Why do so many people doubt science?

[Adam Jensen]

That is just a tiny example, whille true for some people. I believe the point of the OP is the one of why are still people that doesn't believe that the world is round, why are there some people that doesn't believe that we humans belong to a group of mammals called simians, even that the evidences are spread all over around.

My answer is as simple as this, they to lazy to use their brain and see the obvious.

Take evolution as an example.

One of the major arguments I've heard against it is that there are no observed instances of speciation.

Yet, you type that into Google, the very first link takes you to many observed instances of speciation.

It's frustrating as all hell. The truth is, these people don't want the truth. They have their beliefs and they're not going to challenge them or change them in any ways so when they're confronted with something, such as evolution, that goes contrary to beliefs, they don't investigate evolution, they investigate "how evolution is false." Thus they don't do research properly, they don't search google for evidence for evolution and find it on the first fucking link in two seconds, they search for evidence against it because it has to be wrong! It has to be! It goes against everything he believes therefore it must NOT be true.

If he stumbles upon evidence for evolution, he'll rationalize it and say, "there's gotta be some way that this is wrong."

It's more stubbornness than laziness.

I've read some of the posts Answers In Genesis have put on their website, I've tried to understand them, tried to see their view but also knew through research that they were wrong, but the key is to not be afraid and go to your "enemy" and learn his stance. Maybe he's not really your enemy and maybe he is right? Knowledge isn't about "enemies" or "us vs them" (which is why I put it in quotations in the first place,) it's about understanding reality and to do that, you have to be ready to accept all possibilities and be skeptical of all possibilities and that means you can't toss out a possibility just because you don't want to believe it. You have to investigate it, see if it adds up, see if it makes sense in reality. Only after making an objective investigation can you then decide if it is accurate to reality or not.

[Lenonis]

There is a significant and important difference between being skeptical and caution with science and flat out denying it.

I doubt there is anyone here would would advocate blindly trusting anything and everything a scientist says. However there are some things that are so well proven that they should not even be questioned. Ever.

Like evolution. It's a thing. It's proven. You can argue about whether or not man evolved from apes, or how that process actually took place, but flat out denying evolution and not wanting it taught in schools is pants-on-head stupid.

Heck, some people still think the earth is flat. Somehow.

Science evolves as technology improves -- medical breakthroughs can sometimes change our views on things like nutrition and genetic impact on health.

But the people who look at the scientific community as a bunch of corrupt people who never EVER post anything valid are just showing themselves to have absolutely no understanding about how the process of research and publication works. It's much easier intellectually to believe a conspiracy theory than have to understand and critically think about scientific findings. And if there is one thing I've learned -- it's that people loooooooove to be intellectually lazy. You can see it all the time on the political discussions on this board. So much easier to wipe away an argument with libtard and conservitard labels rather than actually addressing the points.

[Independent voter]

A scientist on a radio show talking about why people doubt science used the example of dropping two balls from a high tower, one made of lead and the other of balsa wood. He said both would hit the ground at the same time.

It's not true, the ball of lead will hit first.

[Annoying]

There is a significant and important difference between being skeptical and caution with science and flat out denying it.

I doubt there is anyone here would would advocate blindly trusting anything and everything a scientist says. However there are some things that are so well proven that they should not even be questioned. Ever.

Like evolution. It's a thing. It's proven. You can argue about whether or not man evolved from apes, or how that process actually took place, but flat out denying evolution and not wanting it taught in schools is pants-on-head stupid.

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable to question evolution or other "highly proven" theories... given you're doing so from a scientific standpoint. Challenging the norm isn't a bad thing, so long as you do it right -- within the context of the scientific method, and are prepared to be entirely wrong.

A scientist on a radio show talking about why people doubt science used the example of dropping two balls from a high tower, one made of lead and the other of balsa wood. He said both would hit the ground at the same time.

It's not true, the ball of lead will hit first.

Damned air resistance. *shakes fist*

[Adam Jensen]

A scientist on a radio show talking about why people doubt science used the example of dropping two balls from a high tower, one made of lead and the other of balsa wood. He said both would hit the ground at the same time.

It's not true, the ball of lead will hit first.

That's false. If we ignore air resistance and perform this experiment in a true vacuum, both objects hit the ground at the same time.

FFS, we did this in high school physics, two balls of different weights, same shape to minimize the effect of air resistance. They hit the ground at the same time.

[Granyala]

Well there was the case of eggs and cholesterol. At first science told us that eggs had high cholesterol, cholesterol was bad, ergo eggs are bad.

Well there was the case of eggs and cholesterol. At first science told us that eggs had high cholesterol, cholesterol in overall high amounts was unhealthy, ergo DUMB PEOPLE went: eggs are bad!111

Uneducated people wrongly interpreting science and jumping to conclusions is the problem here.

[DEATHETERNAL]

A scientist on a radio show talking about why people doubt science used the example of dropping two balls from a high tower, one made of lead and the other of balsa wood. He said both would hit the ground at the same time.

It's not true, the ball of lead will hit first.

It actually would hit first if the balls were of equal size due to the increased mass of the lead ball reducing the affect of air resistance .

[Jibjub]

The OP answered the thread's title with the first two sentences. The science will "Settle", as they say, and then then a new discovery will happen that makes the old theory completely wrong.

Also, because much of "science" is heavily influenced by lobbyist and corporations -- those funding the "science" -- who usually have their desired results figured out but only need some supporting evidence from "Scientists". An easy example would be all the studies and research done by big tobacco over the years to mislead consumers.

Looking at human nature in a microcosm, if one is lied to he usually does not trust the liar ever again. The same applies. It doesn't take much.

[Tuor]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think the doubters and skeptics actually provide value.

At my eyes all opinions are valuable, if, they are done in an empirical way. Take Einstein and Newton as an example, Einstein didn't wanted to deny Newton, he just presented his Pov, and later it was proven to be correct. Meanwhille, some modern scientists are slowly finding some loopwhole on Einstein's theories.

If everyone simply accepted something as fact, there'd be less interest in the scientific community in continuing research on that specific topic. Even the slightest hint of doubt reveals a question that scientists can research and answer further.

My example was about some people denying facts, not about facts that become absolute truth. There is no absolute truth...

[SL1200]

People who barely finished high school like to think they're smarter than people who are doctors. Most of these people call themselves republicans.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Because being a skeptic is easy, but reading through articles take time and there's probably things they think that are better to do with their free time.

[Endus]

In short, people doubt science because science isn't religion. And many people are raised with two ideas in their heads;

1> Religion gives me simple, concrete, definitive answers to everything
2> Religion and science are sometimes at loggerheads, meaning they're contradictory ideologies.

The problem with the first is that it's not a realistic viewpoint; it's using religion as a security blanket because your own ignorance confuses and frightens you.
The problem with the second is that it's based on a false premise; science does not exist to defend answers, but to postulate and test them, repeatedly, while always improving the model. Science isn't at loggerheads to faith, except where faith tries to defend a claim that is demonstrably not true. In which case, the faith is the one in error.

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable to question evolution or other "highly proven" theories... given you're doing so from a scientific standpoint. Challenging the norm isn't a bad thing, so long as you do it right -- within the context of the scientific method, and are prepared to be entirely wrong.

Damned air resistance. *shakes fist*

Here's another point; doubt exists when you don't understand enough about something; it's a statement of ignorance. Even in criminal trials; having reasonable doubt means you don't know enough of the facts. It isn't a personal failing unless you presume that your doubt (read: ignorance) is an alternative argument to knowledge. It isn't. Your first response to doubt should be to seek more information, not to deny anything.

Skepticism is not doubt, or denial. It's asking to see the evidence and argument, and parsing it critically. If the evidence supports the conclusion (as peer-reviewed science generally does), then you'll come to the same conclusion, having been convinced by the argument/evidence. If you went into that without being open to being proven wrong, and weren't totally willing to accept that the argument might be true, you aren't a skeptic, you're a denier. Which is irrational and wrongheaded.

Science doesn't just welcome challenges and skepticism, it thrives on it. It's the single central mechanic that underpins the entire system. The issue lies when people irrationally push their ignorance as if it were a challenge to the science.

[oxymoronic]

Health science is piss poor science at best. It is actually worse than psychology. Oh and educated conservatives are more likely to deny science than uneducated conservatives.

source plz...

[Granyala]

That's false. If we ignore air resistance and perform this experiment in a true vacuum, both objects hit the ground at the same time.

But that's the point:
Trowing something off a tower in an atmosphere != fall through a vacuum.

The scientist in the radio was WRONG. Or to be more precise: he ignored scientific correctness of speech and should have mentioned that no atmosphere was present.

[Geekzilla]

Perhaps this will change over time, as "pop science" seems to be much more mainstream today than in decades past. Perhaps not.

I doubt it. I think part of it comes from not wanting to trust the government or big corporations that the scientists work for, and some of it is a lack of critical thinking skills, wanting to trust their instincts over their brain.

When I was young, I was big into conspiracy theories, cryptozoology, and things like that. At least part of it was because I wanted to live in a wonderful, unpredictable world. For some reason, one thing I never questioned was the moon landings, probably because that was something wonderful that I wanted to believe in.

Fast forward a bit over three decades involving a higher level of science, logic, and aerospace training than most people get, and I decide that I should question the moon landing like I questioned other things. So, I went off looking for moon landing conspiracy theories that had some credibility. What I found was a whole lot of people that couldn't get over the fact that an alien environment is, well, an alien environment and all the instincts you have about how things should work don't necessarily apply to it. Quotes taken out of context or that could have multiple meanings, gut feelings handed out as science, seriously flawed logic and flat out denial abound.

I kid you not, I'd see people carry on about some pet peeve of theirs and wrap up saying something to the effect of "Yeah, NASA showed their math on how that worked and I can't find any flaw in it, but I still don't trust it." And they considered that a convincing argument.

Orbital mechanics is one of those things where gut instinct doesn't have a place, it can be quite puzzling and in some ways counterintuitive, but people that haven't studied it will assume that common sense applies which leads to some massively wrong conclusions. On a side note, I just noticed that counterintuitive is such an uncommon word that it isn't even in Chrome's spelling dictionary.

Getting back to my point, the world became a whole lot less wonderful when I realized that the only reason that moon landing conspiracies (that I found, I doubt I've seen them all) sound convincing is because the audience doesn't have the knowledge required to evaluate the conspiracy, and that probably applies to all the other conspiracy theories that I had read about when I was young. The main reason they seemed plausible to me is that I lacked the knowledge to evaluate the arguments, if I knew as much about the subject of those conspiracies as I do about the science and technology of space travel, it's quite possible that the supporting arguments on those are as much hokum as the moon landing conspiracy arguments.

I still don't take everything I hear, especially from the government and big corporations, at face value, but I'm quite a bit more open to the idea that just because something sounds wrong, that doesn't make it wrong.

[Graeham]

Society as a whole isn't as progressive as it likes to think. We already have science to prove a lot of people wrong in their beliefs yet insist on appeasing them and holding the progression of everybody behind in the quest to accommodate them.

On the other hand, a bit of critical thinking can go a long way - especially when some elements of science are still murky or are half-truths pushing a particular agenda.

[Endus]

That's false. If we ignore air resistance and perform this experiment in a true vacuum, both objects hit the ground at the same time.

FFS, we did this in high school physics, two balls of different weights, same shape to minimize the effect of air resistance. They hit the ground at the same time.

Super-duper nitpick, but if we're REALLY being accurate, the ball off lead will hit first, if you run them in separate tests, in a vacuum. Universal gravitation. Each mass has a gravitational pull. While the effect of the Earth's gravitational pull on each ball is identical, the lead ball, having more mass, exerts more pull on the Earth than the balsa ball.

It needs to be in separate tests, though, because otherwise, both balls are pulling "up" at the same time, combining their gravitational vectors.

And given the difference in scale, the difference is immeasurably tiny. This is why they often skip universal gravitation in high school and stick with planetary gravity; universal gravitation is only really an issue when talking about orbital dynamics of planets and moons and stuff of similar size.

[Nathreim]

It because the science is often put into practice before we know all the negative effects. DDT is a prime example.

Ian Malcolm put it best.

[Independent voter]

It actually would hit first if the balls were of equal size due to the increased mass of the lead ball reducing the affect of air resistance .

Exactly. The scientist probably knew that he just was trying to explain things simply.

[Tuor]

Take evolution as an example.

One of the major arguments I've heard against it is that there are no observed instances of speciation.

Yet, you type that into Google, the very first link takes you to many observed instances of speciation.

It's frustrating as all hell. The truth is, these people don't want the truth.

Some are literally brainwashed .

A few months i argued with one of those Jeovah witness, after almost an hour of discussion she just told me this '' If you wish to come and study the bible with us you are welcome'' and the she lowered the voice and said again '' But if you come in, you wont go out''. The point is that these people literally brainwash other with their PoV, the other versions don't matter, only theirs... I didn't wanted to enter in the religious field because of that, it isn't the fact that they dump, its the fact that those people are being manipulated .