Why do people hate science?

[Archae]

Especially if it contradicts a pet belief?

The science of why we reject science and what we can do about it

August 16, 2016 by Matthew Facciani

You’re able to read this right now because of science! From electricity, to antibiotics, to computers, science allows us to learn from the world and can greatly improve our quality of life. Unfortunately, science can also be hard to understand, which makes people vulnerable to believe harmful myths such as denying climate change, avoiding vaccines, and using homeopathy instead of medicine. It’s tempting to simply blame such misunderstandings on a not receiving a thorough education, but that is only part of the equation. Recent research has shown how people’s social identities can contribute to why they reject scientific evidence.

Social identities consist of values, norms, and roles that inform us how we act and gives order to a chaotic world. These social identities (such as being a Democrat or a Christian) are often internalized as someone’s own sense of self. The people we associate with often help form one’s social identity as well. When the identity is threatened, the person may feel personally attacked.

An identity could be threatened by being exposed to information that conflicts with a particular worldview. Thus, conflicting information can be seen as an actual attack on self-worth, which can make people engage their defensive biases. When we engage such defensive biases, people are likely to maintain or even strengthen their previously held beliefs despite being exposing to conflicting information. For example, a conservative whose identity makes them motivated to reject climate change may feel threatened when seeing a report about the existence of climate change, and then shut down. Likewise, a liberal whose identity makes them motivated to reject the safety of GMOs may make them shut down when reading information that shows GMOs are harmless. This phenomenon is called the “back-fire effect”.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2016/08/the-science-of-why-we-reject-science-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Atheist%20081716%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=52093437&spUserID=MTE4MTY1MzAzMTE5S0&spJobID=983336071&spReportId=OTgzMzM2MDcxS0

[ZombieHorde]

1. My guess is identity.

We often identity with our beliefs, and praise or malign others for their beliefs.

[DetlefK]

2. Because it's uncontrollable and unpredictable.

Science is coming to these claims and opinions out of the blue, without input what people want and what the results are "supposed" to be.

You can't make friends with it, you can't negotiate with it, you can't threaten it. It's just there and keeps doing its thing, whether you want it or not.



Religion is malleable: You can make it say whatever you want it to say. Science is a scary stranger.

[AlbertCat]

5. Science is a scary stranger.

This.

Science, like the reality it is, is unconcerned with what you or anybody wants, or thinks should be. It simply is.

It's also complicated, interconnected and influential in ways often unpredictable and sometimes counterintuitive.

Can't have that!

But it won't go away.

[progressoid]

3. Your other thread in GD has some,

well, let's say 'interesting' responses.

[Archae]

4. I noticed.

Science has always had critics when a pet belief is challenged.

Just look at the hysteria about GMO food.

[AlbertCat]

6. Science has always had critics when a pet belief is challenged.

The phenomenon I find amusing is when those who want to poo-poo science put their arguments in a decidedly scientific-like form with big scientific words and constructions....y'know to give their notions an air of legitimacy. IOW science is crap...and to prove it we will now sound scientific so we don't sound like crap.



Oh the irony!

[uriel1972]

7. Like naturopaths/accupuncturists etc. wearing lab coats...

To look like actual medical doctors

[edhopper]

8. A lot of

"I am so much smarter than all those scientists" replies in that thread.

[Taitertots]

9. Scientific thinking is hard and too many people are stupid

25% of the population is below 90 IQ. Tens of millions of people are just too stupid to be able to read and understand scientific texts or journals. Of course they have a negative view of the secret knowledge that describes how the world works.

These are people whose entire understanding of existence is just parroting the things people told them. Telling them they're wrong is calling their loved ones liars.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. I don't think it's so much that people hate science

as they simply do not understand anything at all about science or how science works.

Keep in mind that most people attend church for several years before they ever attend public schools. So they've been indoctrinated with all sorts of magical and unprovable things, but told (with great assurance) that those things are absolutely true and that they should never question them.

Most kids in public (or good secular private) schools are not exposed to rigorous scientific thinking until at least 7th grade, when they are 13 or 14 years old. And if they don't get it until 9th grade . . . . Well, think about it. They've had a good ten years of exposure to the magical thinking of conventional religion for a very long time before they are exposed to the more rigorous scientific thinking.

So no wonder so many people fall on the side of religious belief, rather than scientific analysis.

Some years ago I had a very interesting exchange with a man who was a Protestant minister -- I wish I could remember which sect, but it was one of the genuinely liberal, mainstream ones. Presbyterian? Methodist? I don't recall. And even though he was insisting that his particular sect didn't impose thought conformity, I insisted that in the end, every religion, no matter how accommodating of others, still came down to the essential "We have the truth and all others are wrong" meme. He responded with silence. In the end, he refused to agree with me, but I think he got my point.

And so it is, that all conventional religions come down to the essential We are Right and Everyone Else is Wrong, which is something I strongly disagree with.

There are many, many ways to parse this. I don't happen to buy into any one of the conventional monotheistic versions. I do have very strong beliefs, but I don't find it remotely necessary to tell anyone else about them, and far, far less necessity to convince anyone else they should believe my way. Which in the end, totally informs my take on such things. I'm perfectly happy with anyone else's
"religious" beliefs. I am not about to announce that they are wrong, unless they too vociferously tell me I'm wrong. I simply see these things as differing ways to interpret the universe/reality/whatever.

To go back to the question. For far too long conventional religion has stood firmly in the way of scientific inquiry, discovery, and knowledge. Among the reasons Jews are vastly over represented in the sciences is that Reform Judaism does NOT offer a conflict between religious belief and science. Unlike much of modern Christianity and Islam. It is truly sad, to my way of thinking, that anyone should ever see a conflict between religion and science. To me it is more than possible to embrace science and still be a religious person.

[stone space]

11. I don't hate science. I just find it unnecessarily limiting and confining.

Science can be a great place to get inspiration for creating new mathematics, though.

[kristopher]

12. "Science" is a corruptible process, not a religion.

The real question is why would anyone that actually understands the place of science in culture expect anything but skepticism when that's the very basis of science itself?

How many hundreds of instances would you like of the scientific process and its product being used in ways that harm people?

[Archae]

13. Science is a tool. Nothing more.

The same hammer that can build a house in the "Habitats For Humanity" program, can smash someone's skull in or cause other injuries or broken bones.

Science can be misused.
And it is, misused.

BUT...

Before you jump on the "Monsanto iz EEEE-VIL!" train, know this.

"March against Monsanto," Jeffrey Smith and Steven Druker are all getting very rich pandering to the anti-science loons.

And MaM is viciously anti-vaccinations, also.
And anti-medicine.
Just go to their web site, you'll see it.

Smith and Druker have zero scientific credentials, and are very fond of making wild charges that do not hold up to scrutiny.

Do we still send mentally ill people to exorcists? Mostly, no.
Do we still treat "humors" in the body when someone gets sick? Mostly, no.

You want to evangelize for creationism? For phrenology? chiropractic? Chinese "medicine?" Go ahead.
Just don't be surprised if a kook belief is called, a kook belief.

[kristopher]

14. But that isn't what's going on here.

Do you remember science and tobacco?

You are running around with threads like this where you are lambasting the general public for their skepticism. There is damned good reason for such skepticism and this "but it's science" group comes off (to me) as people who desperately need to find some sort of personal validation that has nothing to do with the effort to help educate people OR to REFORM the horrendously corrupt nature of research financing.

Anyone can find a few fringe elements and use them as bogeymen, but that accomplishes nothing. Why not focus on the real problem and ferret out instances of researchers who are selling their services to the highest bidder and turn the spotlight on them and the corporations/special interests that are paying them. Educate people on how to spot the difference between science done right (most of it) and the 10-20% that is designed to push a (usually) corporate agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122849588

[Orrex]

15. Well, you're about half right

People should indeed be skeptical of disputed claims, but a little consistency is in order. The same people who claim to be "skeptical" of "Big Pharma," for instance, are willing to accept without question the claims of chiropractors and "naturopaths."

So if we're calling for skepticism, then let's be even-handed in our call for skepticism. Otherwise it's simply a sneak way of pushing an agenda.

[kristopher]

16. What the hell are you talking about?

That is a complete departure from what I'm saying; it has no relevancy whatsoever.

If you want to continually represent the status quo, I'd suggest you are in the wrong place.

[Orrex]

17. Perhaps you didn't read what you wrote

I was calling for the same skepticism that you seem to be endorsing, and I was calling upon skeptics to maintain their skeptical vigilance against dubious scientific claims--just as you were doing. However, I recognize that such vigilance is often (and shouldn't be) focused solely on finding bad actors in the actual scientific community, rather than ferreting out charlatans in the fields of chiropractic and naturopathy, for instance. Why would you discourage skeptical review of so-called alternative medicine?

Anyone can find a few fringe elements and use them as bogeymen, but that accomplishes nothing. Why not focus on the real problem and ferret out instances of researchers who are selling their services to the highest bidder and turn the spotlight on them and the corporations/special interests that are paying them. Educate people on how to spot the difference between science done right (most of it) and the 10-20% that is designed to push a (usually) corporate agenda.

How did you arrive at that 10-20% figure? Can you explain how this 10-20% differs from the "few fringe elements" that you urge us not to use "as bogeymen?"

[kristopher]

18. My words are addressing a specific pattern of behavior here on DU.

Last edited Wed Nov 2, 2016, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I have no problem with skeptical review at all levels, but I'm specifically addressing the thread topic, "Why do people hate science?".

Dragging in the people who take advantage of the skepticism isn't at all on point.

The 10-20% number is my own estimate, which I consider to probably be low. That's mostly from many years of reading papers from a variety of fields and personally evaluating both their internal and their external validity. The level of internal validity is high but the external validity due to omission of relevant data is pretty high low. I think my view is buttressed by the PEW survey of AAAS members and the problem areas the respondents identified. Here's a sample of the evidence, but you should read the entire study it's too long to post even this segment in its entirety.

Q8 Which of the following, if any, are serious problems for conducting high quality scientific
research today? [Check all that apply.]
12% a. The way Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) implement rules for research involving human subjects
88% b. Lack of funding for basic research
32% c. Visa and immigration problems facing foreign scientists or students who want to work or study in the U.S.
06% d. ITAR regulations on using American technology overseas
13% e. Regulations on animal research
08% f. Conflict of interest rules used by scientific publications
48% g. Not enough data replication of previous research studies


Q9 Compared with 5 years ago, would you say getting FEDERAL funding for research in your
specialty area is...
2014
83 Harder today
02 Easier today
13 About the same as five years ago
02 No answer

ASK ALL:
Q10 Compared with 5 years ago, would you say getting INDUSTRY funding for research in your
specialty area is...
2014
45 Harder today
09 Easier today
41 About the same as five years ago
05 No answer

There are also 2 examples I posted in the group related to soda and sugar. Advocacy science for funding industries is (IMO) doing tremendous damage to the standing of scientific research.

[Orsino]

19. People hate thinking when they don't have to.

Understanding science does require thought, reasoning and mathematics.

Forming a belief is far easier--our brains seem designed to recognize patterns and form beliefs based on fragmentary evidence--and one's belief is more likely to be shared by an acquaintance than is a scientific theory.

[El Viejo]

20. As a retired HS teacher...

...I had so many kids who came into my classes hating science. I'm convinced they'd been taught to. My calling was to try to turn that situation around.

Dry, boring recitation of facts and vocab will kill enthusiasm for any subject. I always tried to make my classes interesting and relevant, with lots of real life examples, neat historical tidbits, and I tried to inject humor at appropriate junctures.

Of course, it didn't work with some kids - they were too far gone. But I've had former students go on to excel in the nation's top universities and some now hold MDs or PhDs in fields like physics and engineering.

I've always loved science and found nature fascinating, so it was easy for me to be enthusiastic about what I was teaching.

Too many of my colleagues viewed it as just a job, I'm afraid.

[DetlefK]

21. The core of science is being willing to admit that you can be horribly wrong.

People don't like admitting that they are wrong.
Some people cannot even IMAGINE that they could be wrong.

So, when science proves them wrong, they see this as a personal attack instead of coincidence.

[uriel1972]

22. Too true...