“why do people believe scientifically untrue things?”
Because they are lied to.
Case in point, global warming. Politically-motivated, “hide the decline”, pseudoscience.
There is an element of believing because they want to believe, because it makes them “part of the group”, this is true.
But it all starts with a lie.
Likewise with evolution. The lie in that case being “unproven theory with many counter-indicators is settled science”.
Maybe because science is always changing what is “true”?
It’s not just science, it’s everything.
In today’s world, facts are largely irrelevant.
The writer seems to posit that a poll of scientists suffices to determine scientific veracity. I was just in a discussion with theology students and a prof who pointed out that science has been polluted philosophically.
For instance, one student critiqued findings from archeological studies showing that presuppositions many times replace valid proofs. Case in point was a study done of ancient cultures that found animal bone fragments and charcoal within city gates resulting in a conclusion that the society had engaged in animal sacrifice. Apparently no thought had been given to the idea that they had merely stumbled upon an ancient kitchen.
In many cases polled scientists will willingly defend positions outside their area of expertise. I attended a debate pitting young earth creation against evolution many years ago where the evolutionary position was supported by a geology professor and a zoology professor. The geology professor very honestly admitted that he could develop and live with young earth models, but he doesn’t because of his acceptance of conclusions from the biology scientists.
I think a lot of “scientists” who support anthropogenic global warming fit into this camp.
The implication in the article that the earth has been warming is itself subject to interpretation given the recent admission by the U.K. Office of the Met that there has been no discernible warming for the last 16 years.
Democrats believe that both supply and demand are not related to price. They also believe that Head Start and high speed rail are viable programs. Democrats are brain-dead, and believing in a 100% materialistic theory of why we are here isn’t going to change that. Most of them that believe in evolution can’t even come close to defining it, or saying one reasonably intelligent thing about it. They just know it’s not what the “Bible Beaters” believe, so they are all for it. Morons.
I like to get into the fundamentals of both my love for God and my knowledge of math and physics.
Place marker
The arrogance of the left is always astonishing. They frame the debate around them holding the truth and any rebuttal is therefore subject to their elitist ridicule and scorn.
This total BS piece does just that...look at how each claim is framed and presented. Its no different than Al the Liar Gore saying “The science is settled” when it is not even close.
You jerks on the left and the right who stick the people of faith in the eye for having faith in God whose creation is not in conflict with known science are some of the most shameful bastards on the planet.
srbfl
bump for later
I suspect that "provoking a sense of moral superiority and making them less altruistic,” far from being limited to the “liberal” position on organic foods, is typical of all liberal positions from gun control to AGW to nuclear power to fracking and evolution.It would in fact seem likely that the causation is reversed, and that a desire for a feeling of moral superiority, and a concomitant lack of altruism, generally motivate people to take “liberal” positions.
The Three Words:
Jungle Rules Rule.
Bump to read later.
Scientists should not be political activists.
Even if the climate data were true, the solutions climate scientists are pushing are destructive to human life.
For modern science, the funder of the research influences the research outcome and political activism. We lost most medical researchers to drug companies and the Federal government a long time ago and it will get worse under socialized medicine. Our cutting edge in medicane days are over.
Power brokers who fund research that serves their money and power, can create the “science” they need to justify what they want to do or to support what they beleive. The opposition can do that, too. It’s been like this for a long time - since I started my career.
This comment gets to the crux of the issue. To the left, science is important ONLY for how it can used to drive public policy. So to make the changes they want in society, they'll use science, or at least the science THEY pay for and accept.
Save for later
The Scientific Method has been rarely used in the last 60 years in high quality, peer reviewed, Scientific Journals.
What is lacking in these Journals, and in the article that you posted here is OBJECTIVE TESTING.
If for example, if one reads peer-reviewed, scientific literature on the very popular Global Warming Speculation, there will no mention of known cause and effect observations, or repeatable laboratory tests to move the GW Speculation up to the level of an Hypothesis, let alone the very high level of a Theory.
Most Professional Scientists use statistical inference to avoid the tedium of searching and re-searching for an objective test of Empirical Data that can be repeated by their peers by observation, and cause and effect experiments.
This lazy, lack of curiosity, slip-shod method has also found it’s way into Politics.
For example, a majority of American Voters polled during last year’s National Election Campaign concluded that Obama would be better able to reduce the US National Debt than Romney.
I leave to the energetic and curious reader the task of designing one or more objective tests for this popular speculation.
BTW, for extra credit, try objective testing other speculations including the ones mentioned in the above article. Enjoy!
If you want to get a lib frothing at the mouth, ask him if he believes there is a genetic component to intelligence.