To think people are too evidence/science-obsessed?

[namechangegamee]

Of course these things are very important when it comes to stuff like politics, because we do need some sort of evidence or hard fact to make correct decisions.

However, I think that this obsession kills that little bit of magic in life otherwise. For example I love superstition, horoscopes and palm reading. I’m a majorly lapsed Catholic but I do still quite like bits of the religion.

Do I believe in any of these things? No.

Do I salute magpies and check my horoscope? Yes.

Why not? I think we don’t have enough of these whimsy little things in our lives, yet so many people think them stupid. I think it adds a little bit of fun to life. I think it’d be boring if everything was completely logical, or if we knew everything

@lazylinguist of course it isn't wrong, no one here has suggested otherwise! There are, however, a lot of comments that seek to blanket mock all superstition (i.e. harmless superstition/stories), and that is not right considering it is these stories that have led to the beautiful world cultures that we all enjoy. The fact that they are not 'true' does not mean that they are not important to people or valuable.

Like other pp have said, having blind faith in scientists, in the same way some religious people have blind faith in religion, is not healthy.

Going back to the OP - Of course these things are very important when it comes to stuff like politics, because we do need some sort of evidence or hard fact to make correct decisions.

Why would you want to make any important decisions on the basis of non-factual information? Not just political decisions, but all kinds of decisions about life, health, finances, parenting etc. Consulting a horoscope is not going to help.

I think the OP saying science is 'very important' when it comes to 'stuff like politics' is a clear indicator that she means important decisions should be fact/science based. The whole OP is about 'whimsy' things and adding 'fun to life', not running societies based on hocus pocus or relying on your horoscope to tell you whether you should go to the doctor, for example.

You salute a magpie by saying "Hallo, magpie, and how are your seven children?"

@knittingaddict Bit unfair. I’m of the opinion that the big harmful movements are people convinced by science— except it’s bad science and they don’t (or don’t want to) believe that it’s bad. That could apply to Andrew Wakefield who said he'd correlated MMR with autism though his study sample was only 12 children and he was struck off for financial and methodological reasons. Unfortunately it was published by The Lancet which was embarrassing for that publication - so people are right not to rely on peer review.

As long as people regard horoscopes, religion, superstition, homeopathy etc etc as a bit of escapism or fun and don’t take it too seriously, it’s harmless and it can help people to cope with life.

The problems start when people think such nonsense is a substitute for or alternative to data, science, facts and evidence. Aircraft don’t fly safely because people hope, pray and cross their fingers. They fly safely because engineers understand and apply the laws of physics.

Like other pp have said, having blind faith in scientists, in the same way some religious people have blind faith in religion, is not healthy

A scientist who says something should be able to back it up with evidence in a peer reviewed journal and their evidence should be linked to that research plus the research of others.

We then need people who can look at that evidence and give their scientific opinion.

Science requires proof, evidence, research and its statements and studies need to be backed up.

Just because a scientist said so is not good enough. But when a well respected expert in their field with years of study says so, with 100s of peer reviewed articles and who has been recognised by other scientists as being someone who is an expert says so, then that's worth listening to.

@chomalungma

Like other pp have said, having blind faith in scientists, in the same way some religious people have blind faith in religion, is not healthy

A scientist who says something should be able to back it up with evidence in a peer reviewed journal and their evidence should be linked to that research plus the research of others.

We then need people who can look at that evidence and give their scientific opinion.

Science requires proof, evidence, research and its statements and studies need to be backed up.

Just because a scientist said so is not good enough. But when a well respected expert in their field with years of study says so, with 100s of peer reviewed articles and who has been recognised by other scientists as being someone who is an expert says so, then that's worth listening to.

Absolutely!

As a student of science I see it like this: humans are imperfect and fallible and therefore our science is also imperfect and fallible.
Plus subject to huge amounts of bias and based in the arrogant assuption that our intelligence is superior.

However, as a way of making sense of the things we can perceive...it gives us insight.