Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

[RainbowSingularity]

know-it-all
Vs
anti-science

...
vs delusional mental illnesses

 

[James R]

Yazata,

What are "anti-science views"? What makes them "anti-science" exactly?

The most important element, I think, is the idea that expert scientists either (a) don't know what they're talking about, regarding their own professional areas of expertise, or (b) can't be trusted to tell the truth about their findings.

Take the anti-vaccine crowd, for instance. They insist that, contrary to what expert scientists say, vaccines are harmful - in some cases actually causing health issues rather than preventing them (autism and MMR, anybody?). Some will insist that scientists know that the vaccines are harmful (or useless, or whatever), and that scientists tell the public lies because they stand to profit personally from promoting vaccines, for example.

Or take evolution deniers. They believe that he geologists who investigate rocks, the physicists who date the fossils, the paleontologists who collect and classify the fossils, the microbiologists who unravel DNA, and all the other scientists whose work only reinforces the truth of evolution, are all making up lies, or else are all misinterpreting their own research data, or else are incompetent because the only "real" evidence is in the bible.

Or take climate change deniers who tell us that, contrary to the findings of every competent climate scientist, global heating isn't happening, and that climate scientists are only trying to promote the story to line their own pockets.

I'm a bit put off by a vision of science that emphasizes conformity and the need to hold orthodox non-heretical views. It's a bit... medieval.

It's also not a vision that most scientists hold. Every scientist would like nothing better than to overturn an existing scientific paradigm, thus gaining fame, recognition and perhaps even a chance at some cash.

Must true "anti-science views" be actual hostility to science?

Or are they belief in ideas that contradict accepted scientific beliefs? These can often be the classic cranks, but I wouldn't call cranks 'anti-science' exactly. They often love science but overestimate their own abilities in whatever scientific subject they are opining about. Occasionally it's kind of grandiose, they think that they are the new Einstein or something, without having ever studied physics.

I wouldn't say that all cranks are anti-science. They tend to be more about pseudoscience. The ones who have convinced themselves that they've proved Einstein wrong don't necessarily think that all scientists are incompetent liars. They just think they have discovered something previously unknown to the expert scientists. Those kinds of people tend to overestimate their own level of scientific competence, and underestimate it in those who actually are competent.

But other things get called "anti-science" too. We also see professionally-qualified scientists what hold unpopular positions on particular controversial technical issues in their own areas of expertise. Some of them may actually go so far as to question ideas that most of their colleagues consider given and effectively axiomatic. There are astrophysicists who cling to steady-state cosmologies and don't buy the "big bang" for example.

Of course, it is possible to be professionally qualified and still be a crank. There have been some very high-profile scientists who famously went off the rails into crankdom.

And on boards like Sciforums and elsewhere, we sometimes see the term "anti-science" being extended to those who believe in God or less controversially, in a universe that might arguably exceed the scope of metaphysical naturalism.

Believing in God doesn't necessarily mean a person must have anti-science views. God of the gaps is always an option for theist who wants to believe in both science and God.

Some brands of religion are, however, unambiguously anti-science. The Jehovah's Witnesses hold anti-vaccination as a relgious tenet. Scientology has an article of faith that says mental illness - and hence all of psychiatry - is bunk. Therefore, according to the devout Scientologist, all psychiatrists are in it for the money, pulling the wool over their gullible clients' eyes.

The issue that worries me is how laypeople are supposed to relate to science. There's a body of opinion that demands that whenever an assertion is preceeded by "scientists say", laypeople are therefore obligated to believe it on pain of being denounced as "anti-science".[/quite]
I'm not quite sure which body holds that opinion. Scientists are usually happy to explain their reasoning to anybody who is interested to do the deep dive.

This kind of problem arises will all kinds of experts, though.

Being skeptical of professional experts is all well and good - up to a point. At that point, fundamentally you have to decide whether you're going to trust your fellow human beings or not. You can't possibly be an expert on everything yourself. You have no option but to trust some experts. The best you can do is to choose the right experts.

The idea is reminiscent of this board's "weak atheism", the idea that atheism isn't denial of the existence of God (which would presumably require evidence and argument) but merely lack of belief in God (which arguably carries no burden of proof).

Denial, as I've often told Jan Ardena, implies that there is something there to deny in the first place. If God does not exist, then if you say you don't believe in God you're not in denial. You're in straightforward accordance with fact-based reality, and it is the theists who insist that there is a God who are in denial.

 

[iceaura]

The most important element, I think, is the idea that expert scientists either (a) don't know what they're talking about, regarding their own professional areas of expertise, or (b) can't be trusted to tell the truth about their findings.

Unfortunately, the folks who hold belief - or suspicion - b, have several real world and solidly documented examples to point at.

From radiation (X ray machines to fit shoes, radium compounds to make attractive coatings for plates and coffee cups) to artificial trans fats (it's possible, statistically, that they were the single biggest cause of early death in the US for a couple of years), from food additives and agricultural chemicals to mine waste and leaded gasoline, the story of the lone or few scientists who spend years and careers heroically bucking an illegitimate scientific consensus in a matter of more or less obvious hazard to the public is undeniably a common story.

It isn't only, merely, or reliably, a paranoid delusion of the ignorant. It has happened, and with some frequency. And it isn't done happening.

We have a couple more setting up right now, waiting in the wings so to speak: the world's nuclear physicists (even in the "peaceful atom" camp, or the fusion reactor camp) have still not learned to tell the truth about accidents from day one - in every single major nuclear mishap that ever happened, anywhere, including whatever just happened in Russia, the first thing the layperson heard was a pile of lies and deceptions from people presented as (and indistinguishable from, to the ordinary person) scientific experts.

And unless we are very, very, lucky: the "scientific" take on GMOs is going to join that list. It's a familiar, almost classic, setup in the genre: big money riding on particular results of what should be disinterested research, slipshod research and study design in obviously compromised circumstances (private and sequestered data etc), clear gaps in that research, clear gaps in the reporting and public information feed, organized media efforts to rig what the public sees and hears, a startling volume of what appear to be outright lies and bogus misuses of statistics from people presented to the public as scientific experts, and vast areas of hazardous ignorance not being acknowledged (even, in some cases, being flat out denied) by the scientists in the field or their corporate representatives.

So we see that if the arguments are laid out on the page and the money followed to its sources, the AGW hazard deniers and the GMO hazard deniers have a lot in common - where they should, instead, display significant and fundamental differences.

The implications of that are not trivial.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Unfortunately, the folks who hold belief - or suspicion - b, have several real world and solidly documented examples to point at.

From radiation (X ray machines to fit shoes, radium compounds to make attractive coatings for plates and coffee cups) to artificial trans fats (it's possible, statistically, that they were the single biggest cause of early death in the US for a couple of years), from food additives and agricultural chemicals to mine waste and leaded gasoline, the story of the lone or few scientists who spend years and careers heroically bucking an illegitimate scientific consensus in a matter of more or less obvious hazard to the public is undeniably a common story.

It isn't only, merely, or reliably, a paranoid delusion of the ignorant. It has happened, and with some frequency. And it isn't done happening.

We have a couple more setting up right now, waiting in the wings so to speak: the world's nuclear physicists (even in the "peaceful atom" camp, or the fusion reactor camp) have still not learned to tell the truth about accidents from day one - in every single major nuclear mishap that ever happened, anywhere, including whatever just happened in Russia, the first thing the layperson heard was a pile of lies and deceptions from people presented as (and indistinguishable from, to the ordinary person) scientific experts.

And unless we are very, very, lucky: the "scientific" take on GMOs is going to join that list. It's a familiar, almost classic, setup in the genre: big money riding on particular results of what should be disinterested research, slipshod research and study design in obviously compromised circumstances (private and sequestered data etc), clear gaps in that research, clear gaps in the reporting and public information feed, organized media efforts to rig what the public sees and hears, a startling volume of what appear to be outright lies and bogus misuses of statistics from people presented to the public as scientific experts, and vast areas of hazardous ignorance not being acknowledged (even, in some cases, being flat out denied) by the scientists in the field or their corporate representatives.

So we see that if the arguments are laid out on the page and the money followed to its sources, the AGW hazard deniers and the GMO hazard deniers have a lot in common - where they should, instead, display significant and fundamental differences.

The implications of that are not trivial.

I agree with the general thrust of what you have posted.
Science has an enormous credibility problem IMO.
Of course it is not the "science" per see but the scientists to be more precise.
Science has yet to own up to the disaster of Climate change, micro plastic pollution and other massive issues. for without science we would not have these problems. Of course we would not have the luxuriant albeit temporary lifestyle we have either...
But in the consumers mind science has created these problems and hopefully science will fix them...

In the religious mind, science has been playing God and doing it really badly...

Given the degree of intellectual competency of the average person is it little wonder that a general anti -science POV prevails?

• Ozone depletion = science.
• Climate change = science.
• GMO = science.
• Cancer = science.
• Cold war (nukes) = science
• Mass shootings = science
• Mass surveillance = science
  
• Eugenics ( gene editing) = science
• Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science
• just about any thing = science.

is the easy relationship the average ignoramus can draw...

but this thread is not about the failure or success of science, it is about the arrogance of humans who believe they are right when in fact they are wrong. Pro-science and anti science both share the same issue. IMO

 

[gmilam]

How is "science" responsible for climate change? People figured out how to use fossil fuels for a variety of purposes. Later we figured out that there are consequences of using that technology. I don't think you can blame "science" for how the technology evolves anymore than I can blame McDonalds for me being overweight.

 

[andy1033]

What always makes me laugh, is that people always take the worst people to demonstrate these things.

If science people think they are correct on everything, good for them. They should go and violate there own lifes, and do experiments on there own existence, if they know everything.

I can blame ego maniac science people for my life being ruined. People that thought they should get to be in my life, yet have never been right about me once in my adult life.

Science is just a dogma, just the same if not worse then any religion.

If these people were so smart, they would not care about people thinking different.

 

[exchemist]

What always makes me laugh, is that people always take the worst people to demonstrate these things.

If science people think they are correct on everything, good for them. They should go and violate there own lifes, and do experiments on there own existence, if they know everything.

I can blame ego maniac science people for my life being ruined. People that thought they should get to be in my life, yet have never been right about me once in my adult life.

Science is just a dogma, just the same if not worse then any religion.

If these people were so smart, they would not care about people thinking different.

Interesting contribution. I presume you refer to being diagnosed with mental disorder(s). Which ones?

 

[billvon]

What always makes me laugh, is that people always take the worst people to demonstrate these things. If science people think they are correct on everything, good for them. They should go and violate there own lifes, and do experiments on there own existence, if they know everything.

No one knows everything. No competent scientist thinks he knows everything, or that he is correct on everything.

I can blame ego maniac science people for my life being ruined.

Which ego maniac science people ruined your life?

Science is just a dogma, just the same if not worse then any religion.

Well, except it's proven via experiment and analysis.

If these people were so smart, they would not care about people thinking different.

Usually they don't - unless your ignorant behavior affects others (like anti-vaxxers.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

How is "science" responsible for climate change? People figured out how to use fossil fuels for a variety of purposes. Later we figured out that there are consequences of using that technology. I don't think you can blame "science" for how the technology evolves anymore than I can blame McDonalds for me being overweight.

It's a good argument sure.... but unfortunately an awful lot of people on this planet would indeed blame the mega hyper aggressive fast food industry and the scientists they employ, for their own weakness in self restraint.
Marketing rule 101 is to capitalize on your customers weaknesses is it not?

Climate change is deemed to be triggered by CO2 outputs enabled by mankind's science. if not for the science we would not be having this problem of global warming.

When man kind discovered how to utilize nuclear energy one of the first things he did with the technology was blow himself up and increase the global background radiation. Oh they say that the background radiation levels are well with in human tolerances... but I wonder if that is truly the case. (coincidentally - iodized salt was introduced globally around that time with the intention of preventing mental retardation)
Unfortunately scientists will say that it is not their responsibility as to how their discoveries are used. ( which is essentially a morally bankrupt position IMO)

When science developed CFC's for refrigeration why didn't they do their job properly and do a thorough environmental impact assessment before giving that knowledge to the greedy power hungry organizations and compromise the ozone layer?

The scientist may simply say: "I am only doing the job I am paid to do" even if that leads to the extinction of the human race, genocide, mass shootings etc... ( or over population, genetic degradation)

Why isn't there a science called "Sustainability","Symbiotic harmonization" etc...

Personally I have no real gripe, as I accept it for what it is, but many will not think in such generous terms.

The blame game is after all, the greatest game on Earth is it not?

So... in the eyes of the many ignorant and simple folk out there, scientists have a serious credibility problem.
It all gets packaged under the title "the human dilemma".

"I asked a very experienced (40years) clinical psychologist, the other day, what her thoughts were about humanities future- aka climate change".
Her answer was a startling "There is none... we don't deserve a future".

 

[RainbowSingularity]

asserted superiority via classicism by virtue of ideological cultism

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Climate change is deemed to be triggered by CO2 outputs enabled by mankind's science. if not for the science we would not be having this problem of global warming.

cuban missile crisis ...
October 16–28, 1962
that was almost nuclear winter

that would have been climate change for sure

this would have changed the climate quite a bit also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(33342)_1998_WT24#Future_flyby_candidate

Diameter and albedo
1998 WT24 measures between 350 and 415 meters in diameter and its surface has an albedo between 0.34 and 0.75.[3][5][9][c] The Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link an albedo of 0.34 and takes a diameter of 410 meters based on an absolute magnitude of 18.69.[4] The asteroid is modestly elongated, approximately 420 × 330 meters.[citation needed]

partial extinction level event

discovered 1999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(192642)_1999_RD32
5 kilometer wide asteroid that flew past on 27th August 1969 only meters above passenger jet altitude
Extinction level event

even bigger in 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis
5.4 kilometers wide
Extinction level event

why is it that the "why bother with anything" monkeys wish to hold the keys to the kingdom and run around waiving the big stick ?

 

[gmilam]

It's a good argument sure.... but unfortunately an awful lot of people on this planet would indeed blame the mega hyper aggressive fast food industry and the scientists they employ, for their own weakness in self restraint.
Marketing rule 101 is to capitalize on your customers weaknesses is it not?

So we agree, it's marketing departments who are to blame.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So we agree, it's marketing departments who are to blame.

lol ....but of course marketing departments employ science to set strategy yes?
Otherwise known as big data, data theft, data mining, and thorough analysis methodology and a total invasion of consumer privacy..

You only have to google GOOGLE to see what I mean... (chuckle)

 

[Bells]

So... in the eyes of the many ignorant and simple folk out there, scientists have a serious credibility problem.
It all gets packaged under the title "the human dilemma".

I don't know who you hang out with, but I have never heard anyone blame "science" or scientists for things like global warming.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't know who you hang out with, but I have never heard anyone blame "science" or scientists for things like global warming.

What can I say. I am a radical out of the box objective observer...
perhaps you need to get out more... and think out side the box a little...
eg. I am sure those who designed coal fired power stations a century or so ago didn't consider the long term environmental impact of their science and if they did, refused to temper their enthusiasm that has led in part, to the situation we have today..

 

[Quantum Quack]

perhaps you need to get out more... and think out side the box a little...
eg. I am sure those who designed coal fired power stations a century or so ago didn't consider the long term environmental impact of their science and if they did, refused to temper their enthusiasm that has led in part, to the situation we have today..

If you research the history behind the psycho-tropic drug Lithium, you will get a general idea about how devious and deceptive our scientists can be.... trusting scientists to know what they are doing, is the issue...

and in Andy1033's case perhaps trusting Big Pharma is a big issue as well...

eg.
The anti vaxx movement is really about the lack of trust.
If they were actually confident that the vaccination were as stated and not adulterated by some political motive or incompetence then there would not be an anti-vaxx movement ( mostly)

One of the main reasons for climate change denial in the population is because they simply do not have the the ability to trust climate scientists and their findings...

Science has a credibility problem... for sure...

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I don't know who you hang out with, but I have never heard anyone blame "science" or scientists for things like global warming.

"blaming" Vs "blaming the hoax" Vs "defining the event as a hoax and then assigning a concept of blame to counter the process of accountability etc....
technically ...
i dont think i recall anyone being blamed for the event as being a real event & thus creating it... other than the "Humans did it with Co2"

what has been thrown into the media toilet mixing bowl is conspiracy, hoax & blaming scientists for being professional racketeering cartel criminals all making up climate change together around the world to steal trillions of dollars through carbon tax schemes...(yes there are many people who believe this....)
what the tin-foil-hat-Republican voters have failed to mention is how the global cartel of evil scientists is going to get the money off the governments which has been paid as carbon tax.

Vote Republican to stop the aliens from reading your tax returns
make mine a longform tin-foil-hat with a bathroom gender tax

"i use to be gay until i joined babycheesus and prayed the climate change away... believe me i use to like cock now i dont baby cheesus saved me"

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Fox News


Published on Oct 21, 2018

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1

Abstract
The process of parameter estimation targeting a chosen set of observations is an essential aspect of numerical modeling. This process is usually named tuning in the climate modeling community. In climate models, the variety and complexity of physical processes involved, and their interplay through a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, must be summarized in a series of approximate submodels. Most submodels depend on uncertain parameters. Tuning consists of adjusting the values of these parameters to bring the solution as a whole into line with aspects of the observed climate. Tuning is an essential aspect of climate modeling with its own scientific issues, which is probably not advertised enough outside the community of model developers. Optimization of climate models raises important questions about whether tuning methods a priori constrain the model results in unintended ways that would affect our confidence in climate projections. Here, we present the definition and rationale behind model tuning, review specific methodological aspects, and survey the diversity of tuning approaches used in current climate models. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities in applying so-called objective methods in climate model tuning. We discuss how tuning methodologies may affect fundamental results of climate models, such as climate sensitivity. The article concludes with a series of recommendations to make the process of climate model tuning more transparent.

* Current affiliations: Tomassini—Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom; Golaz—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California

+ The National Center for Atmospheric Research is supported by the National Science Foundation.

© 2017 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR E-MAIL: Frédéric Hourdin, frederic.hourdin@lmd.jussieu.fr
A supplement to this article is available online (10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.2)

"all those policys that came out of the Obama administration"

Time Mark 7:50
EPA (does our EPA do that?)
suddenly Barack Obama is blamed for everything? and is now the evil climate change hoaxer fudger ?

if you can demonstrate those models are not working, you can take down the endangerment finding, that would be the basis for al those policys that came out of the obama administration"

which would mean you dont get to regulate

absolutely

carbon dioxide

absolutely... the endangerment finding is the heart of the matter...
to give you an idea of how gun-ho the obama administration was on this issue
if you listen to his 1st inaugural speech


.. so all those policys is 1 single policy for co2 regulation that has not be made into law?
pass me my tin foil hat please


The Cato Institute

Published on Dec 8, 2009

CBS


Published on Dec 6, 2009
CBS


Published on Dec 6, 2009

looks like Republican party propaganda

OK
you want to use your "ask a friend"
here goes
... tinder swipe yeah or nah
climate leaks
eeewwww
im not spending my money on leaks
what was the question ?

can i see your long form climate leak ?
you cant just stick it in anywhere
only god decides that

excuse my longform, i think i just creationismed in my pants

 

[Quantum Quack]

Published on Dec 6, 2009

looks like Republican party propaganda

It's strange that the Russian media contradicts the Cato Institutes, Patrick Michael's, preference for the Russian climate model.

Moscow Times: 06-Sept-20018
Environmental Apocalypse Fueled by Climate Change

Russia’s environmental ministry has published a report that paints an apocalyptic future for the country due to climate change, with consequences including epidemics, drought, mass flooding and hunger.

While Russia has been slated to reap economic benefits from a modest rise in global temperatures — which are expected to open navigation in the Arctic and allow for more economic activity in the winter — the country has allocated an estimated 1.55 trillion rubles ($22 billion) on a new environmental program to promote air pollution reduction, reforestation and recycling. ​

src: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018...ental-apocalypse-fueled-climate-change-a62804

so what models/media/scientists can we trust, if any?

Note: According to research the Russian climate models he refers to were not in use at the time his program went to air.
Potsdam Earth System Model was still in development as of 2018 awaiting the dreaded parameter fudging that he talks about... ( only one aspect POEM was ready for use)

so... ask myself, why is he barefaced lying to the camera when he states that the Russian models are more correct?

"If we use models of the general circulation of atmosphere, then required calculations can take up months or years with the use of the most advanced modern computers. To accelerate research, scientists use simplified models - the so-called climate models of intermediate complexity. In Russia, the only such model has been created by the Institute of Atmospheric Physics.
"Our team, comprising employees of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Moscow State University, Kazan Federal University, and the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, is working on one such model. We called it the Potsdam Earth System Model."
Currently, one of the components of POEM, called Aeolus, is ready for use. Two parts of the model, for large-scale zonal-mean winds and planetary waves, have been designed by Dr. Eliseev. He has also partaken in the creation of automatic tuning process for model parameters.
​

src: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-03/kfu-ncm032418.php

 

[Bells]

What can I say. I am a radical out of the box objective observer...

Not really.

You just seem to be parroting a lot of right wing anti-science tropes.

perhaps you need to get out more... and think out side the box a little...

Or I can look at things objectively..

For example:

eg. I am sure those who designed coal fired power stations a century or so ago didn't consider the long term environmental impact of their science and if they did, refused to temper their enthusiasm that has led in part, to the situation we have today..

You completely disregard the fact that they would not have had the technology to measure or understand the impact on the environment, that we have now.

Hindsight along with technological advancement is a wonderful thing.

Given the degree of intellectual competency of the average person is it little wonder that a general anti -science POV prevails?

• Ozone depletion = science.
• Climate change = science.
• GMO = science.
• Cancer = science.
• Cold war (nukes) = science
• Mass shootings = science
• Mass surveillance = science
  
• Eugenics ( gene editing) = science
• Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science
• just about any thing = science.

is the easy relationship the average ignoramus can draw...

You do realise you have been the only one making that 'easy relationship' comparison, yes?

"Anti-science" beliefs or stance is not because of the ozone layer, climate change, cancer, etc.. It is because a large portion who are anti-science are also religious or anti-Government, for example. The paranoid types..

These tend to be people who do not believe in climate change, who do not think that mass shootings is caused by an easier access to firearms, etc..

For example, someone who thinks the Government is spying on their every movement does not believe this because they connect it to science or scientist. They believe this way because they think the Government is out to get them or is abusing their power.

When man kind discovered how to utilize nuclear energy one of the first things he did with the technology was blow himself up and increase the global background radiation.

What? The first nuclear reactor was part of the US' project to develop the bomb. Electricity from it was secondary in the 1940's.

When science developed CFC's for refrigeration why didn't they do their job properly and do a thorough environmental impact assessment before giving that knowledge to the greedy power hungry organizations and compromise the ozone layer?

Because the scientists in the 1930's did not have the tools or technology to study the impact on the Ozone layer at that time. I mean, you do understand this, yes?

Ozone depletion was not discovered until we had satellites.

The scientist may simply say: "I am only doing the job I am paid to do" even if that leads to the extinction of the human race, genocide, mass shootings etc... ( or over population, genetic degradation)

What? Genetic degradation? Do you mean genetic erosion?

Blaming scientists for the behaviour of others and say, policies and laws, is a bit silly, don't you think?

Why isn't there a science called "Sustainability","Symbiotic harmonization" etc...

You mean as a field of science? Sustainability is a field of science.

What does "symbiotic harmonization" even mean?

Personally I have no real gripe, as I accept it for what it is, but many will not think in such generous terms.

Really?

Are you sure?

Because your posts in this thread have been nothing but "gripe" about "science". You seem to blame science for everything.

So... in the eyes of the many ignorant and simple folk out there, scientists have a serious credibility problem.

Only to those who are anti-science to begin with.