Scientific Evidence Shouldn't Dictate Your Opinion... But It SHOULD Guide It - A Response to Kyriacos' Post (Part 3)
If you haven't read the first part, go here.
In this last section of my response article to @kyriacos' original post, I want to deal with some of the closing statements kyriacos made and wrap up by pointing out where problems with using science to form our opinions and make arguments can occur.
@kyriacos' post ends with the following:
Claiming "facts" is the equivalent of a spoiled brat that demands approval for no reason whatsoever. Not only they can be refuted with equally abstract evidence, but you end sounding like a cult member reciting from a holy book. Let us not turn science, one of the best tools in our disposal, into a meme of entitlement.
Let's break this down as best as we are able. First, how is 'claiming facts' the 'equivalent of a spoiled brat that demands approval for no reason whatsoever'? This is not the proper response to being presented with a fact. Now, if by saying 'claiming facts' you doubt for some reason or another that the fact is true, then that is perfectly acceptable... so long as you have a reason for doubting it. If you are thinking that you can think and propagate your opinions without being able to substantiate them, then think again. That's not the way society works. It seems much more like someone that wants to reject information because it's unpleasant is 'the equivalent of a spoiled brat'.
The claim that '[scientific evidence] can be refuted with equally abstract evidence' is wholly wrong. Where is your evidence to refute gravity? Or that arsenic kills people? Or that pigs can't fly? So we see that there are at least some instances where this is not true.
In the case that it can be refuted with other evidence, I see no reason why the best course is simply to use that evidence to form your opinion or make your argument. If you question their sources, feel free to look it up yourself. What I don't understand is why this would disqualify both parties from using the facts at their disposal or why you would ignore it because it doesn't suit your world view.
As for 'sounding like a cult member reciting from a holy book'... well, this just feels a bit like name-calling. Using scientific evidence, if anything, is the opposite of being in a cult. You're allowed to use the information you have access to form opinions and support those opinions or change them as you deem necessary. What is cult-like is to expect someone to accept your arguments without question or argument - disqualifying all evidence.
Science being used as a 'meme of entitlement'? What does this even mean? Do you mean feeling 'entitled' to question your opinion, especially if they have evidence that runs contrary to it? Do you mean feeling 'entitled' to have an opinion of their own using that evidence? That doesn't sound entitled to me. It sounds perfectly reasonable.
When Using 'Facts' Doesn't Work
There are a few instances in which using facts doesn't work, and I'll point them out now. First of all, the problem that occurs is almost never with the scientific method or the scientific community but, rather, with the method of delivery of the information or with the person using the information taking it out of context.
Science journalism is a great thing. Essentially, it brings science to the masses and makes sure the public stays excited about science, scientific discovery, and progress. However, pop science journalism does drop the ball occasionally, propagating incorrect information. One especially persistent example is that the divorce rate is 50%. This has been wrong for a long time, yet it continues to get propagated by journalists and normal people.
The other famous example is taking a study or an amount of information out of context. For example, if I tell you that eating twinkies doubles your chances of getting a certain disease, you might panic. However, the original study points out that the risk of getting the disease is .001%. So, your chances doubling bring it to .002%.... still not high enough to be that worried about.
I'll end by saying this. Scientists aren't perfect. They make mistakes and, sometimes, get overly excited and release studies that turn out to be mistaken later. Sometimes there's a flaw in a study, or it forgets to take something into account, and the data that results is bad.
For that reason people should be careful about which facts and studies they use in forming their opinions. However, that's no reason to dismiss science and scientific thinking altogether. As I mentioned in the previous sections - a normal person is even more susceptible to these errors.
I'll conclude by saying that each person is free to live their life and form their opinions how they like. However, what can't be expected is that you can introduce those opinions to a wider sphere of people without evidence and expect that they get serious consideration or adoption - not if it's something that can be substantiated or disproven with science.
I want to thank everyone who's been following along and been involved in the discussions! This was a beast of a post, so I really appreciate your support!
Thank you so much for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please upvote, resteem, and follow!
Follow: @jenkinrocket
Steemit is growing very quickly! One way you can help the community to grow as a whole is spreading the word. Steemit was recently featured in Yahoo Financial News read about it here https://steemit.com/steemit/@wvm/steemit-community-making-it-to-yahoo-financial-news be sure to follow me @wvm thanks!
This is an excellent end to this response. Once again, thank God we have people like you on this platform. I'm all for using logic independently of work done by others, but that functions only in philosophy; you can't logic your way through physics or other sciences, and you certainly can't "common sense" your way through subjects that require specialized knowledge to comprehend.