Smart people rejecting science

[CosmicJoghurt]

Yes, it's true. I said "smart people". It's quite vague isn't it? "What do you MEAN smart people?"

You know what I mean.

So basically, my mom is a Christian. And she's smart - believe me. Perfect grades all the way, handles everything everyone does, handles problems magnificently, finds solutions fast as shit. She's smart, and very much educated.

But every once in a while, her opinions start a war with her gray cells. Every time the subject of the creation of the universe comes up, she says mankind, such a simple organism, cannot grasp such a complex phenomena as the creation of the universe.

Or when homeopathy comes up - her feelings kick in: me and my brother were terribly sick, doctor gave us antibiotics, we got "sicker", she tried homeopathy, TADAAH! We're fine. Years later she's still struck by that relief that that water gave her. She won't accept double-blind scientific trials, she won't accept common sense, she won't accept the self-contradictions.

Or when I tell her reading in dim light, or staring at a screen in dim light won't damage my eyes permanently, she won't accept the British Medical Journal as a reliable source. My miopia MUST BE CAUSED BY THE EVIL MAC!

Or when I tell her.... you get the point. Anything that contradicts personal experience.

Sometimes I don't bother. Like when she says my sickness at the moment is caused by walking barefoot. I won't bother to say it doesn't change shit as long as body temperature stays high. It's useless, personal opinions mess everything up.
And I don't bother talking about how recycling plastic is useless. Or why overcooked meat isn't really that cancer-genious-word.


So, how do you deal with these problems? Reason?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

We are capable of being incredibly biased without realizing it. As Doctor Andy Thomson will tell you.

 

[Gnug215]

Cosmic, maybe she should read the article mentioned in this thread:

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8863

 

[Squawk]

Ooh, plastic recycling useless? Now I have reading to do, that's another assumption identified and about to be challenged.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Ooh, plastic recycling useless? Now I have reading to do, that's another assumption identified and about to be challenged.

Useless as in, you don't save energy or money. Which is what is what it's usually believed to save. I'll explain further if you want me to, but even if you do manage to prove me wrong, my point stands :lol:

 

[whatsinitforme]

But can you blame her? She's basing her opinions based on life experiences, you may do the same when you have kids. You may adhere strongly to journals, books, the League of Reason (haha) and your kids will look at you like you have two heads.
Or maybe not. Who knows

 

[Dean]

We are capable of being incredibly biased without realizing it. As Doctor Andy Thomson will tell you.

I think I have frequently referred to his "Why We Believe in Gods" presentation at the American Atheists 08 Convention. I take it you've seen it?

 

[Grimlock]

One thing scientists and nerds has in common is that often unintentionally they speak a language that goes above the heads of normal people.
That its the same language crackpots often use doesn,´t exactly make the problem any lesser.

Like when trying to explain how the thing in the Matrix might not be possible they often use a lot of complicated sentence to try and explain it and most people sit with a big ? over their heads and understood nothing what so ever, of what was just said.

I think it was in the latest Magic Sandwich show that the problem was touched upon in the sense that Scientist aren,´t great debaters as they often allow the evidence to speak for itself even though the evidence might be written in a language not familiar to ordinary people, where as creationist are good at using such language that ordinary people can understand (that they haven,´t got the foggiest of what they are speaking of is another thing entirely).

In a way its the same with a friend of mine he,´s currently at his final year in his education to become a certified pedagogue and he uses ALOT of words i haven,´t the foggiest of what he,´s talking about.
Well its the teaching on how to teach he explains and all i can say is well why didn,´t you say so from the begging?

So maybe if we,´re to get better at getting the message across we might want to start using more ordinary words when talking about things and describing them.

 

[Inferno]

I've just realized that I'm surrounded by "Smart people rejecting science".
My mother and step-father believe in astroLOLogy and homeopathy, my dad and step-mom as well including a few versions of eastern faith-healing (Reiki and stuff), my aunt believes in all of that too, my grandparents believe in a few weird things I can't exactly pin-point but among other things that Jesus really rose from the grave and my last boss believed in faith-healing and astrology, too. My soon-to-be girlfriend believes in a variety of the above.

The worst of the whole bunch though are my uncle and aunt. Not only do they believe in homeopathy (both are doctors?!?), faith-healing (I told my aunt my knee hurt, she said she could cure me over the phone with "belief energy" or something), astrology, a few eastern myths including that DNA isn't the source of heredity but rather a receptor for energy (Which prompts me to ask, what would that change? Nothing, it's just a way to justify their BS beliefs.), crop circles and that there is some magic behind the pyramids. (How could anyone have measured them to be so precise???) The most outlandish of their claims though is about a guy who only "eats" light.
We got into a short discussion tonight after we watched a video on the numbers behind the pyramids (I thought it was a proper scientific video, turns out it's "pseudo-scientific bullshit". They weren't too happy when I told them that.) and they had two claims:
1) Scientists don't want to search for truth, they only want to accept that which will fill their pockets.
2) Scientists are dishonest and delete evidence whenever it suits them.

Holy fucking shit, no wonder I come here so often.

 

[Gnug215]

I've just realized that I'm surrounded by "Smart people rejecting science".
My mother and step-father believe in astroLOLogy and homeopathy, my dad and step-mom as well including a few versions of eastern faith-healing (Reiki and stuff), my aunt believes in all of that too, my grandparents believe in a few weird things I can't exactly pin-point but among other things that Jesus really rose from the grave and my last boss believed in faith-healing and astrology, too. My soon-to-be girlfriend believes in a variety of the above.

[...]

I'm sorry, this is a bit off-topic, but... Your "soon-to-be-girlfriend"??


Back on topic:

They weren't too happy when I told them that.) and they had two claims:
1) Scientists don't want to search for truth, they only want to accept that which will fill their pockets.
2) Scientists are dishonest and delete evidence whenever it suits them.

This is exactly where you need to hit them. You have to make them understand that science is very much a free market, and that it is very much in any scientist's interest to find evidence of things that go against previously known "truth", because THAT's the kind of thing that will fill their pockets (Nobel prize, etc.)

Finding new stuff is EXACTLY what will fill their pockets. It's not scientists and researchers that benefit from the status quo.

 

[Inferno]

Hehe. Yep, "soon-to-be". I'm just that irresistible.
Nah seriously though, it's that sorta thing you'd normally get when you're fifteen... Her best friend tells you she's into you. you've got a date set so basically you know that by day X you'll be going out with her.

This is exactly where you need to hit them. You have to make them understand that science is very much a free market, and that it is very much in any scientist's interest to find evidence of things that go against previously known "truth", because THAT's the kind of thing that will fill their pockets (Nobel prize, etc.)

Finding new stuff is EXACTLY what will fill their pockets. It's not scientists and researchers that benefit from the status quo.

No no you've got it all wrong. For example the pharma industry, they're banning homeopathic remedies because they could be made for basically no money at all so the returns wouldn't be as great. :? (Basic misunderstanding of economics there...)

Anyway, I'm doing exactly what you suggested, compiling a list of well-researched articles to show how each and every one of their points is wrong. I didn't have the energy yesterday when we talked about it.

 

[Gnug215]

One thing scientists and nerds has in common is that often unintentionally they speak a language that goes above the heads of normal people.
That its the same language crackpots often use doesn,´t exactly make the problem any lesser.

Like when trying to explain how the thing in the Matrix might not be possible they often use a lot of complicated sentence to try and explain it and most people sit with a big ? over their heads and understood nothing what so ever, of what was just said.

I think it was in the latest Magic Sandwich show that the problem was touched upon in the sense that Scientist aren,´t great debaters as they often allow the evidence to speak for itself even though the evidence might be written in a language not familiar to ordinary people, where as creationist are good at using such language that ordinary people can understand (that they haven,´t got the foggiest of what they are speaking of is another thing entirely).

In a way its the same with a friend of mine he,´s currently at his final year in his education to become a certified pedagogue and he uses ALOT of words i haven,´t the foggiest of what he,´s talking about.
Well its the teaching on how to teach he explains and all i can say is well why didn,´t you say so from the begging?

So maybe if we,´re to get better at getting the message across we might want to start using more ordinary words when talking about things and describing them.

This in an excellent point.

It's not really a surprise that someone like Kent Hovind is famous, because he really has the word in his power. Full-of-shit-word, sure, but still. He's like a smarmy used-car-salesman that could sell a car to a blind man.

It's true for many others, too. And it's not so strange, because the way to become a leader in the religious/creationist/apologist community is not to be the brightest or cleverest mind that crawls to the top, but the best orator.

Scientists lack more spokespeople. People who are good at actually conveying the message. It's usually some journalist interviewing a scientist about something, and that usually goes horribly wrong.

And when scientists DO try to use more everyday language to describe something, it often becomes oversimplified, or they use an analogy that is easily misunderstood.
The name "Big Bang" is a good example of this phenomenon. (I realize the name was inititally derisive, but it's been adopted by everyone.)

We need more public science communicators. And no, not someone like Dawkins, who I think almost does more damage than good, because he comes off as a bit of a stiff, stuck-up, arrogant, ivory-tower-y prick a lot of times. (All he really does is preach to the choir and bolster the confidence of those already converted.)

People like Brian Cox and Kenneth Miller are a million times better.

 

[Prolescum]

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=112207#p112207

 

[Gnug215]

Hehe. Yep, "soon-to-be". I'm just that irresistible.
Nah seriously though, it's that sorta thing you'd normally get when you're fifteen... Her best friend tells you she's into you. you've got a date set so basically you know that by day X you'll be going out with her.

This is exactly where you need to hit them. You have to make them understand that science is very much a free market, and that it is very much in any scientist's interest to find evidence of things that go against previously known "truth", because THAT's the kind of thing that will fill their pockets (Nobel prize, etc.)

Finding new stuff is EXACTLY what will fill their pockets. It's not scientists and researchers that benefit from the status quo.

No no you've got it all wrong. For example the pharma industry, they're banning homeopathic remedies because they could be made for basically no money at all so the returns wouldn't be as great. :? (Basic misunderstanding of economics there...)

Anyway, I'm doing exactly what you suggested, compiling a list of well-researched articles to show how each and every one of their points is wrong. I didn't have the energy yesterday when we talked about it.

... you're frigging fifteen??

Wow.

And hey, scooore!

Ahem, anyway.

The pharma industry is really an example of what happens when scientists are NOT in charge or things. It's the corporations, and they, of course, exist solely for the purpose of making money, so it's somewhat understandable that they would hold something back or otherwise engage in disingenuous practices.
Wih scientists, if they wanted to use dishonest means to further their career or line their pockets, they would have to present something that's fake - and they have at times, like the cold fusion thing.
But the good thing, of course, is that fakes are usually (always?) discovered, because of the principle of repeatability in the scientific method.

 

[Inferno]

... you're frigging fifteen??

Wow.

And hey, scooore!

Hehe, no. I'm 21 and she's 28. What I meant was "It's the same thing that happened when I was fifteen." EDIT: To make this clearer, as I'm not making a good job of explaining myself... This has never happened to me before. It is however the sort of thing I heard from friends round about the time I was fifteen. It normally doesn't happen at this age, but there you go.
But yes, scooore!

 

[Gnug215]

... you're frigging fifteen??

Wow.

And hey, scooore!

Hehe, no. I'm 21 and she's 28. What I meant was "It's the same thing that happened when I was fifteen." EDIT: To make this clearer, as I'm not making a good job of explaining myself... This has never happened to me before. It is however the sort of thing I heard from friends round about the time I was fifteen. It normally doesn't happen at this age, but there you go.
But yes, scooore!

Ah, reading comprehension fail here.

But hey, 21 to 28.

Scoooore!

 

[Inferno]

Ah, reading comprehension fail here.

But hey, 21 to 28.

Scoooore!

To end the derail of this thread, my last "conquest" (or was I her conquest? Seems more likely...) was 20 to 30.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I was 16 and nailed a 21 year old chick. I'd like to thank my manly muscles - but it was most likely the fact that she had serious daddy issues.
Now I'm 20 and I have a 16 year old stalker with daddy issues.

I seem to attract damaged women.

Consider this topic officially derailed.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Maybe we should make a stud contest in LoR. Everyone, show your manliness!

 

[Gnug215]

Well, I'd actually prefer that we got back on topic.

It's an important topic, because there are a lot of these people, and I think it would be good to figure out how to... talk sense into them.