Are People Who Reject the Claims of Scientists Stupid?steemCreated with Sketch.

in #science7 years ago

Many people who advocate for science and scientific thinking try to dismiss their opponents as stupid. In a discussion I was having with someone on Facebook today, the OP posted a meme that went something like “If people don’t believe in vaccines, climate change or evolution, why do they believe scientists when they predict eclipses?” The implied answer is essentially that they’re mentally impaired and that we should make fun of them.


The above pic is of a real life vaccine researcher named Jacinto Convit. I think he looks like a supervillain lol. Image credit alexantonovici on Imgur

The real answer is that it's because of the nature of the various different kinds of science mentioned here. There are a lot more uncertainties involved in say, vaccines, as opposed to planetary motions. People are told "there's going to be an eclipse tomorrow at such and such time" and that happens every time, exactly as predicted, with no failures that I've ever been made aware of. There are probably minuscule timing errors, but nothing that your average layman would care about. With vaccines however, people are told "vaccines are safe and will keep you from getting sick," and then they're shown by some conspiracy theorist several examples of rare instances (but real ones) of people being killed by vaccines. This leads them to believe that they're being lied to, and that vaccines in fact do more harm than good. This is still an error in judgement because they haven't considered what the statistics on vaccines tell us, but it's not quite the same as "happens exactly as predicted every time," and so it's a lot harder for people to wrap their heads around.

There are also examples of the way in which vaccines are typically administered by medical professionals that haven't been properly reviewed for safety, further calling into question the credibility of the scientists in the eyes of conspiracy theorists. This is discussed thoroughly in the book The Vaccine Friendly Plan by Paul Thomas, M.D. and Jennifer Margulis. To very briefly sum up what they’re saying in this book is that aluminum, a metal used in vaccines to help stimulate an immune response, may be neurotoxic at the levels injected into children’s tiny bodies when multiple vaccines are administered at once. No safety studies have been conducted at those levels, only at the single vaccine dose level. So, in order to be better safe than sorry, I’m following their recommendations to space out the vaccines with my children. There are also other side-effects of many of the recommended vaccines that can be avoided by simply waiting until those vaccines are relevant to the child’s life situation. I am also following this recommendation. In spite of these revelations, the scientific and medical community has made almost no effort to investigate further or change their practices and recommendations. Then they wonder why people mistrust them and throw the baby out with the bath water, and they go on dismissing their opponents as idiots. There are similar problems with climate science and evolution.

I think the dismissiveness of the Facebook post paraphrased above perfectly mirrors the attitude of the scientific community in general toward the public on these issues. I also think this is part of the problem, and definitely not the solution. If people don't understand or trust the science, it's because the scientists have done a poor job of explaining it to them, not because most people are too stupid to understand at least the basic principles. Writing these people off as if they're mentally impaired isn't going to win any converts, and will only serve to reinforce their rejection of the information.

This is not to mention the erroneous belief systems of people with high IQ's. I mean, universities are filled with Marxist professors, and that has to be one of the most dangerous ideologies man has ever devised. Marxists killed over a hundred million people in the twentieth century, and yet some of the most intelligent among us still think Marxism is a great idea. This is all the evidence you need to determine that erroneous belief systems don't have their origins in stupidity. Suffice it to say, that if rather than appeal to the intellect of your fellow human beings by making good arguments, you find yourself shouting them down and telling them they're stupid, you might want to take a look in the mirror and figure out what you're doing wrong, and try again.

Sort:  

Great post. I also think that science results are generally presented (as they should be) in a matter-of-fact way whereas a lot of conspiracy theories and the like are written in a more persuasive and emotion charged way which often sways people opinions.

Thank you. Maybe that could be a new thing. Peer reviewed research must have a version written in layman's terms before it can be published.

Back in the 50s, lead was told to us, by scientists, that it just flushes out of the body. And that there is no harmful effects from leaded gasoline.
Now we are so paranoid about lead that we take it out of solder, just in case the item gets thrown in the dump, and it makes contact with water. That little bit of solder is considered too toxic.

Smoking used to be considered healthy. And maybe it is, but smoking cigarettes with tobacco cured with formaldehyde, etc, is now considered life threatening, enough so to warrant warning labels on each package.

And so, just because some scientists said so, does not make it true or that you should believe them. Especially if they are from Monsanto and do operations on mice to remove tumors, so that they will pass the FDA tests.

Further, there is huge evidence that vaccines are not as safe, or as good as they say they are. And it is a fact that the CDCC lied about their study results. Watch Vaxxed for the whole story, or you can do a freedom of information filing.

Even more, the climate change studies are BAD science. Just read their studies. And then there is evidence of changing the data. Massaging the data. Lying. Using predictive algorithms that have continuously failed.

So, at this time, the meme should read. We all should be highly suspect of the science findings in these areas. But we do have eclipse timing pretty nailed down.

Yes, having worked in several labs before, I know how easy it could be for scientists to fudge the numbers to their liking, so skepticism is always healthy. That's why we have the peer review system and duplication is attempted for confirmation in other labs. But it's not fool proof. The people doing the research have to be trustworthy.

As far as vaccines go, I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that they do indeed work, and quite well. Yes, sometimes they are ineffective because they depend on the immune system of the patient to be firing on all cylinders, and so they will never be 100% effective. Some are not as effective as others though.

On the climate science front, I'm not any kind of expert in that area, but I have read about the massaging of data that you mention, which is quite alarming to say the least. I still think the basic theory is probably correct, but the magnitude is still up for debate, and even climate scientists don't agree on this, because they don't have enough data to actually generate accurate models. I'm not entirely convinced they know what they're doing with those models in part because I was told in my environmental studies classes that global warming would be so bad that by now NYC should have been under water. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of the science on the subject is complete garbage mind you, but that's the dire message that was being sent to the general public, including liberal arts students, and so the credibility of that message has been severely compromised at the very least in my opinion. They have a lot of work to do to earn back the public's trust.

Tobacco actually does have some positive health effects, but burning it and inhaling it into your lungs, just like any kind of smoke, is absolutely horrible for your health and does cause cancer. People who smoke a lot of weed or work around other types of smoke get cancer from it too. That's not to mention the tar and other crap that smokers hack up every day because it's not supposed to be in the lungs, irritating the respiratory tract. I was a smoker in my 20s, I know about this one first hand. I would cough up phlegm for a few minutes every morning when I woke up. Other than that, nicotine has a tendency to increase mental focus. This is part of the reason free cigarettes were given to GI's in WWII. Tobacco has natural antibiotic effects too. I read this one study in which they found that cigarette butts were being selectively used by birds for nesting material and scientists figured out that it was killing fungi that normally plague the birds' nests.

I'm pretty sure lead is just terrible for you. It accumulates in your system and doesn't clear easily. It finds its way into your bones, embrittling them, your other tissues including the brain, and it greatly disrupts neurological function. It's just bad stuff to have in your body.

Disclaimer: none of the above should be considered medical advice. I am not a medical professional.

There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. We are ALL ignorant of something. I don't know how to build car engines. Doesn't make me stupid, but makes me ignorant of mechanics. There is nothing to be ashamed of, being ignorant in any one field.

Doctors are not ignorant of medicine, so if one says you have cancer, it's best to believe it. Scientists are not ignorant of science, so if they study vaccines and tell us they are safe, we are better to believe it. (kids around the world are NOT being sick by aluminum or anything else in super minute quantities of vaccines).

The comment, “If people don’t believe in vaccines, climate change or evolution, why do they believe scientists when they predict eclipses?” I absolutely do not take that as people calling other stupid!!

I see this them merely calling out a contradiction.

Another contradiction. Climate-change deniers (always ignorant of the science), often can make the point that the Earth has had many natural climate changes. But don't seem to realize that we know this is true...thanks to the climate scientists!! They believe the science to make a silly argument, but fail to believe the same people when they say the cause is now CO2 from cars instead of new forests, etc.

People want to trust elicples, thanks to science, whether is super accurate or not, but want to jump on conspiracy band-wagon because they were emotional moved by someone's personal experience that "blamed" vaccines, always without any evidence that it was actually the vaccine.

My child woke up. Ate cornflakes. Got sick. Cornflakes cause illness!! Right?

I actually agree with most of what you're saying here. Maybe it's because you didn't actually see the meme I was talking about that you think it's not ridicule, but it indeed was. I didn't want to single out my friend by saying it verbatim or linking to the thread, but trust me this wasn't "here's a great argument against skeptics of these scientific findings" like you just did here. It was "har-de-har, look at these idiots who are too stupid to understand." Completely different things. Thanks for the comment by the way.

Hi @randr10, I have recently started doing research into vaccines and I'm blown away by all the science and information that is available on the topic. I'm particularly overwhelmed by all the negative talk around them. That being said, I definitely would agree with you that it is better to space out child vaccines rather than follow the CDC's tight schedule. If you've never heard of simian virus 40 and how it contaminated the polio vaccine, it makes for a very interesting read

Yeah, I think the negativity surrounding vaccines probably has to do with the top-down approach to administering them. I feel like that's sort of par for the course when you try to ram things down people's throats. They tend to resist.

Super this post

He who talks loudest, does not make the most sense.

The place I have a problem with, is the dogma that comes along with institutions. So yes, you can be accredited but still have very biased views. Towards pharma companies, towards NASA, towards big media, group think, and many other verboten subjects...

So just because you believe it, doesn't make it true, and if you subscribe to the dogma, you are not allowed to consider other options very much.

Any conspiracy theory is shouted down, for example.
UFOs, 9-11, JFK, false flags, etc.

But the evidence for such: overwhelming...

I may not necessarily believe many of those conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean they don't have some value. I think ideas either stand on their own or they fall by the wayside. If someone's trying to suppress it, there's a good chance there's something to it. Hell, it's even fun sometimes just to theorize about potential conspiracies and do the "what if" game with all these scenarios. I also think it's important not to take them too seriously without any evidence though.

I know that many times physical science and economics science do not mix well. Fortunately for blockchains a lot of mystery is being taken out of economics science because if you have a record of the evidence on the blockchain then it's easier to verify sources and get valid statistics and establish a consensus. I think this article being here on a large chain is a good step in that direction. Also you can count upvotes and see whether your public is following. Facebook on the other hand is full of fake news to a much greater extent because there is no incentives or blockchain consensus.

That's kind of an awesome revelation for me. Economic data collected from blockchain records can be used to directly measure what has only been deduced until now. It's like in a supply chain, you put a barcode on every component so you can track it each step of the way, allowing refinements to be made with expert precision. It's fascinating to think that people will be able to now do this with economic systems in general. We already know much of the what in economics, this may tell us more of the why.

Great Article, I consider myself and hybrid because I'm a man of faith and science so you should write an article answering the same question but reformulated; something like this "Are People Who Reject the Claims of Religious Faith Stupid?"

You know, it's funny because I never thought about it that way before. I guess it's because I don't often hear people of faith accusing others of stupidity for not believing them. Maybe it's because there's not as much of a shortage of humility in religious people. For me the scientific method has a foundation built on humility, because without it you would never test your hypotheses. You'd just go around assuming they're true. I think the modern day scientific community could use a healthy dose of humility. Even more so the press who report on scientific issues need to be slapped with it.

Loading...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.12
JST 0.034
BTC 64455.55
ETH 3147.84
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.94