Actually, years ago, it was the church who said the world was flat. It also said the earth was the center of the universe.Kapol said:
Why are so many people wary of science?
- Thread starter KnowYourOnion
- Start date
unless you believe in fingers mazda, the first thief in the world, the man who stole the secret of fire from the gods ( he couldent fence it, it was too hot ), one should never despise science, because without it, we would not have had fire. not anything else. XD
People instinctively want simple answers to life's questions. It is really annoying to get a complicated answer to a question with a disclaimer and then get a different complicated answer from another specialist or even the same person a year later.
Because it requires logic to think understand that, if it's been tested and proved by the brightest minds in our society, it's probably true. Also, they don't like it when their religions are disproved...I'm just glad that now science is less restricted by religious backlash. I could go on about religion but I don't want to start a pointless flame war. BTW, it's my opinion. If you don't like it, fine. Just don't yell at me because it's pointless and annoying.
Edit: the reason it "changes" is because we have developed better tools to study and therefore, learn more details.
Edit 2: there is one scientifically proved fact that has never changed (to my knowledge) and that is that the best way to kill a zombie is by doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aezzhR2FYCc&feature=player_embedded Gotta love that video.
Edit: the reason it "changes" is because we have developed better tools to study and therefore, learn more details.
Edit 2: there is one scientifically proved fact that has never changed (to my knowledge) and that is that the best way to kill a zombie is by doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aezzhR2FYCc&feature=player_embedded Gotta love that video.
They never thought the world was flat, it's just a common myth thats been repeated so many times people believe its true.TheEndlessGrey said:
I think there are a number of reasons. Books, television/movies and games often depict scientists as "mad" or the stuff they invent as disastrous. Some people like to think that this world is a magical place (perhaps designed by a god) and explanations of how stuff works makes it less magical.
Also, some people may feel that things are fine as it is. They don't want (all) technological improvements that will cause them to be (somewhat) obsolete. Computers have replaced many people and older people are generally less skilled with them, which is not good for their prospects in the workplace compared to younger people. Then, there's also just a longing for the "good old days" where kids were still playing outside and not alone on their computers.
Finally, and this is the one I can somewhat agree with: science is done by people. These people may be relatively smart and well educated, but that doesn't mean they can't be corrupt and/or make mistakes (and cover it up). When for a lot of issues scientists say different things (e.g. global warming, the way the WTC fell down, etc.), that doesn't exactly inspire a lot of trust. Sure, some areas are checked very well and very carefully (I'm pretty sure medicine is), but others aren't.
Also, some people may feel that things are fine as it is. They don't want (all) technological improvements that will cause them to be (somewhat) obsolete. Computers have replaced many people and older people are generally less skilled with them, which is not good for their prospects in the workplace compared to younger people. Then, there's also just a longing for the "good old days" where kids were still playing outside and not alone on their computers.
Finally, and this is the one I can somewhat agree with: science is done by people. These people may be relatively smart and well educated, but that doesn't mean they can't be corrupt and/or make mistakes (and cover it up). When for a lot of issues scientists say different things (e.g. global warming, the way the WTC fell down, etc.), that doesn't exactly inspire a lot of trust. Sure, some areas are checked very well and very carefully (I'm pretty sure medicine is), but others aren't.
I think that the word "science" and all its implications have become to broad in its application, especially with the social sciences. Remember all those studies that claim to have proved that video games make people evil? http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1723
It is logical to not trust something you do not understand.
It is also logical for anyone who has dealt with humans to be suspicious of anybody who claims to be able to do something without having witnessed proof of it themselves.
Those who think "Science is the Devil!" on the other hand are living in the Dark Ages, and were probably time travelled here by a scientist for a laugh.
It is also logical for anyone who has dealt with humans to be suspicious of anybody who claims to be able to do something without having witnessed proof of it themselves.
Those who think "Science is the Devil!" on the other hand are living in the Dark Ages, and were probably time travelled here by a scientist for a laugh.
These are also very good points.Jordi said:
No, you're thinking of scientific fact. A scientific theory is something that is held to be completely true no matter who you ask, because it has been tested many times and always resulted the same. Gravity is 'merely a theory' after all. However, all that means is that every time someone jumps, they come back down. Following your logic, everything in the entire universe, even down to whether you drank coffee this morning can 'never "truly" be proven correct'JPAD89 said:
Science is terrible at explaining itself to outsiders. There are only two real types of interaction science has with the media and thus the average non-scientist - #1 is some crusty old bloke with a beard using words that sound like he's pulled them straight out of his arse and #2 is some young berk making shit explode and claiming science is thus awesome. You either get your science flung so far over your head there's no hope you'll understand the underlying concept, or you get it so dumbed down that it's not really science.
This means that most of the time, the people who report science to non-scientists aren't scientists themselves and so they get shit wrong, focus on the bad parts and generally screw it all up. Take Trastuzumab/Herceptin, for example. Herceptin is a drug that can be used to treat breast cancer, which is not one of the more dangerous cancers but is one of the more 'fashionable' cancers (compared to say, lung cancer. Most people would rather see breast cancer cured than lung cancer as popular opinion states that lung cancer is caused by smoking and thus lung cancer patients deserve it). There was a bit of an outcry here (the UK) a while back over Herceptin, when it was reported that breast cancer patients were being denied this 'potential miracle cure' because it only works on 25% of the population. Cancer sufferers said they wanted to take the chance. 1 in 4 is good odds, right? The doctors are just worried about their stats and the money it costs, not patients survival, right? Wrong. Herceptin would not work on these patients. They didn't have a 25% chance, they had a 0% chance. Herceptin only works to treat breast cancers that are caused by defects in the HER2 receptor. This is approximately 25% of breast cancers. Therefore, in 25% of cancers, Herceptin works 100% of the time. In 75% of cancers, Herceptin does absolutely nothing. These patients weren't given the drug because there's no point in giving them it. The media reports weren't correct, people in the street didn't understand exactly what the science behind the drug was and suddenly the NHS are scum who let breast cancer metastasise and kill patients who (supposedly) had a chance at survival.
I did have a handful more examples including the LHC and the MMR vaccine stuff, but I don't want to hog the thread.
TL;DR: Science isn't reported properly, so people get the wrong idea.
This means that most of the time, the people who report science to non-scientists aren't scientists themselves and so they get shit wrong, focus on the bad parts and generally screw it all up. Take Trastuzumab/Herceptin, for example. Herceptin is a drug that can be used to treat breast cancer, which is not one of the more dangerous cancers but is one of the more 'fashionable' cancers (compared to say, lung cancer. Most people would rather see breast cancer cured than lung cancer as popular opinion states that lung cancer is caused by smoking and thus lung cancer patients deserve it). There was a bit of an outcry here (the UK) a while back over Herceptin, when it was reported that breast cancer patients were being denied this 'potential miracle cure' because it only works on 25% of the population. Cancer sufferers said they wanted to take the chance. 1 in 4 is good odds, right? The doctors are just worried about their stats and the money it costs, not patients survival, right? Wrong. Herceptin would not work on these patients. They didn't have a 25% chance, they had a 0% chance. Herceptin only works to treat breast cancers that are caused by defects in the HER2 receptor. This is approximately 25% of breast cancers. Therefore, in 25% of cancers, Herceptin works 100% of the time. In 75% of cancers, Herceptin does absolutely nothing. These patients weren't given the drug because there's no point in giving them it. The media reports weren't correct, people in the street didn't understand exactly what the science behind the drug was and suddenly the NHS are scum who let breast cancer metastasise and kill patients who (supposedly) had a chance at survival.
I did have a handful more examples including the LHC and the MMR vaccine stuff, but I don't want to hog the thread.
TL;DR: Science isn't reported properly, so people get the wrong idea.
Just to be contary, but what if this particle allows us to advance our knowledge in treating cancer, or is just an outright cure?The Maddest March Hare said:
I think science is great, but then i am naturally an enquiring mind. But then arn't we all? At a genetic level we all have some degree of "monkey curiousity".
Ok the LHC might cost billions, but what is money when comapred to knowledge? Even if it proves nothing, as someone mentioned above, a lot of science on a basic level is little more than trial and error. We're not trying to learn how to be god, just to understand what is around us, so we may better interact and understand the world we live in. And that, I believe, is an admirable pursuit.
Edit: Clearing up the quote uses, I'd posted it out of context. XD
yes the church did say this....as did the scientists of the day. as it happens my exam tomorrow (which im increasingly becomming frustrated with the studying for) involves the scientific revolution of us changing from a geocentric theory of the universe to a heliocentric theory.TheEndlessGrey said:
I have witnessed proof of what scientists are like, I had an uncle who was a scientist. He actually married a scientist too, but they split up because there just wasn't any chemistry between them.Legion said:
People dont like answers.
When people have believed in one thing all thier lives then someone comes along and proves that it is wrong, it can piss alot of people off. I for one think science is great and look forwards to the things that will be discovered (and hopefully dont kill us all).
When people have believed in one thing all thier lives then someone comes along and proves that it is wrong, it can piss alot of people off. I for one think science is great and look forwards to the things that will be discovered (and hopefully dont kill us all).
I can't remember which famous person it was had to deal with the church (I think it was the one who discovered the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Can't remember his name. >_>), but I know that the church held enough power back then to influence what the scientist said was true. They would threaten the scientist who said they were wrong. That doesn't make up for the fact it was accepted as science though.JPAD89 said:
Basicly the question always goes to the point where one needs to ask what is science? Science is, in my sight, way of interpret the world all around us. Through models and laws. The very essence of science is that it questions itself, as the science always wants to develope itself. Science is human made concept of looking the world by observing it or predicting it.
Some people find it very hard to get a grip of the science as it is what it is. There are scientists that don't agree with each other, and that is one thing that confuses people, but that is science. Questioning things. Not taking everything for granted. Questioning the science that other scientists work on.
Often people refer to religion and science as a fighting entities. Well, in my mind, they can not be compared really. Religion is the guide lines that comes beyond decades that says how things are and will be done. Sometimes leaders of the religions have to modernize their guide lines accordingly as time passes but mainly the religion does not question itself. Thats why I usually don't try to discuss about religion as a rival of science, for example "why can not science say how the universe is created" or other like that. Science can not say things like that, but science and scientist in general don't have to (. Well they can and have to if religions are the research subject of these scientists.) Science is just trying to explain world as it is, history and future, it does not have all the answers. It is nice that even "hardcore" believers make these questions that confront the scientists. That says to me that they also have the potential to make questions, to make science.
Perhaps that is the point why people are wary of science. It is about doubts. Questioning. Religion has it all worked out for you. As in analogy... science seems to be like a very young child making questions about everything it sees and the religion is old and wise man with many answers.
So, some people just dislike science.
I love science and I am proud if I can be any part of that everlasting process.
Some people find it very hard to get a grip of the science as it is what it is. There are scientists that don't agree with each other, and that is one thing that confuses people, but that is science. Questioning things. Not taking everything for granted. Questioning the science that other scientists work on.
Often people refer to religion and science as a fighting entities. Well, in my mind, they can not be compared really. Religion is the guide lines that comes beyond decades that says how things are and will be done. Sometimes leaders of the religions have to modernize their guide lines accordingly as time passes but mainly the religion does not question itself. Thats why I usually don't try to discuss about religion as a rival of science, for example "why can not science say how the universe is created" or other like that. Science can not say things like that, but science and scientist in general don't have to (. Well they can and have to if religions are the research subject of these scientists.) Science is just trying to explain world as it is, history and future, it does not have all the answers. It is nice that even "hardcore" believers make these questions that confront the scientists. That says to me that they also have the potential to make questions, to make science.
Perhaps that is the point why people are wary of science. It is about doubts. Questioning. Religion has it all worked out for you. As in analogy... science seems to be like a very young child making questions about everything it sees and the religion is old and wise man with many answers.
So, some people just dislike science.
I love science and I am proud if I can be any part of that everlasting process.