May 31, 2007
WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?
Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg at Edge.org:
It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which 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.
There are two common assumptions about the nature of this resistance. First, it is often assumed to be a particularly American problem, explained in terms of the strong religious beliefs of many American citizens and the anti-science leanings of the dominant political party. Second, the problem is often characterized as the result of insufficient exposure to the relevant scientific facts, and hence is best addressed with improved science education.
We believe that these assumptions, while not completely false, reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this phenomenon. While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 03:23 PM | Permalink
Comments
One might also ask why some "scientists" also resist science and following the long held rules of the scientific method in their failure to read and acknowledge the work of others before them, as the failure of the cancer generals and their lieutenants, various "professors" of biology, biochemistry, etc., all over the country who fail to read any of the 500+ scientific papers of Otto Warburg, M.D., Ph.D., but when asked if they read them, silence is their reply. This is a coded way of saying, "How could I admit I did not read any of Otto Warburg's 500+ scientific papers since then I would look foolish as holding the title of professor of biology, biochemistry, etc." It is easier for them to simply accept the false statements of others than to read the work themselves. The conclusion is that these so-called "scientists" are not scientists at all, but frauds. This is the underlying reason the war on cancer is a failure.
Posted by: Winfield J. Abbe | Jun 2, 2007 8:04:04 PM
Religion is just science for idiots.
I mean, we can always ask the talking snake to let us know what is really happening, and then go for a ride on Mohammed's flying horse to check out how the angles are doing.
Invisible friends help inquiring minds!
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Jun 3, 2007 8:20:28 PM
The authors make some valuable points, not often seen in this discussion: people who resist the scientific worldview commonly do so because they don't trust its advocates. We shouldn't just assume that's because they are necessarily small-minded (although that is certainly often the case). A more gregarious rationalism might ask itself what it could do to help bridge that gap rather than insist that everyone accept things on its own terms, like the Borg, who are readily brought to mind (unwittingly or not) by the title of tis article.
The main contention of the article, dealing with how children adopt different beliefs, is much less valuable. No account is made for why some children are able to make the leap from magical thinking or common sense to more abstract forms of reasoning, and some or not. It is not enough to say, as the authors do, that:
While this surely plays a part, it is obviously not an iron clad law (we all know atheist children of religious parents, and vice-versa). Furthermore, this analysis is just a snapshot in the ever-developing history of beliefs. The question remains, why do some pockets of society remain more resistant than others? Hidden in the explanation seems to be the subtext that these people are just more stupid and pigheaded than the rest of us. And even if that were true, the theories put forward in the article don't seem to shed much light on why that would be. The chicken of unenlightenment and the egg of superstition seem to be caught in causitive closed loop. Perhaps there is a better way to talk about this phenomenon?
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jun 4, 2007 2:00:49 PM
There may be a survival benefit to religion and authoritarian submission. As slavery became common after the agricultural revolution, submission to one's master (like a dog, who has been bred to stay in a juvenile state, much dumber and less fit that a wild wolf) is not going to be killed and eliminated from the gene pool by a elite maintaining power through violence.
Wolves are scarce, along with religion free humans.
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Jun 4, 2007 4:03:47 PM
Post a comment