

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

======
coldtea
Because science is just a theoriticaly ideal process.

The actual practice of science is fallible, like many other things.

First, science is mostly done as paid for governments and corporations, both
entities that are know to lie, distort the truth, and make up stuff for their
gain.

Second, science is mostly made by normal people, a lot of which can lie about
their results to get grant money, a promotion, be published, or other personal
interests.

Third, scientists are also people with ideologies, prejudices and prevonceived
notions, and as much as the scientific method is about keeping those in check,
they come through a hell of a lot more times.

Fourth, the scientific community at large seems to feel prey to the prevalent
ideas and ideologies of its time every time. In 19th century, few scientists
would consider black people equally capable as white people, for example, or
being gay OK. Similarly tons of stuff ingrained by culture into scientists
comes up as "truth" and is actively seek out against other views, even today.
(In fact the belief that "today is different" in that regard, is probably the
biggest myth of all).

Fifth, we bundle as "science" a lot of stuff that it's 90% ideology, things
like economics, sociology, psychology, etc.

------
stephenbez
I think Scott Adam's gets it right here:
[http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-
biggest-f...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-biggest-fail)

"So you have the direct problem of science collectively steering my entire
generation toward obesity, diabetes, and coronary problems. But the indirect
problem might be worse: It is hard to trust science. ... I think science has
earned its lack of credibility with the public. If you kick me in the balls
for 20-years, how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?

If a person doesn’t believe climate change is real, despite all the evidence
to the contrary, is that a case of a dumb human or a science that has not
earned credibility? We humans operate on pattern recognition. The pattern
science serves up, thanks to its winged monkeys in the media, is something
like this:

Step One: We are totally sure the answer is X.

Step Two: Oops. X is wrong. But Y is totally right. Trust us this time."

~~~
thesimpsons1022
except science never says the step one part. They do one study and the media
reports on it as a fact. furthermore, you're dumb if you don't understand how
science works enough to realize it can change. science always says this what
we believe based on the current evidence. if evidence changes of course the
belief will.

~~~
coldtea
> _except science never says the step one part._

Science, the ideal method as imagined in the heavens, does not.

Real practicing scientists do it all the time.

Not just "the media" misreporting. Tons of scientists present their research
findings as the gospel -- even Nobel award winning ones.

------
japhyr
I teach high school math and science, and it's fun to meet these doubts head-
on. Most students who carry these opinions opposing basic science are
surprised to find that the ideas they've been opposing make perfect sense when
you step away from sensationalism and examine what's actually being claimed.

I really enjoy leading students through a discussion of evolution in the
context of bacteria. They all get that populations of bacteria develop a
resistance to antibiotics over time, in a manner that we can watch play out.
We name that 'evolution'. Then we look at the changes in a population of
flies, which we can still watch. Then we step out to longer and longer
timeframes, and recognize the same process taking place. By the time we get to
evolution on the timeframe of millions of years, most students get it.

------
digisign
I'm pro science obviously, what would be the alternatve?

However, science is often done at the behest of the governement...

\- govts, which lie every day.

\- when not lieing, they are often wrong, incompetant, and biased by special
interests.

\- media does not report findings accurrately.

\- due to poor education, people dont have the tools/time to do their own
research.

Given this environment, a healthy skeptisism is quite "reasonable."

One of the examples, flouride. We know water is safe. A known party, a
frequent liar, occasional incompetant, makes claims about adding a chemical to
it for our benefit. Similar things have been said about drugs given to
expectant mothers, about margerine, and high carb diets that later turned out
to be false, just to name a few examples.

The barrier of proof is and should continue to be high.

------
arisAlexis
#define reasonable

