Does rejecting commonly understood science render ones views null & void?

[Hercules56]

We often see people's political views disregarded because of how they think about other things related to science. Such as how They view vaccines, their beliefs about the afterlife, their belief that men can become pregnant, belief in God, etc.

Do views that indeed counter what we understand as science render one's views on political beliefs to be useless and deserving of being disregarded?

 

[theprestige]

Rejecting mainstream science denotes a thought process that is given to conspiracy theories, half-baked superstitions, and an aversion to straightforward reasoning. Such a mind could still produce wise political insights, but it's probably not worth digging through the slop to figure out which two times of day their stopped clock is right about.

They say you shouldn't take advice from someone whose life you don't envy. Why would I want to take political advice from someone who rejects science?

 

[Carlotta]

We often see people's political views disregarded because of how they think about other things related to science. Such as how They view vaccines, their beliefs about the afterlife, their belief that men can become pregnant, belief in God, etc.

Do views that indeed counter what we understand as science render one's views on political beliefs to be useless and deserving of being disregarded?

Several of these things are closely related to political views, or indistinguishable from them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Being uneducatable is what renders your views null and void.

 

[The Don]

We often see people's political views disregarded because of how they think about other things related to science. Such as how They view vaccines, their beliefs about the afterlife, their belief that men can become pregnant, belief in God, etc.

Do views that indeed counter what we understand as science render one's views on political beliefs to be useless and deserving of being disregarded?

As always, context is important. I have friends and acquaintances (and there are many people on this forum) who have a rational approach to many things but who have beliefs that run counter to accepted science - such as belief in god(s) and the afterlife - but I wouldn't automatically dismiss all their views on all subjects. Their views do however reflect the societal norms of the time/place of their upbringing so perhaps they are understandable in that context.

OTOH there are people who grasp at every fringe belief and who believe in most if not all conspiracy theories. IMO this draws their critical thinking skill more into question and would make me less likely to accept unreservedly their political views.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If someone holds contradictory views on matters where you believe you have a good understanding of the evidence and it informs and supports your own view then of course you're going to put less trust in their opinions on other matters.

Does it mean nothing they believe about anything can be accepted as true? No.

 

[Darat]

We often see people's political views disregarded because of how they think about other things related to science. Such as how They view vaccines, their beliefs about the afterlife, their belief that men can become pregnant, belief in God, etc.

Do views that indeed counter what we understand as science render one's views on political beliefs to be useless and deserving of being disregarded?

I know you are itching to use "But THEY think men can become pregnant so you are a hypocrite to pay attention to THEM if you say we should disregard people's political views based on their anti science views!!"

Why not tell us what your views are on the anti-science and disregarding people's political views based on that?

 

[Darat]

I think it is usually the other way around, people often hold "anti-science" views because of their "political" beliefs.

 

[The Don]

There are quite a few posters on this board whose political views and interpretation of current events would cause me to question their critical thinking skills, and in some cases their sanity, who are pretty sound when it comes to science

 

[sarge]

For political views, I really only have useful experience with Americans. In America if you are anti-science, you are pro-racism, insurrection, voter suppression, etc.

Yes, I feel quite comfortable ignoring the political views of anyone who is anti-science, anti-vax, expresses disbelief in climate change, etc. These views always rest in the same basket of crazy as political views I find gobsmackingly stupid.

 

[dann]

I see no reason to disregard anybody's political views because of what they think or believe about something else that's unrelated to politics.
Why would you? What would be the point of it?
'I don't respect what you think of Trump because you are a Christian.'
In that case, you are the one who is being irrational.

Besides, nationalism is usually what determines people's views of religion, politics and science much more than religion impacting the other two (or three).
We saw it in the thread about Sweden's pandemic strategy: Once Sweden went for herd immunity by infection, the vast majority of not only Swedes in general but also of Swedish skeptics became staunch defenders of Anders Tegnell, who is probably the dumbest epidemiologist ever and is now embraced by the people who constitute the MAHA regime in the USA. (Swedes tend to ignore that connection.)
The rise of the anti-vax sentiment in the USA is also tied to radicalization of the U.S. version of patriotism.

In my country, many nationalists who, until then, hadn't been particularly religious (and still aren't) began to embrace Christianity because of racism, not because of religion: Christianity was Danish and thus good, unlike Islam, the religion of people who weren't considered to be real Danes. So Islam became evil.
A lot of atheists and skeptics did something similar, cf. Dawkins.

Anyway, disregarding people's views of one thing "because of how they think about other things" is strawman thinking. You have to take their view of whatever for what it is. People can be scientists and religious and ... whatever, cf. Bob Bakker (Wikpedia.)

 

[ahhell]

I see no reason to disregard anybody's political views because of what they think or believe about something else that's unrelated to politics.
Why would you? What would be the point of it?
'I don't respect what you think of Trump because you are a Christian.'
In that case, you are the one who is being irrational.

Besides, nationalism is usually what determines people's views of religion, politics and science much more than religion impacting the other two (or three).
We saw it in the thread about Sweden's pandemic strategy: Once Sweden went for herd immunity by infection, the vast majority of not only Swedes in general but also of Swedish skeptics became staunch defenders of Anders Tegnell, who is probably the dumbest epidemiologist ever and is now embraced by the people who constitute the MAHA regime in the USA. (Swedes tend to ignore that connection.)
The rise of the anti-vax sentiment in the USA is also tied to radicalization of the U.S. version of patriotism.

In my country, many nationalists who, until then, hadn't been particularly religious (and still aren't) began to embrace Christianity because of racism, not because of religion: Christianity was Danish and thus good, unlike Islam, the religion of people who weren't considered to be real Danes. So Islam became evil.
A lot of atheists and skeptics did something similar, cf. Dawkins.

Anyway, disregarding people's views of one thing "because of how they think about other things" is strawman thinking. You have to take their view of whatever for what it is. People can be scientists and religious and ... whatever, cf. Bob Bakker (Wikpedia.)

I agree with this for slightly different reasons. For the most part people come to their opinions and beliefs for reasons that are not rational and then look for reasons to rationalize them, where I mostly disagree with you is that nationalism is not the driver there, its one of the passengers. If what I believe happens to coincide with the current scientific consensus, good on me but I should assume that means anything about me or that all of my beliefs are equally grounded in current science. The opposite is also true.

The other thing, good luck finding someone that says they reject science. For the most part they don't think they are rejecting science they just tend to think the current consensus is wrong. Bill Maher is great example of that. Totally woo on medicine, well, mostly but as far I can tell that really the only thing he basically rejects some of the science on. There is plenty of historical evidence to suggest the current consensus might be wrong. Most folks really only reject some science, the science that contradicts something the believe that helps them fit in with their peer group.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sometimes, a person's opinion on one subject doesn't affect my opinion of them. But it depends on the subject. I don't judge people for liking different music from me, I don't judge them if they like horror movies, even though I find that somewhat baffling. I don't judge them for liking different food.

But science is different. Science is important. If you reject the basic fundamentals of science, then yeah, I'm going to judge you. Ignorance can only explain so much. Deliberate and wilful ignorance - refusal to learn - is unacceptable to me. Curiosity is a virtue.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's more a question of ability to interact for me: if you reject the validity of the principles of science, then that's something you and I have nothing to talk about on the subject.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Perhaps this thread should be merged with this one on skepticism.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Yes, belief in bovine excrement in important areas of life tend to render a person's opinion in other areas suspect.