If you dare to question science you are labelled uneducated?

[Clovesinmyorange]

As the title states.

I’m finding myself getting more and more angry at this attitude.
It’s the current ‘trend’ if you will, that if you dare to question science you are stupid or uneducated. Having some reservations about things, means you are completely wrong and an imbecile.

The worst thing to do in this situation is to tell ‘anti vaxxers’ or people who are hesitant about the vaccine that they are wrong or stupid. This will backfire greatly and it’s certainly not a way of winning them over. This exact thing happened with Brexit too…which is why we are where we are with that.

It’s usually left wing guardian readers (yes I read the guardian) but the same people who are usually very vocal about how supportive they are of other peoples ethics, beliefs and backgrounds.

@CorrBlimeyGG

This exact thing happened with Brexit too…which is why we are where we are with that.

Possibly not the best example. They have been proven to be wrong or stupid.

Took the words out of my mouth 😂

Science is all about questioning! The hallmark of a good scientist is being able to critically question things and change your mind in the face of new evidence.

What do you mean question the science. What questions are you asking? I am a biomedical scientist but not specialised in a field relating to the pandemic however if I want to question something I go and do my research on it. By that I mean I read scientific papers. I'm also a lecturer and this is how I would teach both the medical doctors and medical scientist to question things they dont agree with.

Yes there is such a thing as a stupid question but I agree that calling people stupid often isnt the answer. I watched a really interesting Netflix documentary on flat earthers and actually alot of the experiments they designed to prove the earth was flat were pretty intelligent. Its unfortunate they were channelling that intelligence into something so futile.

@SayAaa

Science is all about questioning! The hallmark of a good scientist is being able to critically question things and change your mind in the face of new evidence.

And the hallmarks of someone with no education whatsoever in science are….?

Scientific studies are regularly found to be misleading, badly done, biased due to who is funding the study, right based on what could be known at the time but now wrong etc.

I see no problem whatsoever with anyone saying they don't understand x, or have reservations about it (especially in cases where the scientists don't all agree completely on x).

I completely object to people trying to "debunk" stuff they have no clue about, simply because it does not suit their agenda.

Scientists are not infallible.

Radio silence from the OP, how shocking.

There's a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one, OP.

@Clovesinmyorange

I’d say the issue is - we are in a pandemic, things could get really bad for the NHS - usually I’d be a fan of speculation and different viewpoints. But it’s got to a stage where we really need to trust the experts.

I think, once things have settled down - there is time for speculation and time to think how we could improve for the future.

But while things are critical - we need to all follow a cohesive plan, and try and support each other the best we can.

Are you a scientist, OP? I am, and I work for one of the big pharma that produced one of the vaccines. I welcome scientific debate, after all, it is how we achieve innovation. But this needs to be grounded on scientific expertise and evidence. There is a large proportion of the population who suddenly believe they have this expertise (which takes decades to achieve). It is this aspect that I have no time for. Although I will happily explain scientific rationale to those who are interested.

It really depends on who is doing the questioning. Some anti-vaxxers are as thick as mince, there's no doubt about that. You only have to read the local forums.

I would take the word of a virologist over a random youtube tin hatter every time.

Returning to your thread, @Clovesinmyorange to ponder and consider what people have contributed?

Tbh I think this is unreasonable: I am not an expert in French language so I’m not going to argue if the dictionary and French experts say the word for fish is poisson, even if I have a strong inner sense that it ought to be le swim-swim. I don’t understand why people feel their intuition is more valid than years of collaborative study. Perhaps I’ll stop believing in gravity, so I don’t have to climb the stairs.

It's an interesting question. I do think a lot of people who claim to be 'questioning the science' are doing so with some kind of background agenda. The trouble is, there can be a lot of data, and it's not realistic for a layperson to keep on top of it all.

There can also be genuine disagreement between genuine scientists about what the data shows. In issues such as virus transmission, there are a lot of variables that are hard to control for.

I remember when mad cow disease appeared. I was working at a University at the time, and interacted with some people who worked in diseases. I was worried about inter-species transmission -- he told me that, though it wasn't his area of specialty, he had just been to a talk by one of the experts who had assured the audience that it was absolutely impossible for this kind of disease to jump across species. And that he had no concerns about letting his children eat mince.

I admit that, on purely philosophical grounds, I was then just too worried that not enough was really known about this disease and, personally, kept away from mince.

A year later, they had discovered a new mechanism of transmission hitherto unknown, via prions. When I met the scientist again, he admitted that the new theory changed everything and that he no longer let his family eat beef!

Note this though: he was completely open about changing his mind in the light of new evidence. And, though I turned out to be right to be cautious, I don't think I knew better than the scientists.

Overall, I think we should be allowed to question the science but whereas I was in the privileged position of being able to interact with honest researchers, I think today there's a lot of bad faith in the way that the science is presented I think if the scientists were allowed to speak and people engaged their minds with what they said, we'd have an all-round healthier society.

With facebook, youtube, and these strange internet echo chambers, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I hate those arguments which end with "do your own research" as though access to Google has made everyone equally capable of coming to fact-based, educated conclusion on ANY topic or field of study.

But I do feel very sorry for the people who are being misled and deliberately led down the conspiracy paths - it's easy to get drawn into when there's some focused and deliberate targetting from different interest groups doing it.

Haha. Thank you. After an irritating late Saturday email from a client, the ridiculousness of the OP's thread title and question has perked me up. It's also reminded me that it is unfair to be annoyed with my client for asking questions that seem to me to be insanely easy to answer. I am an expert in my field after all and they employ me for that reason.

Asking scientists to provide information on how and why they reach conclusions is completely fine. But telling scientists they are wrong because, for example, "the vaccine can't be safe because it was developed so quickly" is ridiculous unless you are a scientist and provide scientific reasons for your concerns. When I cook a roast, I heat it to a temperature my cooking books tell me is safe to eat. When I take my car to a garage I leave the mechanic to figure out why it is not working. I do not cut my own hair. These are trivial examples but all reflect that I'm quite comfortable to trust experts. Why not scientists?

@cabingirl

I hate those arguments which end with "do your own research" as though access to Google has made everyone equally capable of coming to fact-based, educated conclusion on ANY topic or field of study.

But I do feel very sorry for the people who are being misled and deliberately led down the conspiracy paths - it's easy to get drawn into when there's some focused and deliberate targetting from different interest groups doing it.

And this is what every single anti vaxxer and conspiracy theorist I know has in common - they are all vulnerable, poorly educated and gullible. Not intelligent or educated enough to realise how much they don't know, so they just swallow lies from people with an agenda and then repeat them.

They are very easy targets for those groups. The same sort of people who end up getting pulled into cults and MLM schemes. Always convinced that other people are idiots and sheep and they're enlightened sorts who 'question things' despite having almost zero knowledge of what it is they're questioning. They're definitely a 'type'. And they're always driven the same motivator - desperately wanting something to be true despite all evidence that it isn't.

All anyone needed to do was watch Question Time the other night and it proves the OPs point

OP, I would not bother with this thread. You will get people shaming you for even thinking of this attitude, due to their naive worldview in which science is always impartial and unbiased. Ironically, it is simpler fit them that way.

@Wondering1000

OP, I would not bother with this thread. You will get people shaming you for even thinking of this attitude, due to their naive worldview in which science is always impartial and unbiased. Ironically, it is simpler fit them that way.

*for them that way

@Wondering1000

OP, I would not bother with this thread. You will get people shaming you for even thinking of this attitude, due to their naive worldview in which science is always impartial and unbiased. Ironically, it is simpler fit them that way.

And your qualifications and viewpoint are….?

My issue with “following the science “ in this context is that the government’s advisors are asked one question which is essentially “How do you slow transmission of covid and if we don’t do it how many people will get covid / be hospitalised/ die.”

You really don’t need to be a scientist to conclude that locking everyone in their house reduces transmission at least temporarily. Most of the other policies which science has come up with are less extreme versions of that and none of it is remotely sophisticated.

So the scientists have answered the question presented to them (which to fine as far as it goes as that is their job) but there has been essentially no attempt from the government to address the question of years of life / health etc lost as a result of these policies or the impact of lost education or the opportunity cost of spending money on this which could have been spent elsewhere. If you ask only epidemiologists about policy it will be centred around reducing covid cases. If you ask psychologists or economists or education specialists or doctors with a specialism other than infectious disease you’d probably get a different view.

But anyone including the government goes against the “science” which suggests that locking everyone in their house is a good idea then they’re anti-scientific and stupid etc.

Also a lot of the models which scientists have come up with throughout the pandemic have either been based on assumptions which sound implausible or based on very shaky statistics. Once the data for that Bangladesh mask study was published, for example, it was immediately obvious that it wasn’t proving what the headlines claimed it did. I’m not an epidemiologist but I have a rudimentary knowledge of stats and you don’t need to be a mathematical genius to see the issues with some of this stuff (or at least that what is reported in the media as scientific fact is not even close to what the study in question shows).

** If you don't have any scientific qualifications, then you simply don't have the knowledge to reach a valid conclusion.

What you believe is up to you, but persuading others to your viewpoint is irresponsible and puts them at risk.**

^This

@Wondering1000 but why shouldn't OP come back to the thread? These are points which they can address and counter, no? Your advice is to flounce, which isn't an argument. More an admission you're wrong.

If you question the scientists when you have absolutely no training in science then you are either a) stupid, b) arrogant c) a twat or d) All of the above! Hth

I’ve been putting my son to bed. I’m reading the replies now.

I was meaning that questioning science shouldn’t be necessarily seen as a bad thing. Of course scientists and epidemiologists are trained and educated in that specific field, but they’re still only human. The same as doctors misdiagnosing patients, which unfortunately seems to happen more than we would like to think.

I don’t think calling people stupid or uneducated is actually helping persuade them to a particular way of thinking. I feel it makes them push against it more and become increasingly more resistant.