Barriers to the Acceptance of Science -- 3 Studies

[HuckleB]

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1994

"For those of us trying to increase scientific literacy – understanding of the methods, philosophical underpinnings, common pitfalls, and current findings of science – it can be a frustrating endeavor. Sometimes it seems we are caught in a Catch-22: some people don’t care about science because they don’t understand it, and they don’t want to learn about science because they don’t care. Even worse, at times (most times) we seem to be coming up against emotions and patterns of thought deeply rooted in evolution that nothing short of transcendence will solve. Three recent studies reinforce our worst fears about human nature and make it clear how much of an uphill battle we face.

...

Further, the study shows that people are more compelled by fear than reassurance. Medical decisions are best informed by a careful assessment of risk vs benefit – but emotionally we are much more compelled by the prospect of risk than the prospect of benefit. (Actually, this relationship is more complex and depends on context. People will accept great risk if the potential benefit is huge, like a cure for a terminal or serious illness. If the benefit is more abstract, like preventing a problem they do not currently have, then they focus on risk.) Here again, we are much more likely to be compelled by one story of a side effect, than all the statistics about preventing illness. The difference in our emotional response to statistics vs our emotional response to dramatic stories largely explains why some people are afraid to fly, and why others fear vaccination.

...

Disturbing, however, was the fact that people in this study were more likely to accept ESP if they were told scientists rejected it rather than accepted it. They took the opposite opinion of the scientific community. What process is at work here? Are they reflexively rejecting authority? Do they assume that scientists are closed-minded about the paranormal if they reject it, but if they accept it does that trigger some natural skepticism? Regardless of the explanation, it seems that the natural instinct is the opposite of what it should be.

It’s easy to become depressed by this trifecta of studies, but they really don’t paint a picture different than what we already knew – people believe stories over science and come to their conclusions mostly for evolved emotional, rather than dry rational, reasons. These studies are helpful because they illuminate the details and hopefully will provide some guidance as we continue to search for strategies to promote science and reason."


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


The human mind does a good job at trying to fool itself, doesn't it?

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Thanks for posting this. Note to me: Get back to this!!!

[Fumesucker]

2. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool"

-Richard Feynman

[lfairban]

14. This above all:

. . . to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell; my blessing season this in thee!
-- William Shakespeare

[frustrated_lefty]

3. I think there are at LEAST two commonly propagated myths

which contribute to the tendency of people to reject science.

By far, the most overwhelming myth is that science refutes the existence of the deity of your choice. Science simply doesn't have the tools to address that question. From a scientific standpoint, atheism is equally extreme and unjustified as the most fundamentalist of religions. A scientist, individually, may lean either way on that spectrum, but the simple fact is that there is no way (at present, at least) to empirically address the question as to the existence of deity. Science is based upon empirical proof, and even that empirical proof can only argue in favor of statistical probability. Based on my knowledge of physics and gravitation, I predict I will remain bound to the surface of the planet tomorrow. This is where science differs from religious belief, though. If I wake up tomorrow and am flown into space, the laws of physics and gravity must adapt to consider that possibility, develop formulas which incorporate the statistical probability of that event. The dependence of science on observable phenomena requires it develop hypotheses which explain those phenomena with internal consistency. Religious belief requires faith in one single truth. Science and religious belief, for now, are entirely separate entities. They are incapable of addressing each other and lack a common language with which to communicate.

A second myth, less obvious, often addressed within the subconscious at an intuitive level, is that scientific progress almost promotes the notion of predestination. Now, it's illogical for a religious person to be opposed to that, given that the assumption of an all-knowing, all-powerful deity presumes predestination. I think the religious person objects to any human figuring out the rules which define the predestined workings of the universe. That, in their minds, is god's purview and for man to endeavor in that way is sacrilege. Personally, I don't believe in predestination. I believe that through an effort of will and integrity, an individual can change through choice. That aside, the fear that science may learn the "time-table of dice" is overgrown. We still don't even know all of the species on this planet, how are we supposed to decipher how they all interact with one another?

Sorry for the long post, I am intensely interested in understanding why people deny science in the face of all it has done for our race.

[SheilaT]

4. I don't see where science

almost always promotes the notion of predestination.

[frustrated_lefty]

5. I don't think it does either.

I think it's seen that way.

For example, I was waiting for a bus with an elderly lady. We chatted, talked about the weather, the sports, what her nephew was doing. Eventually, she asked what I did, and I said I was a scientist. She asked "what kind?" I admitted I worked with DNA, fiddled with viruses. She stepped back and said "you're trying to clone GOD!"

Maybe the predestination thing is wrong. I'm still trying to figure it out. It seems to me that a certain portion of the populace thinks scientists are impinging on "god's" territory.

[zeemike]

6. The biggest barrier is the ego.

On both sides of course...and it works like this....Ordanary people want to believe in an afterlife and science (some not all) will jump in and tell everyone how stupid they are to believe such a thing. and of course this sets up the situation where science looses because they must make claims that they have no way of proving....which of course is unscientific.

[frustrated_lefty]

7. In 25 years, I have yet to hear a scientist say anyone is stupid

for their faith.

I've heard a lot of people of faith try and discredit science. But, by and large, the scientists I've known don't really care about proving or disproving religion. We care more about making sure babies don't die, or that people live happy lives. Faith, whether in belief or disbelief, has no place in science.

[zeemike]

8. Just as I have never heard a truly spiritual person put down science.

Mostly those that do are frauds.
the true spiritual leader or seeker embraces science, as every revelation by science is a spiritual one.

It is the insecure scientist or follower of science, that needs to use reticule to win a discusion...at least that is what I believe.

[frustrated_lefty]

10. I leave that for you to discuss with Pat Robertson or Jim Baker.

[HuckleB]

12. (Scratches head.)

Perhaps I am in need of nap.

[Zoeisright]

13. I've heard plenty of spiritual people put down science.

And who gets to decide who is 'truly spiritual'?

[tom_paine]

9. The human mind is absolutely BRILLIANT when it comes to denying reality and/or fooling itself

to say nothing of the sociopathological brilliance we employ in fooling others for power and profit.

Look at the entire scientific edifice and infrastructure for advertising, marketing, and public relations. More money and human effort put into the sciences facilitating lying, deceit, and manipulation than into most of the other sciences put together.

Where are our priorities? They are where they have always been since we fell out of the trees a geologic eyeblink ago.

They are the priorities of an evolutionary dead-end and one that will likely benefit the universe by disappearing.

Yes, you heard me - the extinction of homo sapiens will be a beneficial event for the universe, I strongly suspect.

How many worlds would we destroy like a plague of locusts if we managed to get off this planet?

Luckily, the universe won't have to find out the answer. Our species of "wise" :rofl: apes isn't going ANYWHERE except a one-way ticket to nowhere.

[frustrated_lefty]

11. Your second paragraph makes no sense, please edify?