Why do people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence shows otherwise

[technodad]

This is not intended to be an attack on any denomination of belief. The aim of this thread is to try to understand why people choose to believe things, when there are far more likely explanations and why people choose to not trust the scientific opinion.

I am not particularly thinking about a discussion about religion because clearly "faith", some old books and preaching make a difference there (although, please discuss religion if it is relevant). I am thinking more about things like:

• People don't believe global is happening when the vast majority of the scientific community can provide evidence that it is.

• People believe in ghosts when their existance violates all the laws of physics and pretty much all "ghost events" (if not absolutely all) can be explained without mystery.

• People don't get their kids vaccinated (e.g. MMR), when it is clear that not vaccinating is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccinating.

• People think that palm reading, tea leaf reading, etc actually works...

• People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

The rules are as follows:

1. You can say what ever you like, and I don't care if you insult me.

2. If you post something, you may have someone say something that challenges your deeply held beliefs, so please only post if this is acceptable to you.

3. No one is allowed to complain about anyone being horrible, or arrogant, based upon the fact that people will only post here if they are up for a debate (see 2).

4. There is no 4.

My DH used to use a 'homeopathic' cream on his eczema - precisely because it has very little active in it, so it soothed without irritation. (he now swears by glycerine soap from the farmers market, which we again assume helps because of whatever isn't in it relative to other soaps). So actually I can believe that homeopathic treatment might be effective if it diverts people from using other substances.

That may or may not be the correct explanation but it might be more credible than water having selective memory. Wonder if its testable...

No real scientist claims to 'know it all' - I certainly never have. Science is all about the never-ending quest to find out more! But some ideas are scrutinized and discarded. I don't have a particularly open mind about the ether either.

Wondering which world class chemists you're referring to ... many of the ones I know would be really interested in morphic resonance if it was in any way credible, could be quite useful.

Are you there, Mrsmiggins? One knock for yes, two knocks for no.........

Are you table rapping now Curlew?

I thought if I did you might come up with some names of scientists who believe in homeopathy and morphic resonance.

This was a question you directed to Ladyindisguise, not me. You are becoming a little irrational Curlew.

Ah, yes, my mistake. You didn't talk about homeopathy It was you said "I have know many world class chemists who are interested in morphic resonance."

Some of those names would be good.

I am more and more interested to see why it seems that some people have to prove everything they say and other can just say things and that has to be accepted as the truth.

Curlew, black and other could tell me why you think science is the only way to 'prove' that something is true?
Could you also explain to me why the reductionist philosophy underpinning science at the moment is right?
Could you explain how it is OK to have so many systems living side by side to explain the word around us even though they are incompatible (eg euclidean geometry and geometry saying 2 parallel lines meet up or classic mechanics and quatum mechanic)?
Could you explain to me how it is OK to say one thing and expect everyone to accept as the truth and then 5 or 10 years later so say 'Oh actually, the truth is now ...' (too many examples but I am sure that yiu can find one)? Answer along the line 'That's because science can change as we learn along' not acceptable. It's either the truth or it isn't. If you think it might change in the future then it is not 'the' truth and is subject to discussion and people having different ideas on it.
Have any of you actually read some scientific research and done some critical analysis on research papers? Look at all the Cochrane studies etc... (in medicine)

there was the '"There are lots of alternative medicines which we don't understand the mechanisms for." too, I think (curlew asking mrsM, probably following from LinDs post which perhaps she conflated?)

I am more and more interested to see why it seems that some people have to prove everything they say and other can just say things and that has to be accepted as the truth.

so am I - but its the scientists who are the former group and the believers in pseudoscience/supernatural explanations who are the latter, whch doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

curlew do you have so little faith in other posters that you have to ask for proof of every single comment that is made?
If I was giving you names, what would you do? Google them and then evaluate if they are 'real scientists'?
And then try and tear me/the scientist apart to prove your point?

Sorry but you haven't yet given any proof of your own assumptions re science and nor have you explained why you think science is 'the golden rule'.
I am not sure why I should prove myself and explain every minute details whilst yu don't.

But surely if you say "I know a scientist who thinks X" it's entirely reasonable that you be asked "who"?

Errol has it occur to you that you can both be a scientist and think that there is more than what has been proven at this moment in time. And to think too that you can make your own critical appraisal of things wo the need of 'double blind controlled studies'?
maybe as a GP, after having seen so many different patients improving with homeopathy, you then make your won appraisal that actually it is working for them?
Or the IVF expert who tells his patients that they need to drink one glass of full vat milk everyday to improve their chances of conception?

It is people who are defending science on this tread that are saying 'Look this is the truth because it's science and nothing else can be accepted'. Not me or other posters who have a much more open mind and trying to show examples that are immediately ridiculed wo any discussion.

I am happy to answer your questions about what I think, but I am a bit baffled by them. Could you narrow it down to one or two to start with?

Again do you need a proof? Why curlew?

And why is no one daring to answer my questions?

I have tried before and so have other posters. So go on, explain.

"Errol has it occur to you that you can both be a scientist and think that there is more than what has been proven at this moment in time" Any good scientist thinks this. Science isn't "finished".

thanks curlew - or as I said before 'No real scientist claims to 'know it all' - I certainly never have. Science is all about the never-ending quest to find out more!

And why is no one daring to answer my questions?
sorry, got half way through an answer, somehow lost it and now my DD has come in for a chat

But you forgot conveniently the next sentence which says that as a person you can make your own critical appraisal of things as it is with the 2 cases I mentioned. Would you like to comment on it?

But you can't make your own critical appraisal. Well, you can, and as an individual, you can decide that whatever it is works for you and carry on doing it. But a doctor can't do this. He can't prescribe things which have been shown over and over again not to work, and lie to his patients about them.

But they do all the time.... About 15% of accepted treatments on the NHS are treatments that have been shown to be detrimental to the patient. IT's not just that it's not working. It's actually making people worse!
The number of treatments on The NHS that hasn't been proven is about 40%.
And all these people will tell their patients that X treatment WILL make them better.

And on the other side, some professional do prescribe/use treatments that haven't been proven be the effective yet! because their experience is that it does work. Anything wrong with telling people to drink milk to increase fertility? (No study has ever shown that btw. The closest you can get is ONE study saying that drinking full fat milk is beneficial for anovulatory women and even then the conclusion of the researchers is to say it has more to do with what happens to milk when it is transformed into half fat than with drinking full fat milk). Well nothing apart from the fact it's not proven. but one of the consultant who says that to his patients has the best sucess rate with IVF.... Maybe, just maybe, he has some real life experience that is worth looking at?

But what about my questions then?
Any answer on the philosophy behind science perhaps?
You can't discuss if science is the only way to evaluate

sorry end of sentence is

without understanding the philosophy behind it.

I'm happy to answer your questions-but I'm finding them a bit confusing. Could you narrow them down a bit?

Oh, and if drs are prescribing stuff that's actively harmful, then they shouldn't be. And if the fertility expert says " there is one flawed study that suggests that drinking milk aids fertility, you can try if you like- it certainly won't do any harm" then that's fine.

Haha have you being ill and gone to to see a consultant recently? Even if you do demand an explanation as to why you should X or Y, it is unlikely you will get such an answer or the success rates of the procedure.

Any idea what is the success rates for an EVC for a breech baby? So low (About 5% if I remember well) that you really wonder why on earth you would take the risks associated with it. But most pregnant women will be told they have to.
Or that they have to be induced at 39+2 weeks (Guidelines is actually for 40 weeks +) because ... it's hospital procedure. Now try and stand your ground on that one, ask the consultant to wait and make them angry against you (because you are showing you don't trust them) and then putting your life and your baby's life into their hands if you end up needed a CS......

Not sure what you want me to narrow down. They are all very straight questions.