Public Perception of Science

[bb113]

From what I have observed most public debate regarding science revolves around two issues:

1) Climate Change due to human influence on the environment
2) Evolution of life on Earth due to long term natural selection

How do you determine what to believe (or not) regarding these theories?
What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?
Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?
Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?

[1715222717]

1715222717

[1715222717]

1715222717

[Lethn]

My answers :


Climate change due to human influence hasn't been properly proved either way, we haven't even bothered trying to find and explore planets which have climates close to our own so why can people so readily take a side on this issue?

Evolution has already been determined to be true by Darwin, religious people find a way to deny anything.

edit: hmmm that's a pretty long list, I'll have to take more time on the answers for the other stuff at least, will edit this post to answer the other four things so bare with me.

How do you determine what to believe (or not) regarding these theories?

When I determine what to believe I look at the evidence presented ( if there is any actual fact based evidence, will explain that in the next bit ) if it contains convincing numbers or repeating examples throughout history then that is something that I will base my theories on, has someone who is very interested in economics and now actively trading in tiny amounts on the stock market I can tell you it works as a way of proving a theory right. As we have been told by people history often repeats itself, but what is much more reliable is mathematics that hasn't been messed with in any way by political lobbies, this is why I haven't taken a side on the climate change issue because both sides have been known to use propaganda rather than repetition and math to make their point.

What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?

It's hard to answer this one, because personally I can never trust anything 100% since that's how human beings are, there will always be things and situations that break a pattern, it can be something predictable but then it can be just something crazy or mind blowing that happens which completely throws off the current evidence. That's just the way humanity is though and I've learned to accept that, for the evolution side of things I think the only way I could be convinced to take a different view on it is if God himself appeared before me and presented everything he'd done, but so far, that just hasn't happened and I doubt it ever will.

In regards to climate change, I think the two sides are about even in the arguments they make, because they keep finding ways to one up each other every now and then, for instance, people who don't believe humans are doing anything have pointed out that mars has had it's ice cap melt before, you also have the fact that the sun is apparently burning more brightly than usual. Then there are the people on the opposite scale who present evidence saying that the gases we emit are being poured into the atmosphere which is also true, so to be honest I don't think either side has won yet so I'm just going to sit on the side lines and observe like an intelligent person rather than just jump to conclusions.

Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?

This seems to be the same question as the one before, as I stated, repetition of history/events and math, this is why we do experiments in science so we can repeat the results constantly, the problem is though there are people who will always deny this kind of evidence.

Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?

Lots of research and experimentation, that's what science is about, but then again there are some things we won't ever find the answer to.

Edit: there we go, didn't take as long as I thought it would

[CountSparkle]

The first thing I noticed is that both of those topics have to do with gradual change over time. Maybe it's a hard wired brain thing, and no amount of evidence can convince them? (same as with birthers, truthers, and religious nuts)

[organofcorti]

Given infinite resources it's simple to determine the truth. In the first case, duplicate the earth at the point just before human industry began. Then let the two histories proceed - one without human industry and one with. Then measure outcomes.

In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.

With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.

A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with  climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.

[bb113]

Given infinite resources it's simple to determine the truth. In the first case, duplicate the earth at the point just before human industry began. Then let the two histories proceed - one without human industry and one with. Then measure outcomes.

In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.

With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.

A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with  climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.

This experiment would take a long time...

[bb113]

My answers :


Climate change due to human influence hasn't been properly proved either way, we haven't even bothered trying to find and explore planets which have climates close to our own so why can people so readily take a side on this issue?

Evolution has already been determined to be true by Darwin, religious people find a way to deny anything.

edit: hmmm that's a pretty long list, I'll have to take more time on the answers for the other stuff at least, will edit this post to answer the other four things so bare with me.

How do you determine what to believe (or not) regarding these theories?

When I determine what to believe I look at the evidence presented ( if there is any actual fact based evidence, will explain that in the next bit ) if it contains convincing numbers or repeating examples throughout history then that is something that I will base my theories on, has someone who is very interested in economics and now actively trading in tiny amounts on the stock market I can tell you it works as a way of proving a theory right. As we have been told by people history often repeats itself, but what is much more reliable is mathematics that hasn't been messed with in any way by political lobbies, this is why I haven't taken a side on the climate change issue because both sides have been known to use propaganda rather than repetition and math to make their point.

What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?

It's hard to answer this one, because personally I can never trust anything 100% since that's how human beings are, there will always be things and situations that break a pattern, it can be something predictable but then it can be just something crazy or mind blowing that happens which completely throws off the current evidence. That's just the way humanity is though and I've learned to accept that, for the evolution side of things I think the only way I could be convinced to take a different view on it is if God himself appeared before me and presented everything he'd done, but so far, that just hasn't happened and I doubt it ever will.

In regards to climate change, I think the two sides are about even in the arguments they make, because they keep finding ways to one up each other every now and then, for instance, people who don't believe humans are doing anything have pointed out that mars has had it's ice cap melt before, you also have the fact that the sun is apparently burning more brightly than usual. Then there are the people on the opposite scale who present evidence saying that the gases we emit are being poured into the atmosphere which is also true, so to be honest I don't think either side has won yet so I'm just going to sit on the side lines and observe like an intelligent person rather than just jump to conclusions.

Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?

This seems to be the same question as the one before, as I stated, repetition of history/events and math, this is why we do experiments in science so we can repeat the results constantly, the problem is though there are people who will always deny this kind of evidence.

Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?

Lots of research and experimentation, that's what science is about, but then again there are some things we won't ever find the answer to.

Edit: there we go, didn't take as long as I thought it would

I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.

[myrkul]

This experiment would take a long time...

I'd point out that time is a "resource."

[organofcorti]

Given infinite resources it's simple to determine the truth. In the first case, duplicate the earth at the point just before human industry began. Then let the two histories proceed - one without human industry and one with. Then measure outcomes.

In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.

With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.

A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with  climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.

This experiment would take a long time...

Not with infinite resources. "HG, hand me that time travel doohickey you've been writing about"

The point is that infinite resources are not required. Just science. But I'm preaching to the choir and will shut up now.

[Lethn]

I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.

To put it simply, we know fuck all about space and other planets besides are own so how can we claim to know anything about our own planet?

Edit: I suppose you could say the same for evolution actually, if we saw the same behaviour from organic beings from other planets as well, then that would make evolution even more solid, but with evolution there is a lot more evidence to support it than there is with climate science, which I don't really believe is science, not just yet anyway.

[bb113]

The first thing I noticed is that both of those topics have to do with gradual change over time. Maybe it's a hard wired brain thing, and no amount of evidence can convince them? (same as with birthers, truthers, and religious nuts)

Who is them? Why can't "them" be those who believe the scientists rather than the religious. Once things are complicated enough noone but the experts will have the time to examine the evidence for themselves, and so will have to rely on expert opinion or various heuristics regarding what science has done for them lately.

[bb113]

This experiment would take a long time...

I'd point out that time is a "resource."

Given infinite resources it's simple to determine the truth. In the first case, duplicate the earth at the point just before human industry began. Then let the two histories proceed - one without human industry and one with. Then measure outcomes.

In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.

With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.

A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with  climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.

This experiment would take a long time...

Not with infinite resources. "HG, hand me that time travel doohickey you've been writing about"

The point is that infinite resources are not required. Just science. But I'm preaching to the choir and will shut up now.

...Ok, I mean in the end using neyman-pearson strategy the correct answer to everything will be found as long as there is no competition for resources or you can do it faster than everyone else. This is robot science though.

[myrkul]

I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.

I pretty much agree completely with Lethn, let me explain my reasoning.

Evolution is proven. There's over a hundred years of experimental and observational data on it. Moths have evolved to cope with pollution, and then evolved back once it was cleaned up. That pretty much put the lock on it for me.

Climate science is another beast entirely. That the climate is changing is not really in doubt. Which way, of course, has been a matter of some debate. Back in the 70's for instance, the big worry was global cooling, and a new ice age. Now it's global warming... and a new ice age. (The science behind how that would happen is weird, but believable.) But what has not even come close to being proven is that it is in any way anthropogenic. The earth's temperature has tracked solar output for 5000 years, and I see no reason for it to stop now.

[bb113]

I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.

I pretty much agree completely with Lethn, let me explain my reasoning.

Evolution is proven. There's over a hundred years of experimental and observational data on it. Moths have evolved to cope with pollution, and then evolved back once it was cleaned up. That pretty much put the lock on it for me.

Climate science is another beast entirely. That the climate is changing is not really in doubt. Which way, of course, has been a matter of some debate. Back in the 70's for instance, the big worry was global cooling, and a new ice age. Now it's global warming... and a new ice age. (The science behind how that would happen is weird, but believable.) But what has not even come close to being proven is that it is in any way anthropogenic. The earth's temperature has tracked solar output for 5000 years, and I see no reason for it to stop now.

That is still not "speciation you can see with your eyes". I don't see why we should think that speciation should occur on the timescales of human memory as it has been in the past (at most a couple generations before rhetorical noise obscures the reality). The truth is we are only now at the stage where we can verify this (in my opinion very good) theory directly.

[myrkul]

I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.

I pretty much agree completely with Lethn, let me explain my reasoning.

Evolution is proven. There's over a hundred years of experimental and observational data on it. Moths have evolved to cope with pollution, and then evolved back once it was cleaned up. That pretty much put the lock on it for me.

Climate science is another beast entirely. That the climate is changing is not really in doubt. Which way, of course, has been a matter of some debate. Back in the 70's for instance, the big worry was global cooling, and a new ice age. Now it's global warming... and a new ice age. (The science behind how that would happen is weird, but believable.) But what has not even come close to being proven is that it is in any way anthropogenic. The earth's temperature has tracked solar output for 5000 years, and I see no reason for it to stop now.

That is still not "speciation you can see with your eyes". I don't see why we should think that speciation should occur on the timescales of human memory as it has been in the past (at most a couple generations before rhetorical noise obscures the reality). The truth is we are only now at the stage where we can verify this (in my opinion very good) theory directly.

A clear genetic link is good enough for me, or extended observation of divergent populations, both of which have been done.

[bb113]

I'm no expert on this, but I am almost sure that there are hidden assumptions that are often not considered. Link me.

[drakahn]

How do you determine what to believe (or not) regarding these theories?

"believe" is a weak term for me... I believe most of my beliefs could be changed pretty easily... I previously believed people would make something happen on dec 21st, I was let down...

That said, I look for something that both answers the question and cannot be explained by "He had to say that specific answer to (continue to) get paid"

What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?

Evidence that the people presenting it have nothing to gain by it being believed, that either way they are getting their next grant(or whatever) to continue to find new evidence

Evidence that better answers the question

Evidence backed up by reproducible experiments with the same or close results across the board

Evidence that can be confirmed by average joe

Evidence that the person presenting it did not want to find

Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?

I try not to trust too much, I prefer an answer I don't need to trust for it to ring true

Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?

infinite... that's a fun word...

Evolution: I would build a series of enclosed ecosystems full of fast breeding organisms that previously have never interacted, each ecosystem would be slightly different from the last - Try and force evolution

Climate change: Fill [Mars/The Moon/A planet we built to have the opposite orbit to earth] with the gasses that are responsible for climate change and see what happens.

Both would take up time that would mean the person starting the experiment would not be the one that finishes it

---

Of course, I'm internet educated... so if I ever go out and get a formal education my ideas will probably change a fair bit...

[bb113]

How do you determine what to believe (or not) regarding these theories?

"believe" is a weak term for me... I believe most of my beliefs could be changed pretty easily... I previously believed people would make something happen on dec 21st, I was let down...

That said, I look for something that both answers the question and cannot be explained by "He had to say that specific answer to (continue to) get paid"

What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?

Evidence that the people presenting it have nothing to gain by it being believed, that either way they are getting their next grant(or whatever) to continue to find new evidence

Evidence that better answers the question

Evidence backed up by reproducible experiments with the same or close results across the board

Evidence that can be confirmed by average joe

Evidence that the person presenting it did not want to find

Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?

I try not to trust too much, I prefer an answer I don't need to trust for it to ring true

Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?

infinite... that's a fun word...

Evolution: I would build a series of enclosed ecosystems full of fast breeding organisms that previously have never interacted, each ecosystem would be slightly different from the last - Try and force evolution

Climate change: Fill [Mars/The Moon/A planet we built to have the opposite orbit to earth] with the gasses that are responsible for climate change and see what happens.

Both would take up time that would mean the person starting the experiment would not be the one that finishes it

---

Of course, I'm internet educated... so if I ever go out and get a formal education my ideas will probably change a fair bit...

These are great answers, now go figure out something useful to produce for society so you can fund an organization that performs science according to these principles.

[myrkul]

I'm no expert on this, but I am almost sure that there are hidden assumptions that are often not considered. Link me.

...Are you seriously asking me to link you the proof of evolution? Please tell me that I'm missing something here. At ny rate, this should be more than enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#References

Since Darwin's day, we've been watching the Galapagos islands, and many other isolated populations, we've found clear morphological links, and now genetic (one species of...lemur I think it was, was only identified by genetics, gods only know how they tell themselves apart) links have shown the same things... those neat little tree diagrams with species branching off at certain points are right.

As to climatology, when the weatherman can accurately tell me what the weather will be like in two weeks, I'll believe they can forecast 10, 20, or 50 years out. Too many variables.

[bb113]

I'm no expert on this, but I am almost sure that there are hidden assumptions that are often not considered. Link me.

...Are you seriously asking me to link you the proof of evolution? Please tell me that I'm missing something here. At ny rate, this should be more than enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#References

Since Darwin's day, we've been watching the Galapagos islands, and many other isolated populations, we've found clear morphological links, and now genetic (one species of...lemur I think it was, was only identified by genetics, gods only know how they tell themselves apart) links have shown the same things... those neat little tree diagrams with species branching off at certain points are right.

As to climatology, when the weatherman can accurately tell me what the weather will be like in two weeks, I'll believe they can forecast 10, 20, or 50 years out. Too many variables.

I've learned to question everything I have been taught, especially what I take for granted because I was told it before my brain was fully developed.

[organofcorti]

Oh christ.

An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.