Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

[homercles337]

ScienceMag

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.

This is an interesting and short review article that everyone here should read. It covers reasons for the strong resistance to science in the US. Many of us here know much of this already, but to hear how it manifests so early in development is interesting. It also has relevance to nearly every thread in P&N.

Review
Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: paul.bloom@yale.edu

Scientists, educators, and policy-makers have long been concerned about American adults' resistance to certain scientific ideas (1). In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, a view that denies the very existence of evolution (2). Even among the minority who claim to accept natural selection, most misunderstand it, seeing evolution as a mysterious process causing animals to have offspring that are better adapted to their environments (3). This is not the only domain where people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions; the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences; the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies; and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination (4). This resistance to science has important social implications, because a scientifically ignorant public is unprepared to evaluate policies about global warming, vaccination, genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, and cloning (1).

Here we review evidence from developmental psychology suggesting that some resistance to scientific ideas is a human universal. This resistance stems from two general facts about children, one having to do with what they know and the other having to do with how they learn.

The main source of resistance concerns what children know before their exposure to science. Recent psychological research makes it clear that babies are not "blank slates"; even 1-year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology") (5). Babies know that objects are solid, persist over time (even when out of sight), fall to the ground if unsupported, and do not move unless acted upon (6). They also understand that people move autonomously in response to social and physical events, act and react in accord with their goals, and respond with appropriate emotions to different situations (5, 7, 8).

These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. However, they also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. The problem with teaching science to children is thus "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach" (9).

Children's belief that unsupported objects fall downward, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere?if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off. It is not until about 8 or 9 years of age that children demonstrate a coherent understanding of a spherical Earth (10), and younger children often distort the scientific understanding in systematic ways. Some deny that people can live all over Earth's surface (10), and when asked to draw Earth (11) or model it with clay (12), some children depict it as a sphere with a flattened top or as a hollow sphere that people live inside.

In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist into adulthood. One study tested college undergraduates' intuitions about basic physical motions, such as the path that a ball will take when released from a curved tube (13). Many of the undergraduates retained a common-sense Aristotelian theory of object motion; they predicted that the ball would continue to move in a curved motion, choosing B over A in Fig. 1. An interesting addendum is that although education does not shake this bias, real-world experience can suffice. In another study, undergraduates were asked about the path that water would take out of a curved hose. This corresponded to an event that the participants had seen, and few believed that the water would take a curved path (14).


Figure 1 Fig. 1. (A and B) Alternative intuitions about the movement of a ball out of a curved tube [from (13)]. [View Larger Version of this Image (23K GIF file)]


The examples so far concern people's common-sense understanding of the physical world, but their intuitive psychology also contributes to their resistance to science. One important bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, 4-year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity called "promiscuous teleology" (15). Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and prefer creationist explanations (16). Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

Another consequence of people's common-sense psychology is dualism, the belief that the mind is fundamentally different from the brain (5). This belief comes naturally to children. Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems. But preschoolers will also claim that the brain is not involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth (5, 17). Similarly, when told about a brain transplant from a boy to a pig, they believed that you would get a very smart pig, but one with pig beliefs and pig desires (18). For young children, then, much of mental life is not linked to the brain.

The strong intuitive pull of dualism makes it difficult for people to accept what Francis Crick called "the astonishing hypothesis" (19): Dualism is mistaken?mental life emerges from physical processes. People resist the astonishing hypothesis in ways that can have considerable social implications. For one thing, debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and nonhuman animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls (20, 21). What's more, certain proposals about the role of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging in criminal trials assume a strong form of dualism (22). It has been argued, for instance, that if one could show that a person's brain is involved in an act, then the person himself or herself is not responsible, an excuse dubbed "my brain made me do it" (23). These assumptions about moral status and personal responsibility reflect a profound resistance to findings from psychology and neuroscience.

The main reason why people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive. But this does not explain cultural differences in resistance to science. There are substantial differences, for example, in how quickly children from different countries come to learn that Earth is a sphere (10). There is also variation across countries in the extent of adult resistance to science, including the finding that Americans are more resistant to evolutionary theory than are citizens of most other countries (24).

Part of the explanation for such cultural differences lies in how children and adults process different types of information. Some culture-specific information is not associated with any particular source; it is "common knowledge." As such, learning of this type of information generally bypasses critical analysis. A prototypical example is that of word meanings. Everyone uses the word "dog" to refer to dogs, so children easily learn that this is what they are called (25). Other examples include belief in germs and electricity. Their existence is generally assumed in day-to-day conversation and is not marked as uncertain; nobody says that they "believe in electricity." Hence, even children and adults with little scientific background believe that these invisible entities really exist (26).

Other information, however, is explicitly asserted, not tacitly assumed. Such asserted information is associated with certain sources. A child might note that science teachers make surprising claims about the origin of human beings, for instance, whereas their parents do not. Furthermore, the tentative status of this information is sometimes explicitly marked; people will assert that they "believe in evolution."

When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role of mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. Consider, for example, that many Americans who claim to believe in natural selection are unable to accurately describe how natural selection works (3). This suggests that their belief is not necessarily rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous subpopulation accepts this information because they trust the people who say it is true.

Science is not special here; the same process of deference holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. In an illustrative recent study, participants were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy that was described as being endorsed by either Democrats or Republicans. Although the participants sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was, in fact, whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it (27). Additionally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community (28).

Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do; children, like adults, have at least some capacity to assess the trustworthiness of their information sources. Four- and five-year-olds, for instance, know that adults know things that other children do not (like the meaning of the word "hypochondriac") (29), and when given conflicting information from a child and from an adult, they prefer to learn from the adult (30). They know that adults have different areas of expertise: Doctors know how to fix broken arms, and mechanics know how to fix flat tires (31, 32). They prefer to learn from a knowledgeable speaker than from an ignorant one (29, 33), and they prefer a confident source to a tentative one (34). Finally, when 5-year-olds hear about a competition whose outcome was unclear, they are more likely to believe a person who claimed that he had lost the race (a statement that goes against his self-interest) than a person who claimed that he had won the race (a statement that goes with his self-interest). In a limited sense, then, they are capable of cynicism (35).

These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities (24). Hence, these fields are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest.


References and Notes

* 1. H. Nowotny, Science 308, 1117 (2005).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
* 2. "Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey" New York Times, 31 August 2005, p. A9.
* 3. A. Shtulman, Cognit. Psychol. 52, 170 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 4. M. Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (Owl Books, New York, 2002).
* 5. P. Bloom, Descartes' Baby (Basic Books, New York, 2004).
* 6. E. Spelke, Cognition 50, 431 (1994). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 7. G. Gergely, Z. Nadasdy, G. Csibra, S. Biro, Cognition 56, 165 (1995). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 8. V. Kuhlmeier, K. Wynn, P. Bloom, Psychol. Sci. 14, 402 (2003). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 9. S. Carey, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 21, 13 (2000). [CrossRef] [ISI]
* 10. M. Siegal, G. Butterworth, P. A. Newcombe, Dev. Sci. 7, 308 (2004). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 11. S. Vosniadou, W. F. Brewer, Cognit. Psychol. 24, 535 (1992). [CrossRef] [ISI]
* 12. S. Vosniadou, in Mapping the Mind, L. Hirschfeld, S. Gelman, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2003), pp. 412?430.
* 13. M. McCloskey, A. Caramazza, B. Green, Science 210, 1139 (1980).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
* 14. M. K. Kaiser, J. Jonides, J. Alexander, Mem. Cogn. 14, 308 (1986). [ISI] [Medline]
* 15. D. Kelemen, Cognition 70, 241 (1999). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 16. M. Evans, Cognit. Psychol. 42, 217 (2001). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 17. A. S. Lillard, Child Dev. 67, 1717 (1996). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 18. C. N. Johnson, Child Dev. 61, 962 (1990). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 19. F. Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995).
* 20. This belief in souls also holds for some expert ethicists. For instance, in their 2003 report Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics, the President's Council described people as follows: "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)" (21).
* 21. The President's Council on Bioethics, Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics (The President's Council on Bioethics, Washington, DC, 2003).
* 22. J. D. Greene, J. D. Cohen, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 359, 1775 (2004). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 23. M. Gazzaniga, The Ethical Brain (Dana, Chicago, 2005).
* 24. J. D. Miller, E. C. Scott, S. Okamoto, Science 313, 765 (2006).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
* 25. P. Bloom, How Children Learn the Meanings of Words (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000).
* 26. P. L. Harris, E. S. Pasquini, S. Duke, J. J. Asscher, F. Pons, Dev. Sci. 9, 76 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 27. G. L. Cohen, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808 (2003). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 28. J. Haidt, Psychol. Rev. 108, 814 (2001). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 29. M. Taylor, B. S. Cartwright, T. Bowden, Child Dev. 62, 1334 (1991). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 30. V. K. Jaswal, L. A. Neely, Psychol. Sci. 17, 757 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 31. D. J. Lutz, F. C. Keil, Child Dev. 73, 1073 (2002). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 32. J. H. Danovitch, F. C. Keil, Child Dev. 75, 918 (2004). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 33. M. A. Koenig, F. Clement, P. L. Harris, Psychol. Sci. 15, 694 (2004). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 34. M. A. Sabbagh, D. A. Baldwin, Child Dev. 72, 1054 (2001). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 35. C. M. Mills, F. C. Keil, Psychol. Sci. 16, 385 (2005). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline]
* 36. We thank P. Harris and F. Keil for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Neither author received any funding for the preparation of this article.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a neat article. It's always been funny to me that people look down at those in Africa who think that witch doctors can cure AIDS, but then turn around and try to dispute evolution or something else. This explains a lot.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: homercles337
ScienceMag

Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.

This is an interesting and short review article that everyone here should read. It covers reasons for the strong resistance to science in the US. Many of us here know much of this already, but to hear how it manifests so early in development is interesting. It also has relevance to nearly every thread in P&N.

This resistance they are talking about you can sum up pretty much with one word RELIGION. If you look at the history of science and the history of religion you will find they commonly clash. If you look at the history of science it advances while religion at the same time goes against science. A good example of this today is stem cell research that is very promising. However you have religous fanatics out there that cause the world to slow down.

 

[dmcowen674]

Have to subscribe to link.

I believe anyone that does not believe in science has no business in a position of authority.

 

[Aisengard]

I believe anyone that does not believe in science has no business in a position of authority.

Just the fact that people use 'believe' when talking about science shows that there would be a lack of understanding of what science actually IS.

Do you (the royal you, not you specifically dave) 'believe' circles are round, or their area is equal to 2 times pi times its radius squared? No, it just is, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Have to subscribe to link.

I believe anyone that does not believe in science has no business in a position of authority.

I can grab the pdf if someone wants to host. In the mean time, i will just copy paste.

 

[boredhokie]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

I believe anyone that does not believe in science has no business in a position of authority.

Just the fact that people use 'believe' when talking about science shows that there would be a lack of understanding of what science actually IS.

Do you (the royal you, not you specifically dave) 'believe' circles are round, or their area is equal to 2 times pi times its radius squared? No, it just is, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

That may be a bit nit-picky. I'm sure he was making an allusion to the religious extremists who think that a fairy tale fable is superior to self-evident truth.

 

[Butterbean]

That article is complete rubbish. It says nothing while seeming to say a lot so uncritical people swallow it because it sounds "authoritarian". It reeks right off of an article that wants to "deconstruct" common sense. This is the kind of rubbish the homosexuals use to try and make natural aversion to perversion seem like a disorder - so I did a quick search of Professor Bloom and sure enough there is this on his school page:

"Moral Reasoning. My students and I are becoming interested in certain fundamental questions within moral psychology. Why do we find certain actions to be disgusting (such as certain sex acts)"

"To Urgh is Human"

http://www.yale.edu/psychology/FacInfo/Bloom.html

There it is right there.

More from another essay:

"The history of disgust is an ugly one. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who is the main critic of a disgust-based morality, observes that "throughout history, certain disgust properties - sliminess, bad smell, stickiness, decay, foulness - have repeatedly and monotonously been associated with Jews, women, homosexuals, untouchables, lower-class people - all of those are imagined as tainted by the dirt of the body".

The Nazis evoked disgust by depicting Jews as vermin, as unclean and as engaging in filthy acts. Male homosexuals are an easy target here; Nussbaum points out that when she was involved in a trial concerning gay rights in Colorado, opponents of gay rights testified that gay men drank blood and ate fæces."


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:rH...aul+Bloom+sex&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us


See - its all going to be about the gay gay gay - with pseudo science all along the way. These people hate traditional society and, spiritually derived morals etc etc so they will cook up some slop that looks like science. Man people are so easily swayed. Intellectuals are the easiet to hypnotise and they fall for this stuff like it was all new and objective.

 

[ericlp]

No Heaven - No Hell... Just Science!!!

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

I believe anyone that does not believe in science has no business in a position of authority.

Just the fact that people use 'believe' when talking about science shows that there would be a lack of understanding of what science actually IS.

Do you (the royal you, not you specifically dave) 'believe' circles are round, or their area is equal to 2 times pi times its radius squared? No, it just is, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

http://www.xkcd.com/c263.html

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Just the fact that people use 'believe' when talking about science shows that there would be a lack of understanding of what science actually IS.

Do you (the royal you, not you specifically dave) 'believe' circles are round, or their area is equal to 2 times pi times its radius squared? No, it just is, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

It seems that you do not understand science too well, either. 'Science' cannot be proven in the same way as a mathematical theorem. A hypothesis can only be tested, and even then, a hypothesis is not necessarily proven/disproven simply because one paper says it proved something. There are many more subtleties to it than that, despite what we learned in sixth grade science class. Once you've read enough conflicting journal articles, you'd realize that there is a lot of 'belief' involved in science. I believe that certain labs use poor experimental techniques to arrive at their conclusions. I believe that certain labs decide what conclusions they want, then choose their results accordingly. Some of it is unethical behavior, some of it is incompetency, some of it is simply trying to answer very tough questions that we don't have a great way to answer just yet. In any case, there is very much subjectivity in science.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Just the fact that people use 'believe' when talking about science shows that there would be a lack of understanding of what science actually IS.

Do you (the royal you, not you specifically dave) 'believe' circles are round, or their area is equal to 2 times pi times its radius squared? No, it just is, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.

It seems that you do not understand science too well, either. 'Science' cannot be proven in the same way as a mathematical theorem. A hypothesis can only be tested, and even then, a hypothesis is not necessarily proven/disproven simply because one paper says it proved something. There are many more subtleties to it than that, despite what we learned in sixth grade science class. Once you've read enough conflicting journal articles, you'd realize that there is a lot of 'belief' involved in science. I believe that certain labs use poor experimental techniques to arrive at their conclusions. I believe that certain labs decide what conclusions they want, then choose their results accordingly. Some of it is unethical behavior, some of it is incompetency, some of it is simply trying to answer very tough questions that we don't have a great way to answer just yet. In any case, there is very much subjectivity in science.

Belief requires no empirical evidence at all. So you believe that your scientific colleagues use poor experimental techniques with no evidence what so ever? Sorry, but you are not a scientist if you think there is "belief" in science. Science is, by definition, empiricisim. If you have read techniques, understand them, and then conclude based on your knowledge and experience they are poor, this is NOT belief. If presented with results which support two hypotheses do you just pick one that you believe for follow up experiments? No deductive reasoning, no logical conclusions, no probabilistic inference? When you do this is your belief divine? Do you go pray and ask god which hypothesis is more valid? I hate to shatter your little religio-psuedoscientific bubble, but if you believe something with no evidence that is not science and you should be ashamed to claim that you are a scientist. Frankly, i have grown tired of your claims that you are a scientist despite MUCH evidence to the contrary.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Belief requires no empirical evidence at all.

Um, no. Belief, according to Merriam-Webster, is (def. #3):

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So, the failing here is only your knowledge of a basic word in the English language, not my knowledge of science.

So you believe that your scientific colleagues use poor experimental techniques with no evidence what so ever? Sorry, but you are not a scientist if you think there is "belief" in science. Science is, by definition, empiricisim. If you have read techniques, understand them, and then conclude based on your knowledge and experience they are poor, this is NOT belief. If presented with results which support two hypotheses do you just pick one that you believe for follow up experiments? No deductive reasoning, no logical conclusions, no probabilistic inference? When you do this is your belief divine? Do you go pray and ask god which hypothesis is more valid? I hate to shatter your little religio-psuedoscientific bubble, but if you believe something with no evidence that is not science and you should be ashamed to claim that you are a scientist. Frankly, i have grown tired of your claims that you are a scientist despite MUCH evidence to the contrary.

Quoted for posterity. Frankly, I grow tired of your constant badgering and claims that you are a scientist when, in fact, you are merely propagating your own ignorance. Maybe next time you will look up the definition of the word in question before trying to use it as a weapon in your personal attack against me. But I doubt it.

 

[Phokus]

<Peter Griffin>: Christians don't believe in gravity

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Phokus
<Peter Griffin>: Christians don't believe in gravity

lol.

Why do Christians always confuse the word believe with faith?

They always want to impose "faith" into debates regarding science as we frequently see in the Creationist threads that pop up now and then.

Another definition of belief is - to the best of my knowledge. When scientists talk about belief they use the work belief in the knowledge sense of the word. When the religious talk about belief it is belief in the faith sense. Of course the religios wants to impose their "faith" angle on science where "faith" does not excist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: homercles337
Belief requires no empirical evidence at all.

Um, no. Belief, according to Merriam-Webster, is (def. #3):

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So, the failing here is only your knowledge of a basic word in the English language, not my knowledge of science.

So you believe that your scientific colleagues use poor experimental techniques with no evidence what so ever? Sorry, but you are not a scientist if you think there is "belief" in science. Science is, by definition, empiricisim. If you have read techniques, understand them, and then conclude based on your knowledge and experience they are poor, this is NOT belief. If presented with results which support two hypotheses do you just pick one that you believe for follow up experiments? No deductive reasoning, no logical conclusions, no probabilistic inference? When you do this is your belief divine? Do you go pray and ask god which hypothesis is more valid? I hate to shatter your little religio-psuedoscientific bubble, but if you believe something with no evidence that is not science and you should be ashamed to claim that you are a scientist. Frankly, i have grown tired of your claims that you are a scientist despite MUCH evidence to the contrary.

Quoted for posterity. Frankly, I grow tired of your constant badgering and claims that you are a scientist when, in fact, you are merely propagating your own ignorance. Maybe next time you will look up the definition of the word in question before trying to use it as a weapon in your personal attack against me. But I doubt it.

I am indifferent to the argument between you two, but I would have to say that based on the Webster definition some belief may be based on evidence but evidence is still not required. The statement, "Belief requires no empirical evidence at all.", while perhaps misleading, can therefore be true for some beliefs.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: homercles337
Belief requires no empirical evidence at all.

Um, no. Belief, according to Merriam-Webster, is (def. #3):

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So, the failing here is only your knowledge of a basic word in the English language, not my knowledge of science.

So you believe that your scientific colleagues use poor experimental techniques with no evidence what so ever? Sorry, but you are not a scientist if you think there is "belief" in science. Science is, by definition, empiricisim. If you have read techniques, understand them, and then conclude based on your knowledge and experience they are poor, this is NOT belief. If presented with results which support two hypotheses do you just pick one that you believe for follow up experiments? No deductive reasoning, no logical conclusions, no probabilistic inference? When you do this is your belief divine? Do you go pray and ask god which hypothesis is more valid? I hate to shatter your little religio-psuedoscientific bubble, but if you believe something with no evidence that is not science and you should be ashamed to claim that you are a scientist. Frankly, i have grown tired of your claims that you are a scientist despite MUCH evidence to the contrary.

Quoted for posterity. Frankly, I grow tired of your constant badgering and claims that you are a scientist when, in fact, you are merely propagating your own ignorance. Maybe next time you will look up the definition of the word in question before trying to use it as a weapon in your personal attack against me. But I doubt it.

Thats nice that you pick definition #3. Cute. Why did you ignore #1 and #2 and also the synonyms? You do understand that there are often multiple related definitions of words. The correct one is often based on context (and the ranking is there to give you an idea about commonality). You honestly cant tell from CONTEXT what i was inferring? Jebus man, you are a lost cause. Is english not your first language? Seriously, if you follow your OWN link and read, it should be clear why you are the ignorant one here. If you dont grasp basic english, how are you to convince me that you can understand higher level discussions conducted in english? Please, just follow your OWN link and get back to me. Take note of definition #1 and #2 (follow the link on #2 also). I also suggest you read the synonyms. That should clarify some things for you. Oh, and learn how to use a dictionary...

 

[techs]

THIS ARTICLE SHOWS WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WING WACKOS IN THIS COUNTRY WANT THEIR WACKY INTELLIGENT DESIGN TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. DOING SO CONVEYS SOME AUTHORITY THAT IT IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It seems that you do not understand science too well, either. 'Science' cannot be proven in the same way as a mathematical theorem. A hypothesis can only be tested, and even then, a hypothesis is not necessarily proven/disproven simply because one paper says it proved something. There are many more subtleties to it than that, despite what we learned in sixth grade science class. Once you've read enough conflicting journal articles, you'd realize that there is a lot of 'belief' involved in science. I believe that certain labs use poor experimental techniques to arrive at their conclusions. I believe that certain labs decide what conclusions they want, then choose their results accordingly. Some of it is unethical behavior, some of it is incompetency, some of it is simply trying to answer very tough questions that we don't have a great way to answer just yet. In any case, there is very much subjectivity in science.

Why did you quote 'science' ironically like that? Furthermore, what are you trying to say? That belief in science and belief in religion are practically the same thing? That they require the same level of rational thought, logic and intellect?

Personally, I find a lot of ludicrous beliefs in religion. For example, Mormons believe that Native Americans are really a lost tribe of Israel that God became angry at and turned their skin red. They also believe that the garden of eden is located in present-day Jackson County, Missouri.

So where there may be a few unscrupulous scientists willing to take short cuts, the vast majority of Mormons, just as one example, are willing to believe pretty much any crap you spew in a book and call it the testimony of a late-coming Jesus Christ.

 

[Moonbeam]

These facts have been understood for thousands of years by men and women of wisdom. There is an existential truth that mystics, or the practitioners of the science of inner states, real psychologists, or whatever words you want to use, Knowers, would be as good as any, have always understood. It is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, you can't put an old head on young shoulders, or that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

People, generally speaking, have no idea just how deeply their thinking is embedded in dualism. In reality, thought IS dualism. Our thought arose with the evolution of language, the ability to name and thus separate one aspect of reality from another. All of the animal world if free from mental suffering because animals cannot think. They and the universe are as one.

This state of unity, of cosmic oneness, of perfection of being, is obtained by the very few who know how to allow thought to die so that ones true state of oneness can reveal its eternal reality.

With the evolution of language came the birth of good and evil, the notion that there are such things, and the realization that they could be used for control. The natural love needs of a child can be subverted by demands that the child conform to certain behaviors that are not natural to a perfect state.

You were made to hate who you really are so that you could survive as a false ego. You would have physically died had you not suppressed your real self and done what was demanded. And all of this happened very early and is now completely suppressed.

And the truth of this can no longer reach you just as the article says.

This article applies not to the other guy but to you and me.

 

[DealMonkey]

But to respond directly to the OP, I feel for those poor SOB home-school kids. They don't even get a fair chance.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It seems that you do not understand science too well, either. 'Science' cannot be proven in the same way as a mathematical theorem.

Scientific hypotheses/theories can't be proven, but empirical observations are facts. I assume that's what homercles was referring to; you don't 'believe' (MW def. 1) in facts, but you can 'believe' (MW def. 3) in facts, though believing (def. 3) in facts is semantically redundant, which is why most people say 'accept'. Belief is synonymous with faith, acceptance is not. But this is really splitting hairs.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
A hypothesis can only be tested, and even then, a hypothesis is not necessarily proven/disproven simply because one paper says it proved something.

Hypotheses are never proven, only disproven. Facts speak for themselves - hypotheses either explain relationships between the facts so far as we know them or they don't. If they don't they're discarded, if they do they continue to be tested, which is why some scientific hypotheses/theories are more robust than others.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There are many more subtleties to it than that, despite what we learned in sixth grade science class.

I disagree. I give talks to middle school students & middle schoolers are more than capable of developing a very solid understanding of science, because science is very simple. They might not be able to make sophisticated interpretations of somewhat ambiguous data, but they get how science works. The kids always love when I show them the intro of Indiana Jones - "Archaeology [science] is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Once you've read enough conflicting journal articles, you'd realize that there is a lot of 'belief' involved in science. I believe that certain labs use poor experimental techniques to arrive at their conclusions. I believe that certain labs decide what conclusions they want, then choose their results accordingly.

This is where science becomes elegant, and the most powerful tool we have for understanding the natural world. Science is self-correcting. Hypotheses are not rejected because of rhetoric or belief, they're rejected because they don't explain the facts. Of course there is belief (MW def. 1) in science - science is a human enterprise. However, beliefs do not make science go, empiricism does.

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is incredibly eloquent on the roles of belief & facts in science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: homercles337
Belief requires no empirical evidence at all.

Um, no. Belief, according to Merriam-Webster, is (def. #3):

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

So, the failing here is only your knowledge of a basic word in the English language, not my knowledge of science.

So you believe that your scientific colleagues use poor experimental techniques with no evidence what so ever? Sorry, but you are not a scientist if you think there is "belief" in science. Science is, by definition, empiricisim. If you have read techniques, understand them, and then conclude based on your knowledge and experience they are poor, this is NOT belief. If presented with results which support two hypotheses do you just pick one that you believe for follow up experiments? No deductive reasoning, no logical conclusions, no probabilistic inference? When you do this is your belief divine? Do you go pray and ask god which hypothesis is more valid? I hate to shatter your little religio-psuedoscientific bubble, but if you believe something with no evidence that is not science and you should be ashamed to claim that you are a scientist. Frankly, i have grown tired of your claims that you are a scientist despite MUCH evidence to the contrary.

Quoted for posterity. Frankly, I grow tired of your constant badgering and claims that you are a scientist when, in fact, you are merely propagating your own ignorance. Maybe next time you will look up the definition of the word in question before trying to use it as a weapon in your personal attack against me. But I doubt it.

Thats nice that you pick definition #3. Cute. Why did you ignore #1 and #2 and also the synonyms? You do understand that there are often multiple related definitions of words. The correct one is often based on context (and the ranking is there to give you an idea about commonality). You honestly cant tell from CONTEXT what i was inferring? Jebus man, you are a lost cause. Is english not your first language? Seriously, if you follow your OWN link and read, it should be clear why you are the ignorant one here. If you dont grasp basic english, how are you to convince me that you can understand higher level discussions conducted in english? Please, just follow your OWN link and get back to me. Take note of definition #1 and #2 (follow the link on #2 also). I also suggest you read the synonyms. That should clarify some things for you. Oh, and learn how to use a dictionary...

I noticed this in the synonyms:

" CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. "

Looks like maybe the acceptance of science as a valid methodology is just another form of trust.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It seems that you do not understand science too well, either. 'Science' cannot be proven in the same way as a mathematical theorem.

Scientific hypotheses/theories can't be proven, but empirical observations are facts. I assume that's what homercles was referring to; you don't 'believe' (MW def. 1) in facts, but you can 'believe' (MW def. 3) in facts, though believing (def. 3) in facts is semantically redundant, which is why most people say 'accept'. Belief is synonymous with faith, acceptance is not. But this is really splitting hairs.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
A hypothesis can only be tested, and even then, a hypothesis is not necessarily proven/disproven simply because one paper says it proved something.

Hypotheses are never proven, only disproven. Facts speak for themselves - hypotheses either explain relationships between the facts so far as we know them or they don't. If they don't they're discarded, if they do they continue to be tested, which is why some scientific hypotheses/theories are more robust than others.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
There are many more subtleties to it than that, despite what we learned in sixth grade science class.

I disagree. I give talks to middle school students & middle schoolers are more than capable of developing a very solid understanding of science, because science is very simple. They might not be able to make sophisticated interpretations of somewhat ambiguous data, but they get how science works. The kids always love when I show them the intro of Indiana Jones - "Archaeology [science] is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Once you've read enough conflicting journal articles, you'd realize that there is a lot of 'belief' involved in science. I believe that certain labs use poor experimental techniques to arrive at their conclusions. I believe that certain labs decide what conclusions they want, then choose their results accordingly.

This is where science becomes elegant, and the most powerful tool we have for understanding the natural world. Science is self-correcting. Hypotheses are not rejected because of rhetoric or belief, they're rejected because they don't explain the facts. Of course there is belief (MW def. 1) in science - science is a human enterprise. However, beliefs do not make science go, empiricism does.

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is incredibly eloquent on the roles of belief & facts in science.

Yes the belief in empiricism. But what is the belief in empiricism based on?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Phokus
<Peter Griffin>: Christians don't believe in gravity

lol.

Why do Christians always confuse the word believe with faith?

They always want to impose "faith" into debates regarding science as we frequently see in the Creationist threads that pop up now and then.

Another definition of belief is - to the best of my knowledge. When scientists talk about belief they use the work belief in the knowledge sense of the word. When the religious talk about belief it is belief in the faith sense. Of course the religios wants to impose their "faith" angle on science where "faith" does not excist.

It's not only Christians though. There are plenty of people on this forum who use the same pedantic crap repeatedly about using the term belief in reference to evolution. It's the same lame crap people use to try and discredit the term theory (isn't it funny how both sides of the "debate" seem to use the same pathetic tactics to discredit the other?).