Skip to main content

 

 

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from climate change to vaccinations—faces furious opposition.
Some even have doubts about the moon landing.

By Joel Achenbach
Photographs by Richard Barnes

There’s a scene in Stanley Kubrick’s comic masterpiece Dr. Strangelove in which Jack D. Ripper, an American general who’s gone rogue and ordered a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, unspools his paranoid worldview—and the explanation for why he drinks “only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure grain alcohol”—to Lionel Mandrake, a dizzy-with-anxiety group captain in the Royal Air Force.

Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?

Mandrake: Ah, yes, I have heard of that, Jack. Yes, yes.

Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?

Mandrake: No. No, I don’t know what it is. No.

Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

 

The movie came out in 1964, by which time the health benefits of fluoridation had been thoroughly established, and antifluoridation conspiracy theories could be the stuff of comedy. So you might be surprised to learn that, half a century later, fluoridation continues to incite fear and paranoia. In 2013 citizens in Portland, Oregon, one of only a few major American cities that don’t fluoridate their water, blocked a plan by local officials to do so. Opponents didn’t like the idea of the government adding “chemicals” to their water. They claimed that fluoride could be harmful to human health.

 

Actually fluoride is a natural mineral that, in the weak concentrations used in public drinking water systems, hardens tooth enamel and prevents tooth decay—a cheap and safe way to improve dental health for everyone, rich or poor, conscientious brusher or not. That’s the scientific and medical consensus.

 

To which some people in Portland, echoing antifluoridation activists around the world, reply: We don’t believe you.

 

We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative. And there’s so much talk about the trend these days—in books, articles, and academic conferences—that science doubt itself has become a pop-culture meme. In the recent movie Interstellar, set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school textbooks say the Apollo moon landings were faked.

 

Read more at: http://ngm.nationalgeographic....bters/achenbach-text

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Old Salt,

There is scientific theory and then scientific fact there is a difference.   Yes the climate changes and has since the earth was formed.   The climate changers have been proven to manipulate the data to get the answers they want.   I believe in reducing pollution and managing the earths resources but not to the extent some want to.   The carbon credit and tax if ever passed will be the biggest theft of money ever.   If it is so bad why does Al Gore and the others pushing this live to excesses they do?  It is because it is all about power and money and they mean for us to sacrifice so they do not have to.

well ole salty, science does stretch the truth quite often and even lie but by the same token the ones who deny science and the ones who believe science are both equally ignorant on the subject. They both just take a side and haven't a clue why except one side it is against it for religious reasons and the other half despise it because the religious like it.  Is ignorance bliss?

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Old Salt,

There is scientific theory and then scientific fact there is a difference.  

-----------------------

 

What is the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact?

Are you serious?

--------------------------

Yes I am serious.  Please explain it for me.

fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation. The hardness of iron, the number of ribs in a squirrel's body, the existence of fossil trilobites, and the like are all facts.
    Is it a fact that electrons orbit around atomic nuclei? Is it a fact that Brutus stabbed Julius Caesar? Is it a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow? None of us has observed any of these things - the first is an inference from a variety of different observations, the second is reported by Plutarch and other historians who lived close enough in time and space to the event that we trust their report, and the third is an inductive inference after repeated observations (see below).

 

 

theory - a coherent set of propositions that explain a class of phenomena, that are supported by extensive factual evidence, and that may be used for prediction of future observations. For our rather trivial example, a theory would emerge only after a huge number of tests of different kinds of balls at different heights. The theory would try to explain why different kinds of balls bounce differently, and it ought to be useful in predicting how new materials would behave if dropped as balls in the same way.

 

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation. The hardness of iron, the number of ribs in a squirrel's body, the existence of fossil trilobites, and the like are all facts.
    Is it a fact that electrons orbit around atomic nuclei? Is it a fact that Brutus stabbed Julius Caesar? Is it a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow? None of us has observed any of these things - the first is an inference from a variety of different observations, the second is reported by Plutarch and other historians who lived close enough in time and space to the event that we trust their report, and the third is an inductive inference after repeated observations (see below).

 

 

theory - a coherent set of propositions that explain a class of phenomena, that are supported by extensive factual evidence, and that may be used for prediction of future observations. For our rather trivial example, a theory would emerge only after a huge number of tests of different kinds of balls at different heights. The theory would try to explain why different kinds of balls bounce differently, and it ought to be useful in predicting how new materials would behave if dropped as balls in the same way.

 

--------------------

So what you are telling me is a fact is a simple truth, and a theory is based on many facts?

Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

Theories exist only as long as the evidence supports them. Also remember that science only cares about getting the facts correct, consensus be dammed.

 

http://www.famousscientists.or...were-later-debunked/

 

 

---------------------------

I'm not sure I understand your second sentence (and I'm not trying to be cute or pull a fast one) - consensus among whom?

__________________________________________________

New theories that replace old theories often go against the majority view at first. Consensus is only important in politics, not science.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Read up on Barry Marshall, Salt.  He was ridiculed by the scientific community, until they had to give him the Nobel Prize.

-------------------------

Ok, so I read up on Barry Marshall.  No where did I find that he was ridiculed by the scientific community.  Instead, his findings were dismissed by the establishment of gastroenterologists.  What did he do then?  He started consensus building.  

 

http://discovermagazine.com/20...lved-medical-mystery 

 

"The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campaign of negativism. I had this discovery that could undermine a $3 billion industry, not just the drugs but the entire field of endoscopy. Every gastroenterologist was doing 20 or 30 patients a week who might have ulcers, and 25 percent of them would. Because it was a recurring disease that you could never cure, the patients kept coming back. And here I was handing it on a platter to the infectious-disease guys.

Didn’t infectious-disease researchers support you, at least?
They said: “This is important. This is great. We are going to be the new ulcer doctors.” There were lots of people doing the microbiology part. But those papers were diluted by the hundreds of papers on ulcers and acid. It used to drive me crazy."

Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Read up on Barry Marshall, Salt.  He was ridiculed by the scientific community, until they had to give him the Nobel Prize.

-------------------------

Ok, so I read up on Barry Marshall.  No where did I find that he was ridiculed by the scientific community.  Instead, his findings were dismissed by the establishment of gastroenterologists.  What did he do then?  He started consensus building.  

 

http://discovermagazine.com/20...lved-medical-mystery 

 

"The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campaign of negativism. I had this discovery that could undermine a $3 billion industry, not just the drugs but the entire field of endoscopy. Every gastroenterologist was doing 20 or 30 patients a week who might have ulcers, and 25 percent of them would. Because it was a recurring disease that you could never cure, the patients kept coming back. And here I was handing it on a platter to the infectious-disease guys.

Didn’t infectious-disease researchers support you, at least?
They said: “This is important. This is great. We are going to be the new ulcer doctors.” There were lots of people doing the microbiology part. But those papers were diluted by the hundreds of papers on ulcers and acid. It used to drive me crazy."

 

Last edited by CrustyMac
Originally Posted by budsfarm:

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

 

I doubt many reasonable people do.

________________________________________________________

I think most people realize that the process of science is messy and it is supposed to be messy. New or contrary hypotheses are met with skepticism from the "consensus" and that is the way it should be done. What people often don't understand is that the consensus view must be challenged as well. History shows that most theories don't exist forever and are either heavily modified or outright replaced by other theories as better technology comes along. Also peer reviewers often don't want their own research discredited and the research fund to end.

Here ya go Salt:

 

Link

 

Some outtakes:

 

When they described their
discovery and challenged the
thought that ulcers were
caused by stress and spicy
food, they were met with
skepticism and criticism from
the medical community.
After all, it was well known
that no bacteria could ever
survive the strong acid
environment of the stomach.


Frustrated by not being taken
seriously by his colleagues,
Marshall drank a cocktail
consisting of a beaker full of
H. pylori
in a broth solution.
.
Medical dogma can be
stubborn, and it wasn’t until
twelve years later, in 1994
that the National Institutes of
Health in America published
an opinion stating that most
recurrent duodenal and gastric
ulcers were caused by
H.
pylori
and recommended that
antibiotics be included in the
treatment regimen.
 
A leading microbiologist at
that time said about Marshall:
"The vast majority of the
medical profession, not only
in Australia but worldwide,
considered Barry to be a
quack and really were
extremely dismissive for a
number of years."
A gastroenterologist who was
an early convert said
regarding Marshall: "He was
changing the world and the
world wasn't seeing it."


I had a best friend, a veterinarian. Super intelligent. His wife, and then he, became religious nuts. Gone was his love of reading sci-fi, the bible says it's wrong. Gone was his love of rock and roll, only listened to Christian music. When he claimed the world is only 6000 years old I asked about carbon dating but he said carbon dating is false. He could answer anything with whether it was in the bible or not. No references in the bible? Then it doesn't exist. No mention of animals in heaven in the bible, therefore there are none.

This was a man heavily steeped in science. Religious beliefs can alter beliefs of scientific fact.

Originally Posted by peede coober:

I had a best friend, a veterinarian. Super intelligent. His wife, and then he, became religious nuts. Gone was his love of reading sci-fi, the bible says it's wrong. Gone was his love of rock and roll, only listened to Christian music. When he claimed the world is only 6000 years old I asked about carbon dating but he said carbon dating is false. He could answer anything with whether it was in the bible or not. No references in the bible? Then it doesn't exist. No mention of animals in heaven in the bible, therefore there are none.

This was a man heavily steeped in science. Religious beliefs can alter beliefs of scientific fact.

wow, i am a Christian but love science fiction, rock music  and science,  I do not necessarily find the two entirely opposed.  God could have created the know universe with a big bang, who knows how long a day is to God etc.  

hiflyer, that's why I said religious nuts. I respect most people for their deeply held religious beliefs but some of them just get nutty about it. In this friend's thinking, for some reason, sci-fi goes against god and the bible. We were big sci-fi buddies through high school, college and into our adult lives. Broke my heart.

 

Very interesting article, Stanky. Wonder how much money has already been spent on it. Wonder what happens to the money earmarked for it. I wonder why they will shut down something like that but continue to pour money into the space program. [not that I am opposed to spending money on that.]

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Here ya go Salt:

 

Link

 

Some outtakes:

 

When they described their
discovery and challenged the
thought that ulcers were
caused by stress and spicy
food, they were met with
skepticism and criticism from
the medical community.
After all, it was well known
that no bacteria could ever
survive the strong acid
environment of the stomach.


Frustrated by not being taken
seriously by his colleagues,
Marshall drank a cocktail
consisting of a beaker full of
H. pylori
in a broth solution.
.
Medical dogma can be
stubborn, and it wasn’t until
twelve years later, in 1994
that the National Institutes of
Health in America published
an opinion stating that most
recurrent duodenal and gastric
ulcers were caused by
H.
pylori
and recommended that
antibiotics be included in the
treatment regimen.
 
A leading microbiologist at
that time said about Marshall:
"The vast majority of the
medical profession, not only
in Australia but worldwide,
considered Barry to be a
quack and really were
extremely dismissive for a
number of years."
A gastroenterologist who was
an early convert said
regarding Marshall: "He was
changing the world and the
world wasn't seeing it."


-----------------------

Yeah, already read all of that.  Where's the ridicule? 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

wow, i am a Christian but love science fiction, rock music  and science,  I do not necessarily find the two entirely opposed.  God could have created the know universe with a big bang, who knows how long a day is to God etc. 

==============

Where did god come from?

Could have existed in another plane of existence, could have created another universe first then created ours who knows.   You can not prove there is no god just like I cannot prove there is one.

Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Here ya go Salt:

 

Link

 

Some outtakes:

 

When they described their
discovery and challenged the
thought that ulcers were
caused by stress and spicy
food, they were met with
skepticism and criticism from
the medical community.
After all, it was well known
that no bacteria could ever
survive the strong acid
environment of the stomach.


Frustrated by not being taken
seriously by his colleagues,
Marshall drank a cocktail
consisting of a beaker full of
H. pylori
in a broth solution.
.
Medical dogma can be
stubborn, and it wasn’t until
twelve years later, in 1994
that the National Institutes of
Health in America published
an opinion stating that most
recurrent duodenal and gastric
ulcers were caused by
H.
pylori
and recommended that
antibiotics be included in the
treatment regimen.
 
A leading microbiologist at
that time said about Marshall:
"The vast majority of the
medical profession, not only
in Australia but worldwide,
considered Barry to be a
quack and really were
extremely dismissive for a
number of years."
A gastroenterologist who was
an early convert said
regarding Marshall: "He was
changing the world and the
world wasn't seeing it."


-----------------------

Yeah, already read all of that.  Where's the ridicule? 

_______________

Oh, sorry.  In my quick Google, I didn't actually find the word "ridicule".    I guess considering someone a "quack" isn't the same thing at all.

 

 

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:


_______________

Oh, sorry.  In my quick Google, I didn't actually find the word "ridicule".    I guess considering someone a "quack" isn't the same thing at all.

 

 

---------------------------------------

I guess "considered a quack" and called a quack are different thing?  Anyway, according to Marshall himself, he received mixed acceptance of his findings:

 

"The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campaign of negativism. I had this discovery that could undermine a $3 billion industry, not just the drugs but the entire field of endoscopy. Every gastroenterologist was doing 20 or 30 patients a week who might have ulcers, and 25 percent of them would. Because it was a recurring disease that you could never cure, the patients kept coming back. And here I was handing it on a platter to the infectious-disease guys.

Didn’t infectious-disease researchers support you, at least?
They said: “This is important. This is great. We are going to be the new ulcer doctors.” There were lots of people doing the microbiology part. But those papers were diluted by the hundreds of papers on ulcers and acid. It used to drive me crazy."

 

So, let me fix this for you:

Read up on Barry Marshall, Salt.  He was received skeptically or negatively by the Gastroenterologist community.

Salt, we can argue the semantics all day long.  I read about this shortly after the Nobel Prizes were awarded, and ridicule by colleagues, and the scientific community in general, was definitely mentioned. It took over 12 years for the "medical community" to acknowledge that he wasn't a quack.  If I remember correctly, even his job at his university was threatened. 

.

I think I have adequately shown that you were wrong to disagree with this statement: New theories that replace old theories often go against the majority view at first.

I see the misunderstanding now.  Sorry about that.  I was disagreeing with the statement made by Stanky about consensus   - "Consensus is only important in politics, not science."  Of course new theories have a hard time catching hold.  The establishment abhors their long held theory being pushed aside by new knowledge.  For that new knowledge to be widely accepted, consensus must be built within the community.  It may be a slow process.

Originally Posted by OldSalt:

I see the misunderstanding now.  Sorry about that.  I was disagreeing with the statement made by Stanky about consensus   - "Consensus is only important in politics, not science."  Of course new theories have a hard time catching hold.  The establishment abhors their long held theory being pushed aside by new knowledge.  For that new knowledge to be widely accepted, consensus must be built within the community.  It may be a slow process.

True dat !

Originally Posted by peede coober:

hiflyer, that's why I said religious nuts. I respect most people for their deeply held religious beliefs but some of them just get nutty about it. In this friend's thinking, for some reason, sci-fi goes against god and the bible. We were big sci-fi buddies through high school, college and into our adult lives. Broke my heart.

 

Very interesting article, Stanky. Wonder how much money has already been spent on it. Wonder what happens to the money earmarked for it. I wonder why they will shut down something like that but continue to pour money into the space program. [not that I am opposed to spending money on that.]

____________________________________________________________

Don't know how much was spent but $1.1 Billion from the $Trillion stimulus was budgeted for the project and it is reported that most of the money was not spent. I think it was a case of engineers couldn't size up the technology and make it work on the large scale. That plant was supposed to be the test case of technology for the EPA to cram down the throats of utility companies. As for NASA, they sort of remember how build rockets, or at least the corporations selling them the rockets remember.

Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

March 17 2014 

breaking:    Physicists find evidence of cosmic inflation  

The BICEP2 experiment has detected signs of gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background radiation, with big implications for the theory of cosmic inflation.

 

January 30 2015 

breaking:    Cosmic inflation remains undiscovered  

A new study puts earlier discovery claims into perspective.

------------------------------

Wow!  Scientists are willing to admit they made a mistake!

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

 

I doubt many reasonable people do.

________________________________________________________

I think most people realize that the process of science is messy and it is supposed to be messy. New or contrary hypotheses are met with skepticism from the "consensus" and that is the way it should be done. What people often don't understand is that the consensus view must be challenged as well. History shows that most theories don't exist forever and are either heavily modified or outright replaced by other theories as better technology comes along. Also peer reviewers often don't want their own research discredited and the research fund to end.

 

+++

 

I also think reasonable people come to reasonable conclusions though they may be different.  We only learn by entertaining other points of view.

 

Just sayin"

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×