Non-Scientists and Science

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have a general observation that non-scientists rarely get a good grasp of science sufficient to hold a sensible conversation with its practitioners, but conversely scientists can usually hold their own in conversation that involves the areas of expertise of non-scientists.

Having recalled Behe being interviewed in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

one can only be depressed at the lack of critical acumen that the professor of English literature brought to bear when the subject of the interview made a sequence of ridiculous statements that could have been challenged by anyone who could think logically and critically even without a science background.

Do others share this impression? Does critical thinking require a technical training in science? Does the problem lie in the difference between a scientist's use of objective evidence versus a tendency in the humanities to judge the weight of an argument subjectively?

Often when we interact with the lunatic fringe of science, whether in alt. med. or the anti-science of the religious fundamentalist, one gets the impression that they just don't "get" the idea of evidence as opposed to rhetoric.

 

[Melendwyr]

Many (perhaps most) academic professions have penalties for being willing to analyze arguments and call people out on ridiculous statements. Critical thought outside of the sciences, mathematics, and engineering, is quite rare.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Many (perhaps most) academic professions have penalties for being willing to analyze arguments and call people out on ridiculous statements. Critical thought outside of the sciences, mathematics, and engineering, is quite rare.

What do you mean "penalties"?

p.s. I must go to bed before I fall over, so I may not post back until tomorrow

 

[Melendwyr]

What do you mean "penalties"?

Not kissing the feet of the establishment tends to result in hostility, few job opportunities, and lack of tenure.

I don't have first-hand knowledge of what I speak, so my opinions on the matter aren't particularly weighty, but a lot of formal academic groups are nothing but peer review. You have to have rules of evidence and logic before peer review becomes useful, and too many people give those concepts nothing but lip service.

 

[CaveDave]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came, they look at me like I just vomited an anvil; they seem absolutely unable to follow my logic or even recognize it AS logic.

The point is that I think some people lack the particular synapses needed to to realize that a conclusion necessarily follows from the given premises; they almost seem to not see the process at all.

Or words to that effect.

Dave

 

[pupdog]

Those who go to University to prepare for a career in science very often take (either as requirements or because they enjoy or recognize the importance of) humanities courses. On the other hand, non-science majors often take only a single science course to fulfill requirements. To make matters worse, introductory science classes are, at some schools, the dullest in the department or designed to be dumbed down something awful.

 

[rwguinn]

Those who go to University to prepare for a career in science very often take (either as requirements or because they enjoy or recognize the importance of) humanities courses. On the other hand, non-science majors often take only a single science course to fulfill requirements. To make matters worse, introductory science classes are, at some schools, the dullest in the department or designed to be dumbed down something awful.

I recall the Physics department offered, for business and arts majors, a "Philosophy of Physics" class that was well attended by folks who struggled in classes I attended only for tests...
Never did figure out what Philosophy of physics was...

 

[Schneibster]

The problem with logic is that it quite often will lead you to the conclusion that your emotions are telling you the wrong thing. People don't like to deny their emotions, and so they find logic "unfulfilling" or "useless" and rationalize the traps that their emotions lead them into as being "someone else's fault." An emotion, after all, is "that which makes you feel good when you obey its promptings, and makes you feel bad when you don't." Thus, when you follow logic and deny the promptings of emotion, you feel bad.

This is partially offset by "conscience;" which is a meme propagated by society so that people feel good about denying their "baser emotions" to the extent of not engaging in rape and pillaging. This offsetting meme gives the infected one "emotional satisfaction" for resisting these impulses. However, the extent to which this meme is followed is variable; thus, some people "rape and pillage" economically, as salesmen or industrial tycoons, and such people are notorious for their rationalizations.

Interestingly, the association of an unwillingness to allow logic to interfere with emotionally-based desires and the lesser inhibitions against stealing seem to go together in the current crop of fundie Reprehensibles. It's quite clear to see, and you'll certainly experience it if you are ever involved in an auto accident with one of these individuals; they have absolutely no sense of fair play, and will take advantage of any slightest slip or admission on your part, and will lie shamelessly if they must to try to avoid taking any responsibility at all, and will even become hostile if you attempt to call them on their lies. I speak from personal experience.

The association of these two attitudes (which IMO stem from a common source: weak morals) is plain to see in the environmental damage this administration is doing, and their denial of global warming and assertion of ID.

Watch and learn. I do.

 

[Wudang]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".
BSM - you're in the UK? If so, PM your snailmail address and I'll lend you my copy.

 

[Bronze Dog]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".
BSM - you're in the UK? If so, PM your snailmail address and I'll lend you my copy.

Glad I got my art degree without (knowingly) running into those types.

 

[geni]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".

Yes and no. Generaly I leave issues like that to those who deal with physics (apart from anything else there are three posible answers).

 

[Zep]

My own impression is that people who are in the position of not having to solve problems on a regular basis tend to be those who do not understand or follow logic at all. Problem solving, to be successful, involves those basic practices of gathering reliable evidence and testing hypotheses, etc - the very basics of formal science! Even at simple levels and in a great variety of scenarios, problem-solvers tend to be the "ideas" people, the questioners, the "scientists". Their job is to actually question the rules, shape the rules, and sometimes even break the rules.

The obverse, of course, are the red-tapers, or, as I have succinctly read them defined, reglets. These people apply the rules, but rarely, if ever, question them. In many cases, no matter how ridiculous or inappropriate the rules may be, they stick to them nonetheless! AND they like to enforce them on others! Do we know these people? I think we do!

 

[Bronze Dog]

o/~ They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats,
They say we're anal, compulsive, and weird.
But when push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love
Even if it's not a good idea. o/~

-Hermes Conrad

 

[Belz...]

The problem with logic is that it quite often will lead you to the conclusion that your emotions are telling you the wrong thing. People don't like to deny their emotions, and so they find logic "unfulfilling" or "useless" and rationalize the traps that their emotions lead them into as being "someone else's fault." An emotion, after all, is "that which makes you feel good when you obey its promptings, and makes you feel bad when you don't." Thus, when you follow logic and deny the promptings of emotion, you feel bad.

I think that's a very fair assessment. A lot of people can't tell the difference between what they FEEL is the truth, and the truth itself. They get a "gut feeling", and convince themselves that this corresponds to "logic". Quite unnerving at times.

Belz...

 

[luchog]

Glad I got my art degree without (knowingly) running into those types.

Those types are one of the reasons I gave up on my Fine Arts degree, and went into Computer Science instead.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Those types are one of the reasons I gave up on my Fine Arts degree, and went into Computer Science instead.

Funny, one of the small sideline reasons I left CS (primary one being self-contradicting instructors) was a particular brand of woo: Y2K chicken-littles.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".
BSM - you're in the UK? If so, PM your snailmail address and I'll lend you my copy.

Thanks for the tip. I've ordered it from Amazon.

 

[Wudang]

You might also like Sokal's page on the matterhttp://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/. The article by Sullivan is interesting, accessible and balanced, I thought.

 

[Cleopatra]

I have a general observation that non-scientists rarely get a good grasp of science sufficient to hold a sensible conversation with its practitioners, but conversely scientists can usually hold their own in conversation that involves the areas of expertise of non-scientists.

Having recalled Behe being interviewed in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

one can only be depressed at the lack of critical acumen that the professor of English literature brought to bear when the subject of the interview made a sequence of ridiculous statements that could have been challenged by anyone who could think logically and critically even without a science background.

Do others share this impression? Does critical thinking require a technical training in science? Does the problem lie in the difference between a scientist's use of objective evidence versus a tendency in the humanities to judge the weight of an argument subjectively?

Often when we interact with the lunatic fringe of science, whether in alt. med. or the anti-science of the religious fundamentalist, one gets the impression that they just don't "get" the idea of evidence as opposed to rhetoric.

Well. Some times, critical thinking needs something more than common sense.I make a huge effort to apply skepticism in my everyday life and sometimes I feel desperate because I will never have all the scientific knowledge that one needs in order to address even mundane every day life issues.

Example. I am a woman and I wish to apply some critical thinking everytime I visit a beauty shop. I hold a box that contains an anti-wrinkle treatment the formula of which has been created in a sophisticated lab somewhere in USA. Whom am I to check their claims? I have studied Law. I am trying to pose easy questions to myself. " What wrinkles are?" I need a week in googling to grasp the basics in order to pose the second question to myself.

I brought only a tiny example. So,sometimes although one might wish it's not easy to think like a scientist and I don't one why should he/she be expected to act and think as one.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well. Some times, critical thinking needs something more than common sense.I make a huge effort to apply skepticism in my everyday life and sometimes I feel desperate because I will never have all the scientific knowledge that one needs in order to address even mundane every day life issues.

Example. I am a woman and I wish to apply some critical thinking everytime I visit a beauty shop. I hold a box that contains an anti-wrinkle treatment the formula of which has been created in a sophisticated lab somewhere in USA. Whom am I to check their claims? I have studied Law. I am trying to pose easy questions to myself. " What wrinkles are?" I need a week in googling to grasp the basics in order to pose the second question to myself.

I brought only a tiny example. So,sometimes although one might wish it's not easy to think like a scientist and I don't one why should he/she be expected to act and think as one.

It's a very interesting point. When language is used deliberately to sound scientific but to conceal a lack of science it can be very difficult even to formulate the question required to crack the problem open, and, as with the example you choose, just because the marketing department has chosen to play fast and loose with the language, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is zero truth in the claim.

Unfortunately, spotting the B.S. doesn't immediately give you access to the truth behind it.