General public skeptical of hard scientific evidence?

[Okla-homey]

Looks like there may be some truth to the notion held by many trial lawyers that regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary. And also that the public is generally skeptical of scientific stuff.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/1...uade-the-jury/

[Half a Hundred]

Looks like there may be some truth to the notion held by many trial lawyers that regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary. And also that the public is generally skeptical of scientific stuff.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/1...uade-the-jury/

Not surprising. The entire purpose of empiricism is to mitigate the effects of confirmation bias, and yet, we see how hard it is in experts, much less the lay public.

[Mjcpr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4IEqnM5GaI

[OhU1]

regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/1...uade-the-jury/

Yup. Evolution being the most obvious example. After all it is "only a theory".

[JohnnyMack]

You don't say?

Sincerely,

Carl Sagan

[OUMallen]

Yup. Evolution being the most obvious example. After all it is "only a theory".

LALALALALALALALALALALALA

[PDXsooner]

Kind of like the birthers. They demand a birth certificate, so Hawaii produces one that is confirmed by the governor. Yet...they still demand a birth certificate.

Sorry, not to make this political, but I just read an article about another birther.

[Ike]

Not surprised at all. I have a few theories about that too. When it comes to forming beliefs, or explaining to ourselves a previously unseen phenomenon, we often seek out the simplest solution. But simple can have different meanings for different people (and even different meanings for the same person in different circumstances). Sometimes 'simple' can take on the meaning of "this explanation/belief allows me to not think about this anymore and get on with more important things", and at other times it can mean the more conventional "this doesn't require the world or people to have properties or abilities that have never been seen before." I think a lot of the determination of which definition we use depends on how much we care. I think in the case of something like ESP, people are willing to accept the idea that someone else has that ability because in some sense, it doesn't really matter to them. They know they don't have such an ability, and if they just accept that someone else does after a demonstration such as the one in the article, they can simply move on with their lives without ever thinking about it again. To say that it's not ESP requires thinking about how such a demonstration took place.

There's probably something in there too regarding our willingness to trust someone we can see, or who is right in front of us vs our willingness to trust a nebulous "them".

[Okla-homey]

I freely admit, as a person of faith, there is a great deal of irony inherent in the fact my fellow beleivers tend to be the folks who are often quick to dismiss scientic theories supported by empirical evidence when they conflict with our world view.

[Leroy Lizard]

Not surprised at all. I have a few theories about that too. When it comes to forming beliefs, or explaining to ourselves a previously unseen phenomenon, we often seek out the simplest solution. But simple can have different meanings for different people (and even different meanings for the same person in different circumstances). Sometimes 'simple' can take on the meaning of "this explanation/belief allows me to not think about this anymore and get on with more important things", and at other times it can mean the more conventional "this doesn't require the world or people to have properties or abilities that have never been seen before." I think a lot of the determination of which definition we use depends on how much we care. I think in the case of something like ESP, people are willing to accept the idea that someone else has that ability because in some sense, it doesn't really matter to them. They know they don't have such an ability, and if they just accept that someone else does after a demonstration such as the one in the article, they can simply move on with their lives without ever thinking about it again. To say that it's not ESP requires thinking about how such a demonstration took place.

There's probably something in there too regarding our willingness to trust someone we can see, or who is right in front of us vs our willingness to trust a nebulous "them".

The problem is that it does little good to disprove phenomenon like ESP when the believers can always pull meta-analysis studies out of their ***. So we get bombarded with weak case studies and meta-analyses that show what everyone wants to believe, yet no real scientific studies support.

I freely admit, as a person of faith, there is a great deal of irony inherent in the fact my fellow beleivers tend to be the folks who are often quick to dismiss scientic theories supported by empirical evidence when they conflict with our world view.

I think that's true of all of us, frankly. For example, no scientific study is going to get a nature lover into abandoning recycling or stop his harping on global warming. The same holds for his antagonists.

[Ike]

I freely admit, as a person of faith, there is a great deal of irony inherent in the fact my fellow beleivers tend to be the folks who are often quick to dismiss scientic theories supported by empirical evidence when they conflict with our world view.

There may be a great deal of irony in that fact, but it shouldn't be too surprising. When a new way of thinking is proposed (about absolutely anything) that is in conflict with what is currently believed, or has implications that would be in conflict with some currently held belief, a person is confronted with a choice. Often that choice is between: a) thinking deeply about this new way of thinking and how to work that into the framework of beliefs they already hold. b) even deeper thinking about how that new way of thinking emerged, the evidence that supports it, and perhaps evidence that might be against it leading to a decision on whether or not to accept or reject the new way of thinking. or c) outright dismissal.

a) requires some work. b) requires even more work if you care about being 'right'. c) requires no work at all. There are probably things all in-between those choices too.

[Eielson]

Pew Research has seen it, too—a 2009 poll found that 16% of Americans believe in the “evil eye” (the belief that certain people can cast curses or spells that cause bad things to happen).

That's my favorite part.

[MR2-Sooner86]

That's my favorite part.

Hey I know several Indians who are hardcore into the ritual of smoking. My great grandfather was a Cherokee medicine man and I heard stories about him and his "magic" that he was suppose to have.

[Chuck Bao]

Not surprised at all. I have a few theories about that too. When it comes to forming beliefs, or explaining to ourselves a previously unseen phenomenon, we often seek out the simplest solution. But simple can have different meanings for different people (and even different meanings for the same person in different circumstances). Sometimes 'simple' can take on the meaning of "this explanation/belief allows me to not think about this anymore and get on with more important things", and at other times it can mean the more conventional "this doesn't require the world or people to have properties or abilities that have never been seen before." I think a lot of the determination of which definition we use depends on how much we care. I think in the case of something like ESP, people are willing to accept the idea that someone else has that ability because in some sense, it doesn't really matter to them. They know they don't have such an ability, and if they just accept that someone else does after a demonstration such as the one in the article, they can simply move on with their lives without ever thinking about it again. To say that it's not ESP requires thinking about how such a demonstration took place.

There's probably something in there too regarding our willingness to trust someone we can see, or who is right in front of us vs our willingness to trust a nebulous "them".

I very much like the way you described it, Ike. I was in college when it finally dawned on me that I had kept two competing beliefs - evolution and a strict and literal Biblical creationalism. I had made no attempt to reconcile them, which I guess many Americans do these days. I was mentally lazy and it really was the "simplest" solution when I was really more concerned with getting a date or scoring some booze. I very much appreciate that the university experience challenged me and my beliefs.

But I was very much surprised by that article in the link by Okla-homey. I somehow thought that 50-60% of American kids went on to some higher level of education and that has been pretty constant over the last 30 years. Maybe our universities are not doing their job of provoking us to critical thinking or Americans are just getting fat between the ears.

[Ike]

I very much like the way you described it, Ike. I was in college when it finally dawned on me that I had kept two competing beliefs - evolution and a strict and literal Biblical creationalism. I had made no attempt to reconcile them, which I guess many Americans do these days. I was mentally lazy and it really was the "simplest" solution when I was really more concerned with getting a date or scoring some booze. I very much appreciate that the university experience challenged me and my beliefs.

But I was very much surprised by that article in the link by Okla-homey. I somehow thought that 50-60% of American kids went on to some higher level of education and that has been pretty constant over the last 30 years. Maybe our universities are not doing their job of provoking us to critical thinking or Americans are just getting fat between the ears.

Maybe there's a case for that... But also consider that the definition of "some higher level of education" also includes things like Vo-tech, business school, cullinary schools and all sorts of vocational schools (I'll bet there are some that would even include truck driving school in there too). Not to knock those settings, because many of them do a good job for what they are designed to do. But they are not designed to foster critical thinking. At least, not like the universtiy setting is. Their job is to get you out the door as a well-enough prepared xxxxxxx-person to go make a life for yourself. So while the hypothesis that higher education is failing may have some merit, also remember that an expanded definition of higher education will necessarily lower the average outcome of higher education.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yup. Evolution being the most obvious example. After all it is "only a theory".

I've been doing a ton of research on so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" and school disclaimer policies for a note I'm writing. That code language comes up in court analyses pretty frequently.

[landrun]

The reason for this is simple, if either the evidence or those presenting the evidence, aren't credible, it isn't evidence at all. From religion, to politics, to jurors sitting on a jury, to a debate about what football team is going to win this weekend etc... This always comes into play.

As an example, there is a lot of 'empirical evidence' provided by politicians on the left and right as to whether or not tax cuts or tax increases help the economy. But the evidence each of us believe comes down to how much confidence we have in the integrity and motives of those presenting that evidence.

This can be said of any dispute.

[47straight]

Such skepticism of "hard scientific evidence" is good and well-founded, particularly for juries.

I need only remind everyone of the "arson experts" used to convict and execute a seemingly innocent father here in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7122381.html

Unless a jury member is an actual scientist and can rely on his or her own personal expertise, by definition what they are relying upon is NOT "hard scientific evidence," but instead upon faith in another person.

That other person indeed might be well-trained, honest, and sincere, but the jury is still putting your faith in the word of someone else. Not into reason or into the science, but into that other person.

And thank heaven that we still have juries and voters to be skeptics, maintain a line of morality or ethics, and don't let scientists run the world without question.

Too many scientists don't get this important but subtle distinction.

[Oldnslo]

Often that choice is between: a) thinking deeply about this new way of thinking and how to work that into the framework of beliefs they already hold. b) even deeper thinking about how that new way of thinking emerged, the evidence that supports it, and perhaps evidence that might be against it leading to a decision on whether or not to accept or reject the new way of thinking. or c) outright dismissal.

a) requires some work. b) requires even more work if you care about being 'right'. c) requires no work at all. There are probably things all in-between those choices too.

Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.

--Bertrand Russell

[OhU1]

I've been doing a ton of research on so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" and school disclaimer policies for a note I'm writing. That code language comes up in court analyses pretty frequently.

Froz that would be a note I would be interested in reading. I need to get around to reading the Kitzmiller case.

The dishonesty of the "intelligent design" proponents is appalling. ID is nothing but creationism in science clothing. But they know better than to get specific as to what they really believe and are tying to teach - a literal Genesis account of creation. Believe the Genesis account or don't believe it but don't claim your religious doctrine is science and should be taught in science class.

As you mention the new code word is "academic freedom". Academic freedom to do what? Teach pseudo science? Why don't we also teach alchemy in chemistry class too? Let the students decide?

Other signs of ID are disclaimers or warnings about the supposed controversy about the theory of evolution. There is no controversy among biological scientists - yet another ID deception.