[Why] Smart People Believe Weird Things 186
LeBain writes "This Sep. 2002 Scientific American article on 'confirmation bias' and why people believe in the paranormal reminds us, 'we need to teach that science is not a database of unconnected factoids but a set of methods designed to describe and interpret phenomena.'"
Depends (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Depends (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Depends (Score:2)
mark
Re:Depends (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid that it is far easier to prove that extraterrestrial life exists than to prove that it doesn't: to prove the former we only need to find it, otherwise we need to:
and this is quite lots of work, even if it can be done in finite, arbitrary long time. Unless of course the universe is not finite, otherwise we just can't decide.
Anyway I believe that the problem is not with people who have faith in things that can't be demonstrated (at least now), after all it is the same thing mathematicians are doing with axioms; the problem is with people who believe in fake pseudo-scientific explanations of things that can be proved false. In my opinion the problem is the confusion between facts and matters of faith that otherwise would have each its own place in one's mind.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
There are other planets around other stars in our galaxy. A small fraction will probably have some kind of life, although perhaps not intelligent. There are gigantic numbers of galaxies in the universe. The odds are with life on multiple planets. I could be wrong: there could be a God/Gods and no life anywhere except earth, but I think the odds are against it.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
There's not enough data to really state wether 'the odds are against or for it'.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
But a personal God, the sort in religions like Christianity, is pretty imporbable sounding to me. And if there is some sort of God/Gods out there somewhere that doesn't/don't really care about what we believe here on earth, the whole matter is irrelevant in the absence of further information, except as a philosophical topic.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
All of science is based in philosophy.
Philosophic topics are pretty important. Unless you're just going to be a technician, and you're satisfied letting someone else know why that knob does this.
Re: Depends (proof?) (Score:1)
I don't mean to argue for or against Jesus having walked on water or having healed people (yet); I merely find your statement intriguing. What proof do you have?
Re: Depends (Score:2)
> Most "smart" people i know ( and i include myself
Actually, Jesus' miracles aren't disproven because they are in their very essence claims that a supernatural agent intervened to disrupt the normal operation of nature. So I would modify your:
> Maybe we just believe everything unless we can prove it wrong?
to say that we believe things that would be the result of the ordinary operations of nature, e.g. abiogenesis and evolution on at least a few other planets, but we reject things that are contrary to the ordinary operations of nature, e.g. walking on water and raising the dead, due to the lack of any tangible evidence that the necessary agents actually exist - or even that the events actually happen.
Re:Depends (Score:2)
> jesus could not heal the blind/walk on water/ect.
Oh really? And exactly what is that proof?
Would you like a proof that he did?
I doubt it, but in case you would:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/08308177
Re:Depends (Score:1, Insightful)
Then it wouldn't be 'belief' it would be 'knowledge'.
Are you trolling or stupid, AC?
Re:Depends (Score:2)
I imagine I believe a lot of things that noone has proven to me. Most of the time I trust experts who have studied much more than I have; as in the case of evolution or astronomy. I've never duplicated any experiment for myself to convince me that the world orbits the sun, but I believe that it does. What little direct evidence I have (sunrise and sunset) support the idea, and I've read works and talked to people who claim to have studied the idea much more thoroughly than I, and they all agree.
That's a lot of good evidence, but is it proof? At what point does the cumulated evidence of something become proof? And,
For a "Smart Person", I'd imagine it is. Once something can be actually proven to a person with a scientific mind, I'd say they "know" the thing. Until then, all they can do is believe it, or not. But I see no reason for a "Smart Person" to have to choose one way or another if there is not enough evidence to support a proven conclusion.
For things like the paranormal, there is little evidence either way. Plenty of people report paranormal experiences, but ghosts seem to be camera shy. Are those people 'evidence'? If not, can I dismiss ideas like ESP simply because there is no evidence that it exists? And if so, then what do I (as a scientist) learn from such impractical evidence?
Certainly religion falls into the same paradox. Religious cite all sorts of things as evidence of afterlives and supreme beings, but it doesn't cross the line to actual, scientific proof.
In both cases, evidence is set forth. The Smart Person can consider it real evidence or discount it as zero evidence. Even then, in both cases nothing has been proven, so the Smart Person should still be free to believe either way with a free scientific conscious.
Therein lies the difference.
One last thing, tho, about zero evidence belief. Judging from the brief comments that the guy makes in the article, he comes down strongly on the side of not believing in the paranormal. I imagine he does it because he believes there is zero evidence of the paranormal (he discounts any recounts by others), and such a belief would need at least some evidence to be believed at all. I believe that is unneccessarily strict. Just because there is no evidence in something, doesn't mean it can't be believed, even by someone intelligent. I'd guess that it would happen rarely in practice, and would more likely stem from other areas (childhood fantasies). But as long as there is no proof, the scientific method has not been violated because the person believes (and does not know) the belief in question. If the author (is it Mr. Hines, or Mr. Shermer?) wants to use science as a basis for his conclusions, he can't abandon it in the null case.
Re:Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
t.
Re:Depends (Score:2)
Science is a method of discovery and verification of things. It is imperfect at best. Even discarding the "social sciences", which is to my thinking a prerequisite of discussing what science really is, there is a limit to what science can reveal. Science can "prove" almost nothing. What science can do is give good working approximations. Eventually, we tend to run into a hole in our theory, and we then either refine it or throw it out and start over.
Given that there are places science cannot go, there is plenty of room for belief. Everyone has some cosmology - a theory of how the universe works. This cosmology informs both religion and intuition. A good underlying cosmology allowed Einstein to make the intuitive leap that lead to Special Relativity.
As long as a religion doesn't contradict what is demonstrable, I don't see where the problem lies. Similarly, if someone believes that magnets make them feel better, at least they feel better. Can it be reproduced en masse as a treatment for all? Not apparently, but so what? No harm has been done, and occasionally some good will come of it. Wouldn't it be a shame if we all thought the same way? It would certainly make science much more difficult, by removing any possibility of intuitive leaps.
Re:Depends (Score:2)
Just a nit...I don't think that it's right to throw out social sciences as not being real science. I think the problem is that for a long time social sciences have suffered from two things: unscientific theories taking hold and being very difficult to discard, and the sheer difficulty of the problem and lack of tools to analyze the data.
By unscientific theories I am thinking of things such as Freud's theories, or Marx's theories, or even Rand's theories.
As I see it, social sciences are harder to dig into than physics because there's serious problems with establishing a proper viewpoint for the observer, and also serious problem separating and even identifying what the important variables are. We should all have some idea of how intertwined things like culture and language are in what we see and consider important to study.
But, there's new techniques that are being used now by some researchers that can provide some leverage. To give an analogy: a complex sound is made up of many component parts, which might appear to be inseparable. But a Fourier transform can shed a lot of light into what makes up a complex sound. Advanced statistics are starting to really transform the social sciences in the same way, and that can at least partially help those fields to make some sense of the muddle.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
Your 'Fourier transform' analogy breaks down. One can do spectral analysis by other means.
The 'clobber data with statistics' social 'science' is often a solution chasing after a problem to solve.
Re:Depends (Score:2)
That's not what I said. Social sciences can't do that any more than a hard science like astronomy can.
Your 'Fourier transform' analogy breaks down. One can do spectral analysis by other means.
The analogy is fine. An analogy is not a proof or evidence, and if the analogy does not hold water in all situations that quite alright. An analogy is just an illustration, a way to clarify and communicate the point I was making. If you choose to look at the details of the analogy and ignore the point it was trying to illustrate, then you'll miss the point.
The 'clobber data with statistics' social 'science' is often a solution chasing after a problem to solve.
"clobber" is the word you chose, not me. Statistics is the only way to analyze the type of data that the social sciences have to deal with. My point is that part of the reason the social sciences have lagged behind the hard sciences in producing results is that the tools needed for analysis are still being developed.
Re:Depends (Score:1)
IIRC He says that even if he was being thwarted by an "evil genius" deceiving him on every possible experience, that at the very least there must be something that is being deceived... And everytime he thinks there must be something doing the thinking... The thinking thing is him and so that as long as he is thinking he exists as a thinking being...
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Belief in a god gives some meaning to life. Belief in prayer gives the ability to control the uncontrollable. Belief in precognition gives the ability to know the unknowable. Etc.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Slightly OT (Score:2)
Great stuff.
Gave us a fine appreciation for how Scientific Discovery is made and how gradual change is punctuated by bursts of creativity.
Of course, then you go talk to people and it takes the wind right out of your sails.
Re:Slightly OT (Score:1)
He talks about how if Einstein is correct, Newton is not. This isn't a gradual change. I don't know what kind of shitty instructor you had, but Kuhn's thesis was precisely the opposite of yours: science is *NOT* a process of gradual accumulation of knowledge.
Re:Slightly OT (Score:1)
Anyway, if I remember correctly, the serious shifts have periods of LITTLE or NO change in the main scientific underpinings. This does not mean there's a vacuum as far as accumulation of knowledge is concerned.
To take your example, people used Newton with little or no problems, and then there was a sudden, forceful change in the laws of mechanics.
Does this mean there was no discovery going on between Newton and Einstein? Of course not.
Was everything done between Newton and Einstein thrown out? No.
Does this mean that the fundamental changes aren't 'rapid, dramatic and upsetting'? No. But then, I didn't say that.
I was trying to point out that it was cyclical. The nature of the cycle was something that Kuhn was trying to come to grips with.
Take a fucking chill pill.
If you want to have a fight, get married.
Re:Slightly OT (Score:1)
Exactly! (Score:1)
That is exactly right! Unfortunately many people would rather look for supernatural explanations rather than take 2 minutes to understand the world around them. For example:
My Father went down to his kitchen one morning, and found his sliding glass door unlocked. Now he locks it every night before he goes to sleep, so he thought it very odd. He exits the house though the sliding glass door to get the morning paper, and returns to find the sliding glass door locked.
Instead of realising that he had locked the sliding glass door the previous night - and it had just failed to latch, he was more willing to blame prankster spirits, or poltergeists. We need to teach people scientific method, and how it applies to the world around them. As long as there are 'psychics' on television telling people what they want to hear, we are going to be fighting an uphill battle.
Re:Exactly! (Score:2)
we all need something to believe in (Score:1)
Science and Religion are separate (Score:3, Insightful)
many people turn to religion to explain the unexplainabkle, but unfortunately religion is flawed, religion can be disproven,
i dont believe the bible because there is proof that many of those things didn't happen, if there wasn't proof that things didn't happen i might be inclined to believe them, personally i think theres some higher power, not necisaraly god, but something
I'm a die-hard atheist and hostile towards religion in general but I'm actually going to have to stick up for religion here. I'm not sure what your definition of religion is but it sounds like you are equating religion with "literal interpretation of the Bible" and that's just plain wrong. My understanding of relgion is that it is really more a way of living your life and contemplating your relation to the world around you. There are scores of Christians who consider themselves religious even though they don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Religion attempts to provide answers for questions that science is not designed to address such as "Is there a God?", "What is the meaning of life?", "Why should I be a good person?" and so forth. Science and religion can co-exist. However, religion should not attempt to explain the natural world and science should not encroach on theological questions.
In fact, I would argue that your "i think theres some higher power" statement means that you are religious (just not a fundamentalist Christian) even though you take great pains too separate yourselves from the faithful. Non-relgious people, such as myself, do NOT believe in any higher power.
but we cant really disprove ufos, ghosts etc
That's true but the burden of proof is on those who believe in such things. And that proof better be damn convincing. As Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not up to scientists to disprove extraterrestial anal rapes, healing crystals, haunted houses, and so forth.
I'm no big fan of religion (and that's an understandment). But your statements about religion show a pretty big misunderstanding of what religion attempts to do for people.
GMD
Re:Science and Religion are separate (Score:1)
Re:Science and Religion are separate (Score:2)
One of the enormous handicaps that science operates under, and one of the real reasons that many people believe things that their neighborhood science teacher would call irrational, is that one positive "fact" "disproves" all arguments contrary. Normal science dodges this bullet among the in-group by calling for extraordinary proof for things that are unreasonable or in apparent violation of "natural law," at least as we understand it.
Normal people - i.e. not scientifically indoctrinated - see coincidences or "weird events" and say to each other, "that is strange." The scientifically indoctrinated on the other hand work to rationalize or otherwise explain the observation or experience, cloaking it in respectability. A good example is the evident desperation with which UFO "debunkers" attempt to explain away other peoples experiences. Not uncommonly the results are as weird as the original claims, but of course, they don't violate "natural law." In reality, I suspect that both extremes in this process are working hard at agendas that have little to do with extraordinary claims and more to do with authoritarian dominance games. Many of us in science are prone to forget that science is a simplification of reality, a smoothed graph that approximates the real thing. At the same time many laymen crave the strange and new, forgetting that coincidence realy does happen, and that their vision can be foxed and their judgement mislead. There is a substantial grey area out there and it will keep science occupied understanding it for a long time.
Re:we all need something to believe in (Score:1)
Ray Hyman (Score:5, Insightful)
He told us that when he was an undergrad, he got a job reading people's palms. Being an intelligent person, he at first thought it was silly and didn't believe it, but he needed the money. His employer gave him a book that described how to read palms by following a simple recipe.
He was of course leary with his first customer. He was sure he'd be accused of fraud. Nevertheless, he followed the recipe and read the guys palm. He was amazed that the customer was so enthusiastic about how accurate the reading was. This filled Ray with more confidence, and in no time he was convinced that this was working. All his customers were convinced by his readings, so he had no reason to believe they weren't accurate.
When he told a friend about how it really worked, his friend suggested that, for his next customer, he give the exact opposite reading that the book suggested. He did so, probably just as nervous as his first reading, expecting the customer to reject what he was saying. But, sure enough, the customer was impressed at how accurate the reading was. He did this again with the next few customers and soon realized it didn't really matter what he was saying. People were always able to connect his vague readings with something in their own lives.
I remember another study where students were asked to fill out a small survey. The professor then reviewed all the surveys and gave each student a customized personality profile. The students were asked the rate the profiles, and all gave them very high rankings.
The professor then asked each student to pass his profile to the student behind them (person in back passes to the front). In an instant, every student realized that they were all given identical profiles.
Re:Ray Hyman (Score:2)
Although im sure alot of professors have done this excercise, one of the most noteworthy is James Randi, as part of a PBS special on psychic phenomenon. Check out the James Randi Educational Foundation [randi.org]
'Skeptical Correctness' (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, it's becoming clear that humans are sensitive to pheromones, so there could be a whole realm of 'sixth sense' communication that skeptical-correctness has been unwilling to allow for. [some old thoughts on 'vibes'] [robotwisdom.com]
Re:'Skeptical Correctness' (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, He sends out 250 e-mails. 125, he tells Bob Evans stock will rise. 125, he tells Bob Evans stock will fall.
Now, to those 125 people, he sends an e-mail, asking them to give him large amounts of money to invest in the stock market, because, obviously he can see the future.
Now, if you can let these 125 people talk to each other, and they will all swear by how good this stock broker is.
If you would have applied the scientific method of proof to this guys predictions, you would quickly see that he is a fraud. However, if you rely on what seems logical 4 correct out of 4, you will become a sucker to the scame.
Nothing should be believed until subjected to a scientific method of proof. It might just be a scam. Example, global warming. (Prove that global warming is a)happening, b) caused by humans, c) is inconsistent with the 10,000 year climate cycle. It will be very hard to today, especially since we don't have any Earth-like planets sitting around to expirement with.
Corrolation does not prove a causal realtionship. ie, just because carbon monoxide levels are rising and temparatures are rising doesn't indicate that carbon monoxide is causing higher temperatures. Only when you eliminate the factor of rising carbon monoxide 100,000 times, can you safely assume that one is causing the other.
Re: 'Skeptical Correctness' (Score:2)
> Nothing should be believed until subjected to a scientific method of proof. It might just be a scam. Example, global warming.
Yes, it's just a prognostic... though I think you go overboard in citing it as a scamp.
> It will be very hard to [prove] today, especially since we don't have any Earth-like planets sitting around to expirement with.
More to the point, we do have one Earth-like planet to experiment with - but only one. To the sensible, that recommends caution.
But since you don't believe in global warming, maybe you would like to reflect on something a bit shorter term. So what do you think of The Asian Brown Cloud [google.com]? In particular, do you think we should conclude from it that we should be a bit more careful about what we dump into the atmosphere, or not? Give your reasoning, but limit your response to a single page.
> Corrolation does not prove a causal realtionship.
That's true. But it's not a very good excuse for throwing out a model that's built on solid science.
People can always find a mantra that lets them reject things they don't want to believe, no matter how well established those things are. (That observation kind of fits in with the whole point of the article, don't you think?)
Re:'Skeptical Correctness' (Score:1)
He is right that this is a known scam, which sets up the people who end up getting all the true "predictions" for the scam. Predicting the stock market, sports winners, weather service, federal lobbying service, fashion forecasts...
Human Arrogance (Score:1)
that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. Given the astronomical number of stars
out there, IMO the most reasonable assumption is life has arisen elswhere and will continue to do so. It may be a very rare occurance, but to argue that this solar system out of trillions of trillions is the only one perfect enough to harbor life seems to smack of a religious ferver for humanism much like a devout catholic or southern baptist has for their beliefs......
MOD THIS POST UP! (Score:2)
Best answer I've seen on this topic in a long long time.
having your cake (Score:1, Insightful)
but that's science's ugliest side. the part of science that's been contracted to do studies which are no more than thinly veiled marketing efforts, which use the scientists as seemingly trustworthy information sources.
As a result of such research not being done in the true sense of research, over time it becomes obvious to a lot of non-scientific people that what they hear is often just a bunch of crap.
So if the much science one is exposed to is false people won't trust it so much to try to get a grasp of the things in life that are hard to understand.
It's ironic for science to scoff at the public's superstitions since superstition and dishonest science are equally inneffective towards describing/predicting the ways of things.
Teach History of Science! (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my major complaints about the teaching of science in western academia is that it is taught without any reference to the history of science.
As an undergraduate, I was in a class that was mostly full of astrophysics grad students. One day in class, the topic of Galileo's confrontation with Rome came up. An astro student in the class raised her hand and asked "so, are you saying that there was some sort of conflict between religion and science?" Now, maybe I'm just being elitist, but shouldn't someone who is well along the road to becoming a professional scientist be aware of some of the basic history of the field?
Really, though, that's exactly the problem. Not only is the history of science not taught at the high school level, but it is unusual for working scientists to have any knowledge of the history of their own discipline, except perhaps from the last 25 or so years.
Unfortunately, when you have such a near-sighted understanding of science, you tend not to realize that there have been big scientific mis-steps (many within our own century), or that scientific laws get modified or thrown out quite frequently.
Without knowing the history, you can't really understand the method, and without understanding the method, you can't discriminate between good science, bad science, pseudo-science, and fantasy.
Re:Teach History of Science! (Score:1)
I agree, to some extent. The problem is this: go to any college student majoring in a technical field. Ask him or her how enthusiastic they are about being forced to take an additional history of science course. I think you will find a large percentage of students would react
The problem is that colleges/universities that have technical programs (Engineering, Computer Science, etc.) are being shoved into this uncomfortable position of students demanding what amounts to skills training from a technical college. They want useful, "real life" skills that can be immediately applied to a job after graduation. Classes in the Humanities, or anything designed to make one more well-rounded, are seen as an impediment.
Students are often under extreme pressure financially (not to mention emotionally, temporally, etc.) and this only sharpens their desire to get out with a degree and start earning some money, which means that Humanities requirements are loathed.
It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but that's the way it is.
Re:Teach History of Science! (Score:2)
Agreed.
But then fer chrissakes do it in public school and high school.
There's no physiological reason why a Junior High student (gr. 7 or 8) shouldn't be able to understand the basic techniques of rational argument, and spot logical fallacies.
Likewise, there's no reason any elementary school teacher shouldn't be able to teach this. Unlike calculus, or physics, this isn't rocket science.
There may be political reasons why you can go through high school and learn nothing about rhetoric, reasoning, the difference between science and not-science, and the basic history of science, but there's no real reason.
There's even a damn good political reason to teach kids this stuff -- an electorate of morons may be good for getting re-elected, but they're useless for building a functioning economy. And a functioning economy is what's needed for the tax dollars that support the rest of the State.
If politicians had any loyalty to the two-party system, they'd support a basic education for everyone, because once the economy implodes (say, after another 20 years of a society that graduates only accountants and airport security guards, but no engineers), the two-party system goes with it. That's fine if you're a Senator in your 60s, but it's not gonna help if you're new to politics and just starting to work your way up the party ladder, because you're gonna have to clean up the mess.
Winning elections is great - but what's the point of winning an election 5-6 terms from now when there's gonna be nothing left to rule?
Re:Teach History of Science! (Score:1)
Somewhere, in a place far away, Carl Sagan is smiling.
Re:Teach History of Science! (Score:2)
Yes! I have long thought that teaching science and mathematics in forward chronological order would make sense. Start kids out with things like "You have some sheep. How will you keep track of them? Well, people invented/discovered numbers....". It would all make so much more sense if people knew why discoveries were made, what the impetus was, and whose shoulders were stood upon.
History should be taught in reverse chronological order so as to tie it to something relevant to the student. After all, most people don't care what happened a few thousand years ago (or even few decades ago). The course would start with today's headlines and explain what happened yesterday to cause those headlines and then recurse back to the beginning.
Science is not 'revealed.' (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is not 'revealed.' It is not a matter of digging up some 'fact' buried in arcana. That's the fatal error that many people make. The Wizard in that movie, digging through the dusty old library, finds the ancient tomes that contain the crucial information. This, while plain romantic and a nice component to a fantasy work, misses out on the plain fact knowledge is not something 'discovered' so much as something that is reasoned out.
Knowledge seekers aren't on a quest to discover the 'lost secrets of our past' (sorry, neo-pagans). We're on a mission to learn, through trial and error, the observation of reality (rather than recorded depictions of reality coded into some language).
Re:Science is not 'revealed.' (Score:1)
Yup. There are facts which indicate that stopping all carbon dioxide emissions causes the death of the planet in 500,000 years. This has other implications, but have you encountered any of this in "Fact-filled" sources about carbon dioxide?
The Wisdom of George Orwell (Score:1)
It's amazing how stupid some of the stuff the human brain comes up with when common sense is left behind in favor of over-rationalization.
Re: The Wisdom of George Orwell (Score:2)
> It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany.
Of course, Orwell was writing with the benefit of hindsight. The outcome of the war was not at all obvious at the time.
> I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.
Of course, we've all heard similar silly rants from anti-intellectuals. Really: how many times did you hear that Clinton had signed an executive order that would let him set aside the constitution if X happened [X varied with the telling], and how many of those times did you hear it from someone in the intelligentsia.
Orwell's quoted statements should be viewed as a political rant rather than a penetrating insight into human nature.
> It's amazing how stupid some of the stuff the human brain comes up with when common sense is left behind in favor of over-rationalization.
I'll gladly grant you that, though.
Alternative Medicine? (Score:3, Insightful)
88% of the population "believes" in alternative medicine.
To lump alternative medicine in with such things as UFOs and ESP clearly displays the problem that most scientists are facing, and the reason that people *prefer* to be superstitious: science is an exclusive club.
If a treatment doesn't involve a synthetically created compound or cutting someone open, it falls into the realm of "alternative medicine" regardless of how effective it may be.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:2)
On the other hand the majority of it is based on speculation and conjecture without basis of fact and is generally devised in such a way it cannot be tested. Also know as quakery.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:1)
There doesn't necessarily need to be.
Of course, there's always someone who doesn't have tenure yet, somewhere, who'll dig in and figure it out to get a softer seat at the table.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:2)
thats a good one, so, your saying this anchient wizdom can't be wrong? Incorrect? Dangerous?
Get real. Apply proper scientific study to it. Should be simple enough to do. Shuldn't even be difficult to get an appropriate grant to do it.
The fact that none of the companies selling such herbs, etc, are willing to fund the studies tells me something... they don't care if its real or not, they will cash in anyway.
By the way, most people don't have a fucking clue how dangerous some of that stuff can be. My GF was researching a recipe to make Cola, ever seen one? There are some rather dangerous extracts that go into it... but hey, its natural, its perfect safe, right?
The most dangerous poisons in the world are natural.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:1)
Yeah, I know. The FDA wishes there needed to be one...
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:2)
For instance, the herb may not be dangerous by itself, but when combined with something else it could be very dangerous. On the other hand, doubling the recommended dose might be deadly. Are you sufficiently warned? Is the actual amount of herb in the product (whatever it is) too much, or too little?
I understand that a particular herb used to treat depression also causes some degree (mild or otherwise) of impotence. Do you think the individuals are properly informed about this? Doubt it.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:3, Interesting)
t.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:1)
You, like the author, assume that there's a large overlap between 'skeptics' and scientists. In fact, in my career in biology, I've never encountered anyone from the 'skeptic' mold. There are plenty of religious scientists; far more than those who get agitated because newspapers print horoscopes.
Most of the 'skeptic' camp seem to be science and technology buffs who are familiar with the end output of science and develop a great reverence for "Reason!" and put Darwin fish on their cars. Actually doing research is so humbling that I can't imagine what self-esteem I'd draw on to go around putting down other people's beliefs.
Besides, I can't imagine doing research without the lucky $2 bill over my desk...
Re: Alternative Medicine? (Score:3)
> If a treatment doesn't involve a synthetically created compound or cutting someone open, it falls into the realm of "alternative medicine" regardless of how effective it may be.
Uhm... the single most frequent thing that I hear when I visit the doctor's office is "drink lots of water". The second and third most common things are "eat balanced meals" and "get regular exercise".
Drink lots of water? (Score:1)
Well, that's apparently a myth [physiology.org]. A lot of people (including doctors) have taken it on faith.
Re: Drink lots of water? (Score:2)
> Well, that's apparently a myth [physiology.org]. A lot of people (including doctors) have taken it on faith.
Notice that (a) I didn't say the doctors specifically recommend the 8x8 policy that your link reviews [they generally just say "lots of water", though they may be more specific when there's a threat of dehydration], and (b) the cited link reviews the 8x8 policy as normal practice for healthy individuals, which isn't the normal circumstances for visiting the doctor's office.
The point remains that drinking lots of water (or other fluids with a high water content) is important in certain situations, such as when you have a flowing nose or behind, and it's not dismissed as "alternative medicine" even though it doesn't involve synthetic drugs or surgery.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:1)
As such, alternative medicine is as unproven as UFOs and ESP.
Of course, scientists are doing research into the effects of some of those methods. If any of them turn out to be true, then they will not be "alternative" anymore.
I think the problem was in the survey. If you ask the average person "Do you believe in alternative medicine" they will likely answer in the affirmative because almost everyone has at least one home remedy which they deeply believe in because it has worked for them in the past. On the other hand, if you ask the average person "if you wake up coughing up blood, do you go to the hospital or to your local accupuncturist?" the answer will be very different.
Re:Alternative Medicine? (Score:2)
Curiously, it has been found that aboriginal tribes of the Amazon and New Guinea who don't believe in Western medicine derive far lower benefits from all of our pills than the statistical average. The best explanation seems to be that since they didn't believe it would work, it tended to do so less frequently. This sort of information is why more people might believe in one alternative medicine or another as they become better educated.
Now, I am of the opinion that only a complete idiot would derive too much from that National Science Foundation survey anyway, because I find the wording they appear to have used on their questions quite prone to mean different things to different people. (I have not seen an original copy, though, only a thorough paraphrase.)
Some people interpret believe to mean "I am certain of this", while others interpret it as "This seems likely", and still others as "This is possible". Anyone following the scientific method who interprets belief as something being possible would almost have to say that they believe in the whole list, as there is not proof to the contrary. I "believe" in things that seem likely, so I certainly believe in a subset of alternative medicines.
The questions from the survey: (Score:2)
Question: H16
Some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations.
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1>strongly agree
2>agree
3>disagree
4>strongly disagree
Question: H17
Some people possess psychic powers or ESP.
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1>strongly agree
2>agree
3>disagree
4>strongly disagree
Question: H18
There are some good ways of treating sickness that medical science does not recognize.
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
1>strongly agree
2>agree
3>disagree
4>strongly disagree
There is no "don't know" or "no opinion" option for any of these questions, so some people err on the side of probably by agreeing with something that they might not particularly agree with.
Further down:
Now, a new subject. Do you ever read a horoscope or your personal astrology report?
1> yes
2> no
Question: P2 Ask if P1 = 1
Do you read an astrology report every day, quite often, just occasionally, or almost never?
1> every day
2> quite often
3> just occasionally
4> almost never
Question: P3
Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not at all scientific?
1> very scientific
2> sort of scientific
3> not at all scientific
Question: P4
Have you heard of magnetic therapy, or the use of magnets to cure pain and illness?
1>yes
2>no
Question: P5 Ask if P4 = 1
Based on what you?ve read or heard, would you say that magnetic therapy is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not at all scientific?
1>very scientific
2>sort of scientific
3>not at all scientific
Re: Alternative Medicine? (Score:2)
lol.. Do you know why?
I just double-checked whether there is more information about this in the article or not. It just says:
Now imagine some people. They have to fill out several pages of a form in this "survey". Maybe question 13 is:
Most will think: "*What* 'alternative medicine' are they talking about? Well, I believe that kissing an ill kid will help him a bit, and I believe that there are methods to cure illness that western medicine doesn't yet know of, so - of course - I will answer 'yes'."
I really hate statistics when you only get to see the results but not the questionaries to verify for yourself. :-((( No wonder this answer got
88%. This is scientific crap, sorry.
Random Phenomena (Score:4, Interesting)
True story - last last week, just before lunch, a coworker and I were discussing a Java design problem and how I hated our reliance on needing a database guy to write up some stored procedures for us. We discussed the possibility of going to JDO, and whether an XML database would do anything for us. I sat back down at my desk, reloaded slashdot, and got this [slashdot.org]. Coincidence my ass. Slashdot is the center of the universe.
That happens to me too. (Score:2)
I'll be thinking about some sort of technology thing, or I'll make a note to myself to look something up on the web, and sure enough whenever I get to
Freaky!
But I've just learned to live with it now. It's no big deal.
(And no, I can't think of any examples right now to back this up. That's also weird. But really, it does happen!)
Re:Random Phenomena (Score:2)
Mappers, Packers, and facts (Score:5, Insightful)
A packer treats knowledge as a large collection of disparate facts. These are the people who go spastic if you don't give them step by step instructions. The don't understand systems that require interaction, and get greatly frustrated when you present them with an algorithm, as opposed to the list of steps the require to be able to do a task.
A mapper is someone who has a large number of disparate facts floating around, in the background, waiting for them to fall into place on the map they make of the universe. To them a fact is of very limited value until it has been connected with others, and placed into the map. Mappers are very good at sensing when something doesn't fit, and have a keen sense of "the ring of truth" that resonates when a new fact makes many others suddenly converge into focus.
Packers treat all facts with equal value, or that of the source. They are into such things as credentials, and structured authority.
Mappers know all too well that authority is made to be abused, that systems need a swift kick to get them back on track, and that rules always drift away from the situations for which they were created. Thus mappers have issues with authority. It also makes them great programmers.
I believe that mappers keep a "grain of salt" value linked to everything they know, and are willing to change that value as facts present themselves and change the picture. For example, I believe in ESP, as a vague sort of premonition that may someday be explained by physics. While I don't know how it works, there is sufficient evidence, in my experience, to concede that it probably (not definitely) exists.
Thus, for me, I 80% believe in it. Which doesn't fit the boolean 100% required of a packer.
--Mike--
Re: Mappers, Packers, and facts (Score:2)
> For example, I believe in ESP, as a vague sort of premonition that may someday be explained by physics. While I don't know how it works, there is sufficient evidence, in my experience, to concede that it probably (not definitely) exists.
And of course, you have kept careful count of all the times you got a vague premonition but nothing happened, right? And those events are extremely rare in comparison to the number of times you get a vague premonition and something does happen, right? And the vagueness of the premonitions doesn't inflate the "hit" rate, right?
OK, maybe ESP really happens... but it's going to take more than a big pile of uncritical anecdotes to convince scientists that it's worth investigating closer.
Re: Mappers, Packers, and facts (Score:1)
My own uncritical anecdote on ESP (Score:2)
A precognative dream feels like having deja vu in reverse. I have a dream, I know at the time that it's a precognative dream, and I wake up in the middle of it feeling strange. It's like you're feeling the same emotion that you will feel when the event plays out in front of your eyes later. After I wake up, I forget about it like all other dreams minutes moments aftewards. (No, I've never successfully been able to keep a dream journal. My dreams fade too quickly.)
Later, some event happens and through the entire event, I realize that I dreamed about it before, and I'm powerless to interfere or do anything different from the dream until the scene has finished playing out.
In my first precognative dream, I was a terrified kindergardener being slammed up against the fence of my school playground by a first grader. This didn't make any sense to me, I remember, because first graders were allowed on the playground at the same time as us to prevent us from being bullied by larger kids. Three days later, they let out some first graders on the playground early or kept us out later, and I ended up accidentally running into one of them while playing. When he got up and I recognized him and the color of his Izod shirt, the dream came back to me, and I was too stunned to do anything to stop being shoved up against the fence a second or two later.
This is one of the few childhood memories from that time period that is still burned on my memory. I remember the emotions involved distinctly and that I asked my mother about such dreams for the first time later that day. It's also one of the few memories where I can remember how small I was as a child instead having to think about it relative to the items around me in the memory. I even remember the little alligator logo on his shirt.
The most recent dream event that I can remember was at a TGI Fridays two years ago. In the dream, I didn't recognize where I was, but I distinctly remembered the red and white checkered table and the plant behind one of my friends. I remember waking up and being puzzled because in the dream, I was dining with two groups of friends that I figured would never meet each other. 2-3 months later, I've forgotten about the dream, and we're all at the restraunt when the conversation from the dream takes place. I was literally biting at the bullet to say something about it, but I couldn't actually interrupt the conversation to say anything until the scene had finished playing out.
I guess nothing I say will convince anyone otherwise, though. Precognative dreaming is something that has to be experienced to be understood. I don't really care if you do call it an "uncritical anecdote." I've been there. I've experienced it. I can tell you however, that when a precognative dream happens, you learn to know it for what it is. I never remember waking up from a dream that never happened, and I don't remember precognative dreams happening until I've cleared the last one. Maybe that's why I haven't had one in a couple of years. Maybe the event hasn't played out yet.
There is no vagueness whatsoever for me in these "premonitions." The events are crystal clear at the time of the dream, for those foggy moments after waking up, and for the duration of the event. This is unusual for me, because I'm not a very visual thinker generally and I tend to rely on intuition more than concrete imagery for memories.
I'm not the only one in my family to experience this. On both my mother's and father's side, I have a few relatives who know exactly what I was talking about when I described it to them. Some of us believe not because of the anecdotes of others but because we've been there.
Not that I'll ask you to do the same on just my "uncritical anecdote," though... <g>
Re:Mappers, Packers (Score:2)
That's my map of it, anyway. I don't need to know the details, as I've already evaluated it to being worthless.
What a load of bull (Score:4, Insightful)
These stats they quote, or rather the tone and context in which they are used, are ridiculous.
The underlying tenet of this whole article is: "If X has not been proven and approved by the scientific community then you are a laughable ignoramus for believing it might be true."
He doesn't state this overtly, because most people would reject it, but that is the attitude he holds and is trying to convince reader to adopt.
Nothing could be more asinine. That's like the patent officer who said "everything that can be invented has been invented" in 1898 (or whatever, I forget the details). To state that nothing that hasn't been scientifically proven exists, that's living in denial.
Human scientists are still struggling to understand and explain countless things. I think you could build a reasonable argument that we're not even at the halfway point of understanding our world and universe. Just look at the human body. We still do not entirely understand all the proteins in our body and how they interact. DNA, the genetic code, and how it is used to create new complete humans with all the right parts. We don't understand how the brain works, memory, learning, intelligence. How many diseases are there that we don't fully understand yet? AIDS, Alzheimer's, cancer, the list is endless.
To look at all the simple things right in front of our eyes that we don't yet understand and extrapolate that to all the other things we don't know is perfectly reasonable. And to form our own theories about phenomena that are not yet explained by science is reasonable. How else will we ever figure them out?
Also, an expression of belief, or acceptance of something as possible, is not the same as saying it absolutely has been proven. If no one has a proven explanation of a phenomenon there is nothing even unscientific about me guessing about the causes. That's called a hypothesis, and it is the foundation of the scientific method. If sticking a bunch of tiny needles into people in certain spots seems to have some sort of consistent positive result, let us theorize about the possible causes of that, not mock the 88% of people who "accept" that there might be something there.
So I say Brad Hines, ram your head just a little bit farther up your ass, so it covers not only your eyes and ears, but also your mouth. Then we won't have to hear you spewing this bullshit.
Re:What a load of bull (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the use of the word "weird" is just an ad hominem attack on those who happen not to be skeptics/debunkers like himself. And since he started, I'll finish by saying that those who trust his sketchy methods/tactics are most certainly weird!
Re:What a load of bull (Score:2)
Of course we haven't seen the original questions, so it's hard to know exactly how the responses were shaped by them, but the article simply mentions that people are willing to believe many things that are not based on anything rational, and how can you disagree with that? All one has to do is look at all that blindly believe that Elvis is alive, Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, crop circles are made by aliens, etc. Before you call this guy's article bullshit, maybe you should've evaluated what he was saying a bit more.
Re:What a load of bull (Score:1)
Wrong! It is: "If X has not been proven and approved by the scientific community then you are a laughable ignoramus for believing it is true."
You are free to establish and try to prove any hypothesis you want-that is what the scientific method is all about. In fact, believing that unlikely hypothesis might be true is what most scientists do for a living!
Re:What a load of bull (Score:1)
Close, but you're still wrong. When we're discussing something like UFOs, ESP, or the like, we're discussing phenomena with (what SHOULD be) readily observable empirical effects. If mindreading is possible, why has no respectable psychological journal published a study indicating so? If UFOs are visiting the earth, why is there no better evidence than all-too-fallible human testimony?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course. Short of some a priori demonstration that ESP cannot occur, which we don't have, we must remain open to the possibility that it exists -- but until at least some evidence is mustered for it, and repeatable phenomena are reliably observed and cannot be explained with current theory, we're obliged to remain skeptics.
This is the essence of the scientific outlook. If the author didn't lay that out explicitly for the people who believe weird things of the title, it's because it was published in Scientific American, whose readership probably already knows these things. If you still don't get it, go pick up one of Carl Sagan's works on scientific philosophy. You'll thank yourself.
Of course, there is a flip side (Score:2)
One, of all the views that someone would deem dumb... which is most of them... some of them are right.
Another is the issue of the fringe. Yes, we may all agree that someone who believes in (some fringe belief) is basically a nut. But there are plenty of issues where we either can't or don't know the answer, and many of these issues are very, very, very importent! Is there purpose to life? Why am I here? Am I special? What is moral? (Is there a "moral"?)
In the end, you're just a human being. Are you really so sure you're right? Why?
Hey, maybe you are right. If you're interpreting this message as a defense of believing in (some kooky thing), you've missed the point. The point is that it's really damned easy to overestimate the strength of your position, and that applies every bit as much to the skeptics as anyone else, as is evidenced by the long list of things that have been skeptically dismissed, then found likely to be true. In general I'd describe myself as a skeptic, but I'm also a Christian. The odds that you hold some belief that somebody else would call kooky (and to add a bit of fairness, a person that you would not consider kooky, to avoid the obvious mutual-kooky-opinion scenario that really doesn't count for much here) are quite high. (That ought to be rewritten, but hey, this is Slashdot, and who cares, I'm about to be flamed for claiming both "skeptic" and "Christian", so why try too hard?)
Thus, while the article may be true in general, and probably is true in general, it is incorrect (in the mathematical sense of the term) to try to apply this observation directly to the world in any but a statistical manner.
Easy to explain. (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Half of all people are of below average intelligence. (By definition)
2: The average probably isn't that high.
So it shouldn't be too surprising that most people believe some pretty weird stuff.
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:1)
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:2)
Hmm that's an interesting thought. Let's suppose, for the matter of argument, than really smart people live longer than really dumb people (because really dumb people get themselves killed in all kinds of stupid, funny accidents). So you have two dudes with an IQ of 150, 7 people with an IQ of 100, and one dumb guy with an IQ of 50.
Add up the IQ points, average it, and we have... an average IQ of 105. Is half of the population below this average IQ? Not quite.
I know i'm simplifying things, and maybe i'm full of shit with this reasoning, but as far as I can tell, you can get a population with more than half of them under the average IQ. Or are we talking about the median? (Is that the proper term? Median? Or is it mean? I can't recall the proper term in English)
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:2)
So, in a set of let's say 2 3 8 11, the average is 6 (24/4), and the median is 5.5 ((3+8)/2). HTH.
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:1)
Simplified example: Test with 10 questions, 3 persons. They get 1,9 and 100 right. Scale is adjusted so that they get 50, 100 and 150 IQ points.
When people did a IQ test in the 1930ies they averaged to 100 points. When people today take the same test they average almost 130. But still we say that the average people has a IQ of 100 points. The tests and scales have changed.
BTW. I have done different IQ-tests. In american tests I average 130, in european tests 110
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:1)
First, IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient -- it's found by dividing the score on some test by the average score for a person the same age as the examinee, then multiplying by 100. So by definition, the average IQ in any group of test-takers is 100. Exactly. So if a lot of dumb guys die early, everybody's measured IQ would actually go down. IQ is not an absolute measurement -- it's by definition comparative.
My other comment is that we are talking about 6 1/2 billion people here. IQ aside, let's talk about their absolute intelligence. (Unmeasurable, currently, but work with me here.) The mean and the average are going to be the same. (Or at least close enough that any difference is negligible.) Many people are going to be of exactly average intelligence. So it would be more accurate to say "At least half of all people are of average intelligence or lower.
Sorry, just my anality kicking in. I'm a perfectianist at heart. ;)
(Spelling error intended.)
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:2)
t.
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:3, Interesting)
t.
Re:Easy to explain. (Score:2)
Actually the fact that there is significant dropoff at the higher end, but not the lower end, means the person drawing the graph didn't include all the data. Didn't you notice that the average IQ (always 100 by definition) isn't in the center, or that there's no data for an IQ of 70 or 60 or less? Don't try to tell me these's no one in the world with an IQ lower than 80; I read Slashdot, I know better. I've seen them post.
Your graph only proves that someone can draw a graph.
People "Believe" when they don't have the facts (Score:1)
And what about the "feeling" that Aunt Rose had just at the same time that Uncle Ben croaked? I know Aunt Rose, I trust her; that must have been no coincidence, right?
And that massage I got from the deep-shiatsu Tyrolean-method tissue kneader - that sure felt better than the muscle relaxers that the doctor has been giving me.
I'm all for rational thought, but I'm not going to place my view of reality in the hands of some Standards Committee for Objective Truth. In fact, I suspect anyone who claims only to "believe" in Scientific Dogma.
Re:People "Believe" when they..(its not that hard) (Score:1)
You can use meta-criticism.
Just search around to find critical commentary on the item. Read the critics and see how sound their arguments are. If the critics seem like flat earthers or can't be bothered to write clearly,t hen thats a plus for the item. If you can't poke holes in the arguments of the critics, then the item is probably hogwash. Study available dialogues or debates if still unsure.
If things are still unclear after that, then perhaps insufficient evidence is available to make a firm judgement. Try to avoid investing any serious money or health in the thing until more is learned.
Its a pretty straightforward process. The more you have riding on it (would you bet $10000 based on one of Aunt Rose's premonitions?) the more research you should put into it.
Accepted science tends to be right because scientists actually test their ideas before making big claims. But some of them choose poor test procedures. The critics will help you discern the good from the bad.
Another reason why people "believe" in things (Score:3, Interesting)
If we didn't believe (Score:1)
Mr. Shermer is cutting science off at the knees (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Shermer's list is very interesting, and is missing a few of the more controversial ones that he could have said. However, had I been given a survey with those flimsy descriptions, I would have answered, "yes" to several of the items.
Let's go down his list, shall we?
No, not really. There have been so many hoaxes and misinterpreted natural phenomena that my natural reaction to UFO reports is, "nah". However, the rules of logic say that if "X is true most of the time" it does not follow that "X is true all of the time". I accept that there is a slim chance that we have been visited, beause I have not been able to personally discount each and every case. So, depending on how vague the wording on the survey is, I may have had to answer "yes".
First, you have to define "ESP" before this question makes sense. Although many forms of ESP have been discredited over the years, I have nagging doubts that there may be *something* that is valid somewhere in the whole morass, so I have not fully discounted the possibility of ESP. I do, however, happen to agree with Dr. Feynman about ESP - it would take a lot of convincing for me to start believing in a specific form of ESP - maybe 10,000 tests with identical results, and surviving scrutiny of the Amazing Randy.
Yet still, I have not discounted ESP entirely, because I have suddenly decided to drop down to the speed limit several times, only to see the police with the radar gun a few minutes later. So I started keeping track - and to date, my "urge to slow down" ratio of "with police to no police in the area" is running about 3:1. So, I do believe.
I am quite convinced that, with 6 billion people on the planet, there will be at least one person who always chooses a number, and wins more often than an average distribution accounts for. For that person, there is a "lucky number". And, although I am not that person, his life does affect mine, as he shows up on the news, or she shows up and wins the pot, or whatever.
It is a vague connection, but again, it depends on the survey question. I do believe in lucky numbers, for a very tiny number of humans, since statistically, there *should* be at least 1 such person.
There is well-documented medical research that indicates that a patient's attitude can drastically affect their recovery from certain illnesses. Magnetic Therapy can easily stumble into this, "the patient believes that they are better, and as a result, they are better" category.
Now, having said that, I suspect that there may be something to magnetic therapy in certain cases. The trick is figuring out what those cases are. One of my teachers in engineering school proved that, as you move, you generated a slight voltage difference between your head and your feet (due to movement through the earth's magnetic field, and due to the curvature effect that causes your head to move slightly father than your feet do). Magnets will disrupt that slight field.
Is it a tiny effect? Sure. Does that tiny effect have an impact? I have no idea - I do not have the equipment necessary to tackle that kind of experiment. Can we ignore it? Well, doesn't humankind have a history of ignoring "tiny effects" as "negligable" and finding out several hundred years later than those "tiny effects" are really important? Oops, I would have to answer, "yes" again.
And with this one, he nicely cripples his own argument. There have been too many conflicting scientific studies in the medical profession; too many times the "answer" one month has become the "laughing stock" of the next.
Well, as a result, I accept that today's "alternative" medicine can, in fact, become tomorrow's "accepted practice". ALl you have to do is look back at the political cartoons that were drawn around the time that cowpox was shown to prevent smallpox - it was completely against the medical practices of the day to intentionally infect someone with a disease. Yet, as a result of someone's brazen foray into an "alternative", that disease is basically wiped out.
Hmmm. I may think that 90% of alternative medicines these days are bunk, but that leaves the others.
-------
So, here I am at the end of my rant, and I have answered a kind of a "yes" to each one of his points. I guess that I just believe in weird things.
Re:Mr. Shermer is cutting science off at the knees (Score:2)
I've oft wondered what the effects of all these man-made radio waves bouncing around have on the human population and enviroment. Perhaps a mutant gene will someday allow us to communicate though this method.
Or I could be a smart person believing in crazy ideas.... ;)
Full-wallet Bias (Score:2)
reportage and mathematical/mathemagical entertainment
for the intelligent layman. I haven't read the rag
since it became a political tool, but the vibe of
this
a general problem with SciAm' new editoral policy
of propagandizing scientific materialism, and gives
me a great pretext to rip on it.
Scientific materialism is an IDEOLOGY. It is not
science. It is not even secular. It is just as
much of an atheistic religion (and just as
counter-factual and deluded) as orthodox Marxism.
SciAm is now a vehicle for hoovering the wallets
of those pathetic co-religionists who need a
crutch to prop-up their rapidly decaying world-view.
It still manages to publish some ripping good
science articles, but I cancelled my subscription
long ago, when it started bleeding Gaia-worship
from the editorial aorta all over my nice clean
carpet, so I generally don't see those unless I
stop by the library.
But then libraries really ought to be obsolete
now, eh? So too SciAm, which has outlived its
usefulness and credibility by becoming a political
organ.
Re: Full-wallet Bias (Score:3, Interesting)
> I haven't read the rag since it became a political tool
You may be surprised to learn that SciAm isn't the only science outlet that's becoming politicized. Unfortunately, this seems to be an antibody reaction to the fact that lots of special interest groups are using pretend-science to support their social and political agendas, and real science is pretty much being forced to fight back to keep itself distinct from the pseudosciences. (As the rest of your post shows, you have already lost track of the distinction. Others will surely follow, if we just sit back and let it happen.)
At any rate, other, more respectable science magazines have started covering things like the problems with new-wave creationism, and recently I've even seen a CS article that directly addresses one branch of the pseudoscience being peddled by the Discovery Institute (a neocon group that wants to use religion to control the masses, as they admit in their own writings, and is trying to use pseudoscience to wedge creationism into the public school curriculum). The relevant claims are so silly that scientists have traditionally prefered to simply ignore them, but they are being pushed on the public so vigorously that more and more scientists feel a need to speak up.
So unless your own views are merely political, don't single out Scientific American for participating in a more general cultural phenomenon.
> but the vibe of this
Actually, science isn't married to materialism; it's married to evidence. We study all manner of phenomena that are invisible to the senses and might well have been considered supernatural if they could have been demonstrated 200 years ago. And if you ever find evidence for your favorite deity, science will gladly study that as well. The concept of "materialism" is irrelevant to science, and serves only as a bogeyman that science-deniers can invoke to justify ignoring the findings of science that they don't like.
> but I cancelled my subscription long ago, when it started bleeding Gaia-worship from the editorial aorta all over my nice clean carpet, so I generally don't see those unless I stop by the library.
Sadly, you don't leave the impression that you spend a lot of time in the library.
And see a doctor about that knee jerk.
ps - Dismissing science as a religion, ideology, philosophy, etc., is a very common practice among groups whose beliefs are contrary to the findings of science. Which group do you belong to? Your reference to "Gaia-worship" suggests that you object to the findings about the influence of pollution on the environment.
Re: Full-wallet Bias (Score:2)
not making it clear that in no way to I dismiss
science as a form of religion. It is the world-view
of scientific materialism, which is entirely
distinct from scientific method, to which I object.
I identify as "science" the practice and result of
the application of scientific method, both
experimental and observational. To my mind the
best proponents of that method were Descartes,
Galileo, and Popper, and their work defines the
basics of the method; although now a new branch
of science, computational science, is producing
innovations in method, those innovations are yet
immature, and have not had any great expositor.