

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - ayi
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

======
b6
I really can't stand this stuff.

> To which some people in Portland, echoing antifluoridation activists around
> the world, reply: We don’t believe you.

I don't think that is what they say. I think they may be saying something
closer to "... OK, but there may be other concerns with fluoridation." And
there are. There always are. If you don't see that any scientific
investigation leaves almost every question remaining unanswered, then you lack
perspective.

People conducted experiments. Let's say they found that fluoride strengthened
teeth, and did not seem to cause any health problems. Great. But there are an
infinite number of places to look for health problems it might be causing that
have not been checked. It's wrong to act as if the question is settled. It's
wrong to act as if the people who still have concerns are crazy.

These questions are extremely complex, as complex as we have time and energy
to let them be. So I find it baffling and irritating when we look into a
matter not even 0.01% and then harangue the infidels who still, for some crazy
reason, aren't certain. Well, I find myself perpetually uncertain of
everything, and I think it makes sense to be that way.

------
restalis
My two personal cases when I may have doubts about things covered by "science"
label:

Imagine a scenario with an imminent public risk that can cause social
disorder. A science related risk. The people in power can order the scientists
to withhold parts of the true in order to prevent panic. The scientists
themselves may not only agree with this, but recommend it, because it is
easier to deal with the problem at hand having the masses calm and relatively
rational than having a mob of angry animals. We may safely presume that not
everything is told to us. (One must need to be in a restricted circle to know
something and then caring the responsibility of being in that circle prevents
disclosure.)

The ideal scientific doctrine is taught to be open to anything the universe
has to offer, but in reality we have to admit that the science we actually
have is open only about things that it can explain within a reasonable
accuracy. When it cannot, it is very similar to an ordinary religion, deeming
the reports or observation of unexplainable things as doubtful or outrightly
denying them. There is a procedure similar to religious excommunication for
the courageous souls that dare to leap and study things that ca not yet be
thoroughly explained in the conservative way using an increasing amount of
evidence. (The mantra is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence".) I cannot therefore make a distinction between a scientist that
chooses to just deny something out of fear for tarnishing his name and a
politician who shirks from something that's right but unpopular.

