead of anything new and since it’s “scientifically proven” debate about how to apply it is truncated, with those who might disagree thought of as “naïve,” or worse, "conservatives." (LOL)
The process is pretty clear, and circular. First, a particular paradigm about the matter gains wide support from multiple fields, all of which look to fields outside their expertise for confirmation of the paradigm. The paradigm shows itself useful in a wide range of disciplines and thus it becomes the “fact” underlying all that science. It is the “structural framework” in which interpretation of the measurements is made.
The politician pick it up. The use that paradigm to fund research. Research based upon and supporting the paradigm is okay, everything else “fringe science.” Money flows to the center and the fringes are thought of as places where promising young scientists destroy their promising young careers.
Politicians and the media, science itself, becomes more rigid. Avenues of descent are closed by funding starvation or outright black listing. The free marketplace is neither free nor in any recognizable place.
Fourth: Who do you Trust?
And what of the disbelievers? They know the process. They therefore, don’t trust the politicians or the media, and the more those in the scientific community “close ranks” or “circle the wagons” the more they don’t believe them too. It is the uniformity of belief in the scientific community which causes the disbeliever to doubt. For his experience has rightly been, that science does not measure theory, but physical things and then extrapolates from them according to a usually un-provable model often derived from countless other sub-models themselves dependent upon fields outside the expertise of the scientist developing that sub-model, and all tied neatly into a package by some overarching paradigm. The overarching conclusions are drawn from a long string of assumptions based upon a field of largely unquestioned theories about all sorts of stuff interwoven and mutually supporting (and sometimes undermining) each sub-fields under the label “science.”
And once completed the whole thing gets the sacred imprimatur, “it’s science.”
The disbeliever has been burned by “science” before. He wants nothing to do with the long string of assumptions, observations, qualifications and most of all over-arching paradigms and disbelieves because he is a scientific agnostic. He doesn’t believe in science because the science he has received is too religious for him. It is too tyrannical and closed minded. To him it foists its’ conclusions on the world and the world’s politicians start writing laws as if the current “scientific” theory is the absolute truth of the gods.
Science keeps changing it’s mind on the small things, and is close minded and narrow in it’s thinking at the other end. The disbeliever finds evidence that has been ignored, data that has been cooked, science reported in service to a political agenda, contrary points of view belittled, contrary beliefs discounted and even qualified scientists fired and removed from their position for questioning the basic model. (It matters not if the scientist was actually fired for that reason so long as that reason appears to the disbeliever as an accurate assessment).
Now this distrust is not just of science. It’s fundamental distrust of any authority. The government, science, the media, all these have proven themselves, to the disbeliever, to be untrustworthy. To the disbeliever they are all one and the same for they are intertwined. One supports the other and the whole thing is anything but free and open. To the disbeliever they entire edifice is nothing more than a scheme to keep those in power in power and to enhance their control of everybody else. There is nothing free and democratic about it.
At the core then, the disbeliever is a skeptic. His experience has taught him that no matter how sophisticated the argument the one making the argument is not a god. He may be wrong, and, to the disbeliever, is more often wrong than right. The only place where mistakes might be rare is in the actual measurements, but even there data gets cooked, measurements not supporting the conclusion are thrown out, and conclusions not supported by the preponderance of evidence are stated as if they are not in question.
To the disbeliever science is a human endeavor and subject to the weaknesses of humans. Hubris, conceit, fudging, outright lying, backbiting, stealing, plagiarism, and all that, are just as present in science as anywhere and the disbeliever therefore considers all scientific declarations as suspect, and the more distant they are from the actual measurements, the more they rely upon un-provable over-arching models of reality, the more they are suspect. And in their own disbelief, for course, these scientific agnostics, these scientific skeptics, are just being human.
AJ