To think that people have a weird attitude to science?

[malificent7]

Either completely fearful and mistrustful of it such as anti vaxxers, luddites etc or a complete slavish devotion to it....so when some post articles in order to prove a point without critically evaluating it.
Science has done so much and given us modern medicine, electricity etc but has also contributed to global warming via the combustion engine, chernobyl and thalidomide.
I am currently studying for a vocational nhs course which has loads of science and whilst it is very interesting and I am passionate about my career, I am an artist at heart and sorely miss my painting. Trouble is, most money is being poured into stem subjects at the expense of the arts.
Additionally, although I like to think that I am rational i don't think science can explain everything. For example , i believe in the soul and many sciency people at work including myself, think our hospital is haunted.
So not entirely sure what my aibu is but want to initiate an interesting discussion.
Should we trust science completely or is it a new religion that should be questioned....and quite rightly?
I guess my take is that science is a human concept and that humans are imperfect so therefore science must be but it helps us try to categoriseand control our world.

I think people who are not scientifically literate and have no experience of research (which is most people) just find it difficult to evaluate. They can't distinguish between an early study with preliminary results and something which is very well established. (This is partly due to how things are presented in the media. I've had friends who have spoken to jounalists about their research and been very clear that though exciting this is an early theory which has by no means been rigorously confirmed experimentally only for an article to be published basically implying that their theory was established fact and greatly exaggerating what the theory even states).

People also get confused by what science actually attempts to do. Science can tell us that X leads to Y. Or more often X leads to Y with a certain probability (this is something people also struggle with. If you tell someone something has an 80% probability and it turns out not to happen lots of people assume the science was wrong). It can't provide us with moral answers about which outcome is best. That's not its job.

I think anyone who understands science knows it is all about questions and analysis.
Nobody blindly believes all science, it isn't a faith or religion.
Scientists look for evidence of they can't find it or if someone finds evidence contrary to their hypothesis they say 'I was wrong' and move on.
Scientific understanding changes as we learn more, it is fallible but that doesn't mean that a lot of what we understand at this point isn't true.
There is solid evidence for the basis of scientific understanding in all disciplines, eg the earth is spherical (a bit squashed top to bottom and rounded round the equator if you are being pedantic) and moves around the sun, this is a fact. However other, more complicated areas we are still working on and may be subject to change.

I think it should be made clearer to the general public when there's more than one scientific possibility for something. Often we just hear 'scientists say X' when actually many other scientists are saying Y or Z. Scientists can and do often disagree until something is proven. Even then, things may still change, because something which seemed to be proven turns out to have another reason behind it.

I think a lot of people don't understand that the plural of anecdote is not data.
They then think science / statistics are wrong when they don't tie in with personal experience. (Well my summer born child is a genius, My father smoked 1000 a day and lived to 110).

I am a scientist

I don't think we should favour science over the arts. I think science suffers as well as humanity.

I don't believe in ghosts though

And I don't believe science gave you climate change. Since the sixties scientists have been howling about climate change, it's how people use the innovations that science created that gave us climate change. Everything can be used for good or bad. That's people. Nuclear bombs or clean electricity is the same science.

I think the trouble we have is that people seem to be unable to distinguish between hard science...what's pretty indisputable, less hard science, where we are learning and experimenting and testing and trying to get to the hard answers. And people try to muddy that space ( climate change sceptics)

And also between the science that gives you hard answers ( don't smoke) and soft answers...like on average something is better , or optimisation answers

So why shut the pubs at 10 is a classic , sciencentific method says to suppress the virus close the pubs, to keep the economy going short term leave the pubs open, to keep the economy strong long term suppress the virus so close the pubs. So then its an optimisation or balancing problem , a bit of suppression and a bit of economy please, we know the virus transmits more readily when people spend a long time together or get close, the later pubs open they longer people are together and the closer they get...there is no right answer to that balancing question, but science can guide you . But there is no hard answer , it depends a lot on unmeasurable, like the long term economic result of different actions that is unknowable in advance

@Randomword235

I think anyone who understands science knows it is all about questions and analysis. Nobody blindly believes all science, it isn't a faith or religion. Scientists look for evidence of they can't find it or if someone finds evidence contrary to their hypothesis they say 'I was wrong' and move on. Scientific understanding changes as we learn more, it is fallible but that doesn't mean that a lot of what we understand at this point isn't true. There is solid evidence for the basis of scientific understanding in all disciplines, eg the earth is spherical (a bit squashed top to bottom and rounded round the equator if you are being pedantic) and moves around the sun, this is a fact. However other, more complicated areas we are still working on and may be subject to change.

This is perfectly fair. And it’s what the vast majority of people who work in the arts think — there’s really no need to deepen the ‘two cultures’ divide. I’m a novelist who teaches literature and writing at a university, but am averagely well-read on contemporary science from a non-scientist perspective, as are most people I know who work in the arts/humanities, and I deplore the dimwit attitude you see so often here on ‘woo’ threads, that because science can’t ‘explain everything’, you do have a guardian angel that leaves feathers in your garden and your granny’s hairdresser definitely had a poltergeist because ‘you cant disprove it’ and it’s would be arrogant to think you know everything’. These views misunderstand the basis on which science works, and they virtually always feature the same quotation which suggests they don’t understand Hamlet either.

I don’t think any scientist blindly follows ‘the science’. In many areas there’s too much disagreement about things. Science is forever evolving as our understanding of the world improves. Any scientist should know this - and if they imply otherwise, I would question any scientific endeavour of theirs.

Similarly, with so many fields, just because you have experience and understanding in one field, doesn’t mean you know anything about any others. I wouldn’t expect a physicist to know a great deal about microbiology, for example. Why would they?

It’s one further thing that’s pissed me off with the government during Covid - “following the science” Well, which science? And which scientists?? Especially in new and more nebulous issues you’d be hard-pressed to find a consensus. It’s just a complete misrepresentation of what science is.

As for funding - science isn’t well funded either! My previous field got most of its research grants from the EU, and now have no idea what’s going to happen in the future. And scientists themselves are generally not well-paid. In my previous as well as current fields, the majority are on less than £30k. Starting salaries are around £18-21k for graduates. The general feeling is that we don’t value scientists in this country. American & French colleagues of mine are often shocked when I tell them this.

And to echo above - science itself doesn’t harm the world. As an example, I used to know the man who designed the switch that triggered the bomb to drop on Hiroshima. He had no idea he had done that. He’d designed it for something completely different years earlier. He didn’t find out until decades later, and it sent him into a huge depression. Scientists cannot be held responsible for what their research leads to. In fact, implying they can is very dangerous and would severely hamper research & innovation.

I'm a scientist, I think the problem with science is it's rarely black or white, people need to look at the all the science and use critical thinking but don't have enough knowledge or confidence to do so. Some also don't understand enough about bias and beliefs clouding the information given out by certain people.

My sister is an anti-vaxxer, all the science is a bit wishy washy, "10% may have a rash or 20% may develop a cough" yet the anti-vaxxers are very confident yelling "if you give this to your baby they will die!!!!" It's very persuasive to someone who doesn't understand the science.

I've worked with thalidomide, it's actually a fantastic drug, still in use (with a new name) and used to treat a variety of conditions. The shocking thing about it is not that it was given to pregnant women in the first place but that it continued to be given for years after problems were seen. This sort of thing makes people very distrustful.

I think there's also a lot of confusion about science evolving. In the vast majority of cases this just means our understanding deepens or areas which were understood very hazily or not at all become clearer or we become more confident as we collect more data. It doesn't mean that everything we thought we knew is thrown away. (Einstein's theory of special relativity doesn't mean we throw away Newton's theories. In most cases Newton's theory gives an incredibly accurate result and is what we use in calculations - Einstein's theory just offers a correction which is relevant in some vety extreme circumstances).

People tend to assume this 'evolution' might mean everything we're certain about now might turn out to be false. This isn't the case.

Likwise with covid since not much data is available the error on our results at the early stages is huge. This isn't science getting it wrong this is lack of data. If you read the papers published the errors are very clearly stated.

I think our education system specialises too early, so often people have no scientific education post-16, so most of us don't have the skills to evaluate science for ourselves. Changing that would involve big changes to the current system in schools and in universities. Maybe we need some kind of 'science literacy' qualification that all sixth formers have to take if they're not taking a science? A 'cultural literacy' qualification for science students might also be useful.

I used to work for a national newspaper, and I'd say 90% of the employees were arts graduates, so I wonder if the media in general could do with a better balance of skills and knowledge to improve science coverage?

I’m a scientist, and I don’t think most people’s brains work in a scientific way and people haven’t been taught basic concepts of study design and their variables and evaluations and limitations. People are also scared of science and think it’s too difficult to understand so don’t even try.
I read an interesting article about this the other day.
Basically, the wider public’s mistrust in science arose when tobacco companies and all of the media around them made up science saying their cigarettes were healthy and they completely discredited any actual real science that proved cigarettes give you cancer. What they did was make science so confusing with contradicting facts coming from all directions that people gave up trying to understand and deemed it too confusing.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/stories-53640382

Science has done so much and given us modern medicine, electricity etc but has also contributed to global warming via the combustion engine, chernobyl and thalidomide.

I'm not sure thalidomide contributed much to global warming :-)

I'm not at all worried by those who don't understand the Scientific Method 'slavishly' accepting established fact. Scientists can be wrong, but generally they will do much better accepting the scientific consensus than listening to any number of other sources of 'facts'.

Three things concern me:

1. Egregiously daft reporting of new papers which can lead to the mere hint of correlation being reported as confirmed causation.

1. Cargo cult like mimicry of 'science' by the stupid or the mendacious has permeated every area of life. People quote papers in bullshit journals to prove anything. Humans are apparently no longer sexually diamorphic 'because science'. L'Oriel have 'proved' that spending £100 on moisturiser in a fancy tub will make you look 30 years younger.

1. This stuff is distorting genuine Science. The huge rewards of doing attention grabbing research create damaging outcomes. Sociology is largely fallen. Psychology has huge issues. Even the 'hard' Sciences are being encroached on.

Fundamentally the answer is better science education. Analytical skills and a deep understanding of the Scientific Method are much more important than learnign facts.

Additionally, although I like to think that I am rational i don't think science can explain everything. For example , i believe in the soul and many sciency people at work including myself, think our hospital is haunted.

I like to think I'm thin, but we are both folling ourselves.

I prefer evidence to science. Evidence can include science but science which is not good evidence can be dangerous.

Since school days I've found science incredibly boring. As an adult I've tried to engage but it's just so dull. I don't have the skills to evaluate evidence so I watch like a spectator at the tennis whilst the boffins argue it out. Then I turn to something more interesting.

I guess my take is that science is a human concept and that humans are imperfect so therefore science must be

Well of course. Think about what science was 200 years ago. A lot of things have been discovered or refuted since then, particularly in medicine. In another 200 years we’ll be even further along and ideas like the speed of light or around how the body works may have evolved into new things.

However, just because you believe in things that are not scientifically verifiable doesn’t mean they are actually true and that’s the distinction. You are free to believe in the soul but you can’t really expect other people to agree with you whereas I would expect people to agree that the world is an oblate spheroid because we have absolute proof it is.

I think you're conflating Science with Industry, with regard to the causes of global climate change.
The two are allied, but not the same.

There is a need for science and the arts, but how many lives did your paintings ever save?

Also nursing should be about care of people and amelioration of conditions- making training university-based rather practical frontline based has been extremely shortsighted and misguided IMO.

@raddledoldmisanthropist Oh, people don't use the word mendacious nearly often enough! Nor raddled for that matter

@raddledoldmisanthropist excellent post. 👏👏👏👏👏

There is still the issue that science is seen as a hard thing. To be sure, there is a lot about it that is difficult but the basis of it is really a refinement of common sense and observations.

What people have difficulty with I suspect is when evidence goes against what people WANT to believe as opposed to NEEDING to believe. That and the fact it is always changing because evidence changes and the only way to verify what we have as fact is to keep testing it.
It is important to note the science can only model, predict and describe (extremely closely) what the Universe is - not what is actually there. Newtons' laws got people to the Moon and space but won't help you with your phone GPS - you need General Relativity for that.

giletrouge

Montmartre

I think if people used the words raddled and mendacious more I'd be less misanthropic.

Look up the word turdiform, your day will be better for it's meaning.

I don't think any scientist believes all current science is correct, otherwise what are we doing?

Evidence for this is that no one believes Covid is spread by bad smells, and my house is not heated by phlogiston

Science has scepticism at his heart. Crap research gets torn to bits by others in the scientific community - sadly the general populace often just fixate on the initial incorrect claims e.g. MMR and autism.

So really no need to scrutinise science, if you keep up to date you will always have the latest generally accepted view.

Science, unlike religion, is at least grounded in repeatable/verifiable factual evidence.

It's a good change.

Nothing should be trusted completely, least of all something which as pp posters, and particularly raddledoldmisanthrope well said is often misrepresentated in education and media and twisted to fit what industry or even academia wants rather than actually the ideal of a pursuit for understanding. It's always going to have limitations and isn't really going to answer things like morality or whether we're 'in our bodies' as souls or simply are our bodies with everything coming from the body and the response to the environment & those around us.

We have major replication problems across the sciences, particularly in the social sciences as already mentioned, as there is little interest and even less funding. The evidence we're getting in a lot of the 'science' going on is far weaker than many would like. I can make the claims with the evidence of how easy it is to manipulate people's memory and senses - which is another part of way nothing should be entirely trusted, and we have to accept uncertainty - but that evidence has and possibly always will have issues. The methodologies used often have a lot of issues rarely brought to public attention.

That's before getting into the fashions and taboos in academia. The overlap of the formal, natural, and social sciences is pretty much viewed with equally with suspicion for overreaching claims (like with evolutionary psych) and/or treated as automatically linked with bigotry (like sociobiology), especially when applied to humans. I can discuss how environmental factors impacts the social behaviour of any other animal, but with humans people hear 'ought to' when it's not there and start claiming either eugenics or that any observed behaviour is 'natural' if there is possibly a biological component that could support it and then naturalistic fallacy takes over. Just because there is evidence of a 'neurobiological home' for spiritual experiences doesn't mean we either 'ought to' have them or that there cannot be other reasons for them.

Something that was very prescient when the Royal Society was set up back in 1660, was its motto "Nullus in Verba" which translates to "take no-one's word for it".

This means you must always be prepared to fact-check anything that you can, even things you already think are true.

[quote Cheesess]I’m a scientist, and I don’t think most people’s brains work in a scientific way and people haven’t been taught basic concepts of study design and their variables and evaluations and limitations. People are also scared of science and think it’s too difficult to understand so don’t even try.
I read an interesting article about this the other day.
Basically, the wider public’s mistrust in science arose when tobacco companies and all of the media around them made up science saying their cigarettes were healthy and they completely discredited any actual real science that proved cigarettes give you cancer. What they did was make science so confusing with contradicting facts coming from all directions that people gave up trying to understand and deemed it too confusing.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/stories-53640382[/quote]
I genuinely don't think anything as elaborate as a science education is necessary. At the level most people are functioning at, it's a matter of distinguishing between studies published in a credible research journal versus 'something someone with no qualifications and dubious literacy wrote on a spittle-flecked blog post that someone linked from an anti-vaxxer FB group'.

Of course sometimes people simply don't want to hear about multiple credible studies giving results that all suggest the same thing, if it runs contrary to a cherished belief eg, studies evidencing pre-menstrual syndrome as a culture-bound syndrome, because people think it means it's 'not real'. Or that more recent research with better technology doesn't support the 'McClintock effect' (that periods synchronise in women in close contact).