Discuss General Topics.
by really? » 06 Oct 2013, 11:23
You'd be forgiven for thinking science is under attack. Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics, vaccination rates are falling thanks to anti-vaccination movements, and GM crops are pillaged by anti-GM activists. But what determines why people take these positions? Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-left-wrong ... e.html#jCp Foremost is a person's "worldview", their basic beliefs in how society should be structured and operate. Recent research has shown time and time again that people who endorse extreme free-market economics are prone to reject science with regulatory implications – such as the link between tobacco and lung cancer, or greenhouse gasses and climate change. On the flip-side are speculations that the anti-GM and anti-vaccination movement are the domain of the political left. Some commentators have even referred to a "liberal war on science", and have claimed that both ends of spectrum have their own selective blindness to evidence. So, is the rejection of science politically symmetrical? If people on the right reject climate science, do people on the left reject evidence inconvenient to their worldview? Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-left-wrong ... e.html#jCp
-
really?
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58
by NinjaPuppy » 06 Oct 2013, 20:14
I read the article, but what exactly is the author trying to say?
-
NinjaPuppy
-
- Posts: 4002
- Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44
by SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2013, 22:47
Or as the first commenter put it:
Laurie Willberg Journalist
Not another whiney science denial article... Funny how anytime someone mentions a conflict of interest it becomes a "conspiracy theory". We have pure scientific inquiry and then we have Scientism, which is a philosophical materialist reductionist viewpoint. This article isn't about science, it's about Scientism. And all of us with a liberal balanced education aren't buying it.
-
SydneyPSIder
-
- Posts: 1124
- Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24
by really? » 06 Oct 2013, 23:56
-
really?
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58
by really? » 07 Oct 2013, 06:00
-
really?
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58
by TheParanormalAnalyst » 25 Dec 2013, 05:45
The issue with modern science is mistrust. The scientific community issues statements like global ice will virtually disappear by 2014 but then we see a huge increase in sea in in 2013. Scientists are quick to put theories out as facts and call anyone critical of these ideas morons, idiots, stupid or everything else. The public understands it doesn't know the details, but this kind of behavior only drives a wedge between those who want answers to good questions and the scientific community.
If the scientific community wants more acceptance they need to work on their presentation... Present a unified front, kill the enemy with kindness, and take the effort to persuade. NEVER resort to name calling and actions like REDDIT just took to ban any climate skeptics. This does not help the SC's relationship with the public. Scientists also need to rein in their theories, improve the peer-review process and take a bit more time to evaluate the criticisms of their work to ensure they haven't made a mistake.
Because the public at large doesn't have the capacity to evaluate every claim we have to rely on instinct and past results. Bad science in the past will set the stage for mistrust in the future.
Critical Thinking and Logic offer the only sure path to truth.
-
TheParanormalAnalyst
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 24 Dec 2013, 10:43
- Location: Clarksville, TN
-
Return to General Discussions
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
|
|