Irrational Hatred of Science

[floor13avenger]

Hi everyone. I'm a writer, amateur comedian, philosopher, and have always had a great interest in science and skepticism. Recently I started writing articles for a site entitled "Things that Shouldn't Still Exist." My most recent article is on hatred towards science (which seriously has no right still existing-- particularly in developed nations). Anyhow, I'm always looking for more topics to write about, so if anyone has suggestions, let me know. So far, I've also covered: Racism, Ghost Hunting, Square Dancing, and Circumcision. The site is an odd mix of philosophy and humor (which is necessary when you're an analytical thinker in a world of dubious, frustrating cultural norms).

 

May rational thought save my sanity.

 

Jason

 

http://thingsthatshouldntstillexist.wordpress.com

[CaptainPanic]

There aren't many people who say that science is wrong.

 

But many people just have their personal beliefs, and will say science is wrong on a particular topic.

The problem for scientists is that the anti-science comments are generated quickly, and require little or no work. A scientist then has to make a big effort to refute it. It takes too much time.

 

The climate debate is a good example. Many people scream "it is a hoax". Based on nothing at all. Scientists then have to write another lengthy report to explain what's going on. Then someone else says "that curve is not going up", to which science has to reply with a lengthy statistical analysis which shows that the curve is indeed going up. And then someone else will say "you haven't got enough data points" to which science has to reply with a lengthy report of the distribution of measuring stations. And then someone will cry "I do not believe you", to which science has no answer other than to repeat all that was said before.

 

Call it Scientific Populism.

[floor13avenger]

Thanks for the great response, CaptainPanic. You bring up an excellent point that I missed in my article, but that I think is important (criticism against science coming so quickly). Also, the progression of arguments that your examples of "people" ask are scarily close to people I have met. Those people do openly say, and often, that science is wrong. It may just be who you know and where you are. Currently, I'm in the southeast of the U.S. and certain people here have no amount of trouble shouting from the rooftops of Waffle Houses "science is wrong!" Surely, a sad state of affairs.

[swansont]

There have been some recent stories on how this works, or at least how it manifests itself (I wish I had links to the stories, but I don't). You are more likely to question the science if you have an ideological disagreement with the implications; ideology drives what can and can't be true in your worldview. If you believe in Biblical creation, you are susceptible to accept shoddy arguments against evolution. If you believe in reducing government regulation, then global warming has to be wrong. The quality of the science doesn't matter so much.

[imatfaal]

To be honest, I just read your article on the Hatred of Science and I think all it demonstrates is that scientists and rationalists can be as bigoted, insensitive, and unthinking as those they mock for their irrational non-scientific views. I don't think that the argument for scientific rationalism (which I whole-heartedly agree with) is bolstered by parallels/comparisons of those that say science is wrong with "the mongoloid who can't tie their shoes", by the inclusion of a "Depiction of people at an anti-evolution circle jerk", or by seeming to equate native american culture with a refusal to move forward.

Edited November 8, 2010 by imatfaal

[floor13avenger]

Hahahahaha! Sorry, but just reading your description of it made me laugh. Wow you're too serious and looking to be offended.

[Bignose]

Hahahahaha! Sorry, but just reading your description of it made me laugh. Wow you're too serious and looking to be offended.

 

ok, but the ad hominem attacks via name calling in the article certainly doesn't lend strength to the argument, and probably detracts from it. The aggressive tone isn't going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. And, anyone who is anti-science will cite the name calling and (in this case justifiably) claim that scientists aren't any different than anyone else. I know it is frustrating, but I don't think that this tone helps. We've had several threads go similarly in the Speculations section. The few times (all too few) that someone has written that they will do more work, do more math, etc., a patient and respectful tact worked the best. Even if it doesn't work, at least you look like you took the high road.

 

p.s., oh, and poking fun of the people who have a genetic disease that doesn't allow them to walk upright probably doesn't help either.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Bignose

[floor13avenger]

My blog is ultimately humor. Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

[CaptainPanic]

ok, but the ad hominem attacks via name calling in the article certainly doesn't lend strength to the argument, and probably detracts from it.

I wonder if that is true...

 

The aggressive tone isn't going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. And, anyone who is anti-science will cite the name calling and (in this case justifiably) claim that scientists aren't any different than anyone else. I know it is frustrating, but I don't think that this tone helps. We've had several threads go similarly in the Speculations section. The few times (all too few) that someone has written that they will do more work, do more math, etc., a patient and respectful tact worked the best. Even if it doesn't work, at least you look like you took the high road.

But people who are anti-science are not going to be convinced by scientific arguments either. They deliberately place their hands over their ears and shout "

" when you talk to them.

 

Those who come to this forum are forced to use our ways to convince us. Doing anything else will mean they are ignored, or even banned.

That does not mean that the big bad world out there is the same.

 

.. Why else did Al Gore convince more people of the Global warming issue than anyone else? Because his arguments were the most objective? Because he was the most polite? Or because he influenced people's emotions the most? I'm afraid it's the latter.

 

That said - offending people never works. But name-calling can have a different goal (or effect) than just insulting. If you, through the right choice of words can influence people's emotions, you can reach the desired effect also through name-calling. Probably not the most polite way, but in some cases very effective.

 

If you're dealing with people who use completely different standards for communication, and a different set of basic assumptions, then it may be beneficial to start your discussion with some "awareness" before plunging into the scientific stuff.

[michel123456]

My blog is ultimately humor. Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

 

It is not obvious from the way your blog is presented.

 

The lists of subjects is immense.

you should at least mention clitoridectomy.

[HerpetologyFangirl]

Wow, I love seeing how the minds of the people on this site work. That being said, the moment somebody trying to explain or convince me of something uses an insulting, insensitive, or offensive comment, I immediately think less of them, believing that they're not clever enough, or their point isn't strong enough, for them to convince me with facts and their theories alone, and I completely lose interest in whatever they're saying. That's just me though.

[michel123456]

yes.

And no, that's not just you.

Welcome.

Edited November 9, 2010 by michel123456

[Bignose]

from

so if anyone has suggestions, let me know.

 

to

My blog is ultimately humor. Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

 

you asked us to look it over and critique it. If you don't agree with what we said, you certainly don't have to take our advice, but you also don't need to be a smart-ass at those us who took some time to look it over for you. A simple "Thank you" works well in these situations.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Bignose

[michel123456]

from

 

 

to

 

 

you asked us to look it over and critique it. If you don't agree with what we said, you certainly don't have to take our advice, but you also don't need to be a smart-ass at those us who took some time to look it over for you. A simple "Thank you" works well in these situations.

 

I am sure he is surprised that no one said "how wondeful!" His intentions are on the right side (IMO), he didn't expected to be beaten. The web has plenty of blogs that defend the opposite point of vue, I think after all his blog is a small drop in the balance.

[CaptainPanic]

I am sure he is surprised that no one said "how wondeful!"

Yup.

But that's just scientists.

 

Scientists, especially when discussing something that is not their own field of science, do not think "out of the box". They've lost the "box" altogether.

 

Saying "How wonderful" requires no creativity. It is just an opinion about something that already exists.

 

It's very difficult for me to read a blog or an article in my free time, and just comment on what I like and don't like... and leave it at that.

I want to expand on it. Improve it. Change it. Turn it upside down. So, I do all that in my head, and summarize it in a little reply on this forum. And that may come out as criticism... It wasn't intended as such though.

 

At work, I already have to be serious - there isn't always time to do some random brain exercise. Projects start, but also need to be finished.

I like to be on this forum, because I can come up with an idea - something that is new to me - and then it's just "fire and forget".

[HerpetologyFangirl]

yes.

And no, that's not just you.

Welcome.

 

Thanks, Michel. It's nice to be welcomed.

 

I agree with what Captain said, I too always feel the urge to honestly critique and improve every idea I read. That's just a part of what makes us scientists. I'm a little surprised the guy didn't see this coming. If he wanted 'that's wonderful', then he should've tried a different site.

[michel123456]

The most funny part is that someone quoted him negatively. I bet he is the only negative reputation member on this forum. He doesn't deserve that. (although I will not make any move to make a change, I find it really amusing)

[dragonstar57]

You see, everything is natural. Exactly when did we go outside of nature? When we stood up on two legs? When we first started hunting? When we developed a civilization or language? Don’t buy the fuzzy reasoning that hippies want to sell you; everything is natural. The question is: what is ethical? Obviously, stranding hippies along with their “I can feel the pulse of the Earth” bullshite on a slowly sinking island until their lungs are full of doom is the most ethical.

i didn't read all of your article and it DID seem OVERLY AGGRESSIVE and a little long

but i like it because of this part.

i have been saying this for at least 6 years

what makes anything so "unnatural" . "unnatural" the very word seems to be an attack on the concept of civilization. and seems to suggest that the way things beater before... something.

but your insults and aggression are too strong.

I assume that you meant it to sound sarcastic or something but it sounds aggressive

and it makes you sound unintelligent .

and

They feel that if they can’t understand it, or have it easily explained to them, it must be inferior to their preconceived notion. Worse than that, they just run to others who think similarly, and then **** each other off about how right they are. Understanding something or not has no bearing whatsoever on its actual validity.

this part is poorly written and is where i could read no more

Edited November 10, 2010 by dragonstar57

[lemur]

Ironically, questioning of science is radically scientific. It gets less scientific when the goal is to reinforce pre-ordained beliefs.

Edited November 11, 2010 by lemur