Why woo-woo can't be defeated

Apreche

http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/yeah-well-you-can-prove-anything-with-science/

This article describes a very interesting psychological study. Apparently when someone believes something, and they are confronted on it, in order to maintain consistency they will throw away belief in science before throwing away their belief. Not that this is really a big surprise, but it's interesting to get a glimpse of what happens in people's minds when their cognitive dissonance is confronted. I'm thinking that maybe the key difference between us and them is that science is our belief so we will rearrange the others to be consistent with that.

Cremlian

confirmation bias!

Neito

There was another study a few months/weeks ago that basically said that people are more likely to believe something that's not science, and less likely to believe something that's proven science.

Geo

consternation uproar!

...

There was another study a few months/weeks ago that basically said that people are more likely to believe something that's not science, and less likely to believe something that's proven science.

"Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable." ~ Oscar Wilde.

Anything else 'new'?

Bridger

Another study suggested that when presented with a myth, and then later told that the myth was false, the subjects would (weeks later) only remember the myth, and not remember that they were told it was incorrect. We seem to be programed with an affinity for positive beliefs much more than negative ones (and science is often responsible for pointing out negative conclusions). Then of course there's Micheal Shermer's excellent TED speech if nobody has seen it:

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

Apreche

Another study suggested that when presented with a myth, and then later told that the myth was false, the subjects would (weeks later) only remember the myth, and not remember that they were told it was incorrect. We seem to be programed with an affinity for positive beliefs much more than negative ones. Then of course there's Micheal Shermer's excellent TED speech if nobody has seen it:

I think the reason you remember the myth is because a myth is a story. People remember stories. A debunking is just a fact, a single unassociated tidbit of information "that story is false." People are bad at remembering facts. This is why books like Cosmos are so good. They tell a story of truth, so that you remember it.

Wyatt

We seem to be programed with an affinity for positive beliefs much more than negative ones

This goes for all memories. We try to forget the bad moments in our life and try to cling to the good ones. Science can be hard to understand, and people don't like feeling stupid. It maybe easier to hold onto a myth we understand then facts that confuse us.

I think the reason you remember the myth is because a myth is a story. People remember stories.

Science doesn't always come across with that same "entertainment value" that myths do. We should try to make science friendly without compromising the data or loosing the message.

Apreche

Whoever made that poster didn't learn grammar. then than. Get it right.

JonathanDP81

Whoever made that poster didn't learn grammar.thenthan. Get it right.

True, but I truly agree with the statement. I remember seeing him at about 6am Saturdays at Nickelodeon while waiting for the early morning cartoons.

Geo

Whoever made that poster didn't learn grammar.thenthan. Get it right.

True, but I truly agree with the statement. I remember seeing him at about 6am Saturdays at Nickelodeon while waiting for the early morning cartoons.

Those were great days.

Admiral Hotcakes

Whoever made that poster didn't learn grammar.thenthan. Get it right.

True, but I truly agree with the statement. I remember seeing him at about 6am Saturdays at Nickelodeon while waiting for the early morning cartoons.

Those were great days.

You guys had it better than me. Not having Nickelodeon, I had to settle for Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century.

Geo

Whoever made that poster didn't learn grammar.thenthan. Get it right.

True, but I truly agree with the statement. I remember seeing him at about 6am Saturdays at Nickelodeon while waiting for the early morning cartoons.

Those were great days.

You guys had it better than me. Not having Nickelodeon, I had to settle for Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century.

Is that that a assenting or dissenting comment?

Admiral Hotcakes

It was a tangent, but regardless, Mr. Wizard was a pretty cool guy.

George Patches

Those were great days.

Those were the days my friend.

Techparadox

Those were great days.

Those were the days my friend.

We thought they'd never end.

Geo

Those were great days.

Those were the days my friend.

And you knew where you were then.

chaosof99

I fear my parents are on their way of buying into some multi-level-marketing water cleansing bullshit. Just saw a brochure of some crap thing called "Magnolith" in the living room. It says some unscientific, unsubstantial and unquantifiable crap on it such as "your water will taste better" and prominently displays a sticker which reads "Testsieger" ("best in test") which is a cheap imitation of a sticker by the german consumer protection agency "Stiftung Warentest".

I hope I can intercept them tonight. However, does anybody have a good source to research this shit?

chaosof99

Its worse than I expected. My stepfather is about to become a salesman for a distribution company of these fucking garbage things. I'm now desperately trying to save him from becoming a scam-artist.

I did send him a number of articles which explain why this is a scam and why those contraptions can not possibly work. I hope he gets it. I would share those articles now, but they're all in german so I don't think they would have much of a purpose for you guys.

Also more closely read the advertisement prospect of that company. They actually talking about "energy waves" and whatnot in it. Jeez.

Dragonmaster Lou

Sounds like some BS that uses magnetic waves or some other crazy woo to try to purify water... Ugh... Dunno why people fall for that...

I mean, I understand using gadgets like Brita and Pur in some areas where the tap water, for whatever reason, is kinda nasty (it made a huge difference in my college dorm, for instance). However, at least those things are based on legit science by using activated charcoal as a filter...

johndis

Colloquial belief in science is basically like religious belief. It's like trying to turn a muslim into a catholic. Shit's dumb in like 100 different ways.

Rym

Colloquial belief in science is basically like religious belief.

With one key difference that schools need to stress more and more.

If you aren't sure about a belief you have in science, you can test it yourself. Don't know if watch shrinks or expands when frozen? Stick a sealed glass of water in the fridge and see what happens! Not confident in that whole "weight doesn't affect falling speed" thing? Drop a bowling ball and a basketball from your window and see what happens!

I believe that the only substantial change we need to make to correct the problem is to instill a fundamental experimental curiosity in all people. This is why, despite its flaws, I am so thrilled that Mythbusters is so popular.

johndis

Yeah but then you get hit with the experiments that are related to much larger ideas and are easily open to critique. Like observing small scale evolution in a lab and then using that as evidence for macro-billions of years-evolution. Belief and theory will always play a large part in that. Colloquial scientific belief (not what an actual scientist would say) definitely holds itself back from (and in direct opposition to) public discourse by resting too much on its own perceived objectivity. For the most part (save maybe for your example of the super simple observable things), its fundamentally dumb as hell for science to ever posit itself as "correct." And I'd say this is like 100 times truer when the evidence is sampled statistics.

e: to clarify, I mean like extended scientific theories are often used colloquially as anti-religion or anti-belief fodder, whereas I'd argue science shouldnt really be "ammo" people use against people's beliefs. That sort of arrogance is by nature, unscientific imo.

Rym

its fundamentally dumb as hell for science to ever posit itself as "correct." And I'd say this is like 100 times truer when the evidence is sampled statistics.

I disagree. We have theories that are predictive to a massive degree. They are, for all intents and purposes, "correct." We have ample evidence for and no counterexamples against. Colloquially, it makes perfect sense to accept the theory as true, and the difference exists only in the small and particular details of the evolving theory.

Meanwhile, to colloquially disagree, one must reject all of this evidence. No rational person can inquire into the veracity of evolutionary theory and not be convinced of its general truth.

TheWhaleShark

For the most part (save maybe for your example of the super simple observable things), its fundamentally dumb as hell for science to ever posit itself as "correct."

I assume you mean colloquial science here? Because real objective science is as "correct" as we can really be about anything. However, the scope of any real experiment is necessarily small; it's the confluence of lots and lots of experiments that allow us to build a valid theoretical framework.

EDIT: But yes, the thing is, you sort of have to accept the full theoretical model on the colloquial level, because it would take an inordinate amount of time to explain the full science to a single person. I literally cannot explain the full framework of the modern evolutionary theory to someone, because it encompasses tons of information that almost any lay person cannot possibly interpret. My response to people is increasingly "go buy an AP Biology textbook printed in the last 5 years."

The thing is, even at that high-up level of belief that we need of lay people, the theory is still verifiable. You can do model experiments to demonstrate the concepts at work. And if you need the actual explanation, you can get it. The information that forms the foundation of the theory is accessible if you really want to look at it.

Then we run into the problem of people not actually having the knowledge they need to properly interpret the information. This is a problem that can only be fixed by teaching people more science from a younger age.

Andrew

Like observing small scale evolution in a lab and then using that as evidence for macro-billions of years-evolution.

Wait, are you an evolution denier?

johndis

I mean the nature of saying something is "correct" is anti-curiosity in nature, which is why evolutionary theory boils down into that "close-to-the-chest" belief for a lot of not-actual-scientist people. So I agree w/ saying we gotta train kids to test what they believe, but I also think the way science is presented colloquially is authoritarian.

Like I'd say a super cool experiment to assign some little kids would be "ok gravity says this happens; now come up with a way to break that rule." The little kids try in some way to beat the accepted rule, instead of just accepting it. They'll inevitably fail, but I think the most "scientificy" and "post religion" way to educate people is to teach them to question absolutely everything. I think science weakens itself when it makes statments like you did there! "No no no... we KNOW this. Can't be contested." Science should always welcome an argument or challenge, not throw a hissy fit when someone talks about god or their family's superstitions. It should transcend the conflict entirely.

johndis

I assume you mean colloquial science here? Because real objective science is as "correct" as we can really be about anything. However, the scope of any real experiment is necessarily small; it's the confluence of lots and lots of experiments that allow us to build a valid theoretical framework.

Yeah, absolutely mean colloquially accepted and believed science, which is where a lot of the "anti-belief" chatter pops up from. Arrogant atheists etc etc. Real scientists have really rational discourse to explain everything... like "valid theoretical framework" vs. "true motherfucking fact."

TheWhaleShark

John, you really really need to separate the colloquial understanding of science from actual science. The colloquial understanding of science is in many cases flatly incorrect.

And evolution is particularly troublesome because most people don't even know what it actually is. Really.

In fact, here's an exercise for you - for everyone on the forums, actually. Without looking at any source, define evolution. There is a discrete definition out there.

EDIT: Scientists have rational discourse that we have to translate into colloquial speech all the time. Evolution is a true fact, because it's as true as any fact can possibly be. The problem there is that when you start looking into what is commonly held to be "truth" is not what science considers "truth."

A friend of mine constantly uses the word "proof" when referring to levels of evidence. In science, "proof" does not exist except in math. We have evidence, and conclusions generated by a preponderance of evidence. "Proof" is simply a test to demonstrate the veracity of the conclusion. Most people think "proof" is some kind of super-evidence that trumps everything else.

There are really really really fundamental scientific concepts that are not explained adequately to people, and that needs to be fixed.

johndis

John, you really really need to separate the colloquial understanding of science from actual science.

I'm doing that in every post lol. Nothing I'm talking about really pertains to real science. Real science is a relatively small field compared to the massive amount of people who just believe whatever they read in Popular Science or Discovery.

Rym

I think science weakens itself when it makes statments like you did there! "No no no... we KNOW this. Can't be contested." Science should always welcome an argument or challenge, not throw a hissy fit when someone talks about god or their family's superstitions. It should transcend the conflict entirely.

First, we say it's "correct" because no one has ever presented a refutation. It's been challenged countless times and always stood the test. In fact, it's been challenged so much that no one has presented a NEW challenge in decades. We are more confident in the fundamental truth of biological evolution than we are about most other things humans claim to know about.

The reason scientists "throw a hissy fit" when people bring up "god" is that "god" has effectively been refuted as a testable idea to the point that it's laughable continue to posit its existence. If something isn't testable, it doesn't exist in any meaningful context.

At best, schools should show how easily the theory has stood up to constant "challenges" to the point that it's one of the strongest theories humans have ever known. That some of the greatest minds our race has ever produced were unable to find any fundamental flaw in it.

It's very simple. If something can't be tested, nor can any future possible test be conceived, then it doesn't exist in any practical sense.