How many of those who argue against science actually know anything about science?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My strong suspicion is that not many could answer questions about such simple topics as the mathematics of the lever, and absolutely none would actually know what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My strong suspicion is that not many could answer questions about such simple topics as the mathematics of the lever, and absolutely none would actually know what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

It says that we come from monkeys

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It says that we come from monkeys

To the rabidly unlearned, yes, I suppose it might.

 

[The Hammer]

I voted 12th grade to be generous and give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I voted 12th grade to be generous and give the benefit of the doubt.

I do not see that when I read many of their posts. Generosity is a good thing, often, but when a professor is too generous marking his students' papers, he risks that they might not actually have learned the course material.

 

[The Hammer]

I do not see that when I read many of their posts. Generosity is a good thing, often, but when a professor is too generous marking his students' papers, he risks that they might not actually have learned the course material.

Very true.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It says that we come from monkeys

*insert AronRa video about monkey/ape taxonomical difference being largely irrelevant to primatology, is mostly English specific, and how calling apes a type of monkey is not technically inaccurate, just out of spite.*

 

[Subduction Zone]

*insert AronRa video about monkey/ape taxonomical difference being largely irrelevant to primatology, is mostly English specific, and how calling apes a type of monkey is not technically inaccurate, just out of spite.*

Thank you!

I actually agree with Aron Ra on that point. I was remembering a line from the movie "O brother where art thou" when I posted that.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Not just science. Lots of folks will argue about stuff they know little about. I had a person tell me the other day that there's no such things as indoor shutoff valves for outside faucets.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Bearing in mind that evolution denial is vastly more talked about than it should be and is a minority of what Christians, let alone religious people in general, believe...

I imagine there's a lot of highly educated people within the category. Being highly educated takes money, not necessarily critical thinking. And so long as your field is separate from your particular mythology, whether that be creationists taking engineering instead of biology or transphobes taking physics instead of biology.
So I imagine plenty would do fine on a science exam provided that the science exam isn't just their nemesis field.

Not that there aren't grifters or severely out of touch individuals within the field that should know better. Can't tell you how many videos of antivax medical staff there are. Not because being antivax is intelligible, but because highly educated people can still fall prey to bunk science, politicized science, inability or unwillingness to stay current in their field, etc etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Unless we're going to go ahead and call 'psychology' a science, my science education finished at high school.
Since I didn't choose a science elective in my final year, it's not even Twelfth Grade.

Sure, I've read a bit since, but I'm not about to pretend I spend as much time thinking about or studying science as I do basketball, beer, or history (probably in that order...lol)

Clearly, I'm not referring to all religious people here, but the more extreme versions of science denying/ignorance/misinformation I see is at a much simpler level that that, and more akin to what I would have discussed with Grade 6's when I was a teacher.
Not talking here about particular scientific theories or facts. More just basic understanding of what science is, what science isn't, and what isn't science.

However, up until about Grade 9 I would think it's entirely possible to pass a science test by parroting the answers you believe the teacher wants, almost regardless of understanding or agreement.

Equally, you can be scientifically educated (hey, I'm technically a university science major) and not know the first thing about a certain field. You'd hope that ANY science education would start to draw some boundaries around process and approach, but honestly, I had classmates who passed without too many problems and were confusingly clueless overall.

 

[halbhh]

We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

Yes, I've seen some of that (which I often just skim past without reading). People with ad hoc conspiracy theory style stuff, really. Flat Earth is an archetypal example -- while some might when challenged try to paint meaning onto an isolated verse (contrary to the context), what I've heard usually instead is their arguments from their psuedo science, but especially their arguments about conspiracy.

Because whether revealed or not, the real motive and essence of that thinking is conspiracy theory itself (the inclination):
The key to it: believing there is a conspiracy going on by an organized group to subvert the truth or create a false narrative or picture.

That is what you are really seeing.

So, conspiracy theories tend to attach to anything that is prominent.

Example: Moon Landing.
Example: Assassination of President
Example: Bible
Example: Government
Example: Democratic Party
etc.

 

[halbhh]

Bearing in mind that evolution denial is vastly more talked about than it should be and is a minority of what Christians, let alone religious people in general, believe...

I imagine there's a lot of highly educated people within the category. Being highly educated takes money, not necessarily critical thinking. And so long as your field is separate from your particular mythology, whether that be creationists taking engineering instead of biology or transphobes taking physics instead of biology.
So I imagine plenty would do fine on a science exam provided that the science exam isn't just their nemesis field.

Not that there aren't grifters or severely out of touch individuals within the field that should know better. Can't tell you how many videos of antivax medical staff there are. Not because being antivax is intelligible, but because highly educated people can still fall prey to bunk science, politicized science, inability or unwillingness to stay current in their field, etc etc.

Good points.
You might be interested in the analysis in my post just above also.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not just science. Lots of folks will argue about stuff they know little about. I had a person tell me the other day that there's no such things as indoor shutoff valves for outside faucets.

Doesn't that bring up a very interesting question though? How do we overcome the certainty of somebody who does not, in fact, know what they're talking about?

Argument appears to be pretty useless, from what I've seen on RF. Do we beat them with a club? How about taking them to court? (That's my preference, by the way -- courts seem to be one way to filter out stuff people are sure about, but can't demonstrate.)

 

[halbhh]

Doesn't that bring up a very interesting question though? How do we overcome the certainty of somebody who does not, in fact, know what they're talking about?

Argument appears to be pretty useless, from what I've seen on RF. Do we beat them with a club? How about taking them to court? (That's my preference, by the way -- courts seem to be one way to filter out stuff people are sure about, but can't demonstrate.)

Since the real thing going on is a kind a paranoid style reaction of some individuals, then the trouble is psychological, and it's not possible to correct it I think without something to help them psychologically. The bad thing about simply persecuting paranoids is it only confirms to them their idea of conspiracy. In short unless we'd have to help in a way similar to a therapist: empathy (an aspect of love actually!), establishing a trusting relationship (again, an aspect of love actually), and so on -- these are what can help I thinking at the moment, as I consider it some more.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Doesn't that bring up a very interesting question though? How do we overcome the certainty of somebody who does not, in fact, know what they're talking about?

Argument appears to be pretty useless, from what I've seen on RF. Do we beat them with a club? How about taking them to court? (That's my preference, by the way -- courts seem to be one way to filter out stuff people are sure about, but can't demonstrate.)

How many more court cases were decided by bunk science paid by lobby groups than the consensus of cross institutional peer review? I'm willing to bet a lot more of the former than the latter.

I don't think there really is any simple answer for how to stop the spread of junk science. Would it surprise you to know that there are more predatory scientific journals that do not do any sort of vetting than those that do? (Here's an article talking about this phenomenon. "What's the Deal With Birds?" a New Paper Asks—While Making a Point )
It's incredibly easy to make official looking studies which are meaningless, that even fool individual experts (Though that one wasn't trying to). The worst part is individual researchers get sucked into these sites so they have good, original research with a lot of bad neighbors.

How many of the general public have the knowhow to separate the good studies from the bad? I'm guessing not many. So suspicion of the very real corruption of science as an industry makes it easier for antiscience skepticism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How many more court cases were decided by bunk science paid by lobby groups than the consensus of cross institutional peer review? I'm willing to bet a lot more of the former than the latter.

I don't think there really is any simple answer for how to stop the spread of junk science. Would it surprise you to know that there are more predatory scientific journals that do not do any sort of vetting than those that do? (Here's an article talking about this phenomenon. "What's the Deal With Birds?" a New Paper Asks—While Making a Point )
It's incredibly easy to make official looking studies which are meaningless, that even fool individual experts (Though that one wasn't trying to). The worst part is individual researchers get sucked into these sites so they have good, original research with a lot of bad neighbors.

How many of the general public have the knowhow to separate the good studies from the bad? I'm guessing not many. So suspicion of the very real corruption of science as an industry makes it easier for antiscience skepticism.

I confess I'm not sure about everything you've said, but I shall do my own followup research. If you have any leads you can provide, I promise I'll follow them.

 

[halbhh]

How many more court cases were decided by bunk science paid by lobby groups than the consensus of cross institutional peer review? I'm willing to bet a lot more of the former than the latter.

I don't think there really is any simple answer for how to stop the spread of junk science. Would it surprise you to know that there are more predatory scientific journals that do not do any sort of vetting than those that do? (Here's an article talking about this phenomenon. "What's the Deal With Birds?" a New Paper Asks—While Making a Point )
It's incredibly easy to make official looking studies which are meaningless, that even fool individual experts (Though that one wasn't trying to). The worst part is individual researchers get sucked into these sites so they have good, original research with a lot of bad neighbors.

How many of the general public have the knowhow to separate the good studies from the bad? I'm guessing not many. So suspicion of the very real corruption of science as an industry makes it easier for antiscience skepticism.

I've been able to help some individuals get out of pseudo science.

It's not by argument, though perhaps it does help that I have a degree in the hard sciences and the in depth understanding and easy command of facts and such that comes with that, but that's only an extra aid. It's not the main thing.

I think the main help was by treating someone like a person, and talking with them in a friendly way (not just politeness, and not being judgmental).

So, sort of the opposite approach to what many do, in a way.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I confess I'm not sure about everything you've said, but I shall do my own followup research. If you have any leads you can provide, I promise I'll follow them.

The story of the legal history of Monsanto is a great place for it, imo. It has both things which media got wrong that made individual Monsanto decisions look worse than they were, but also paid scientific results where questionable methodology or narrow window studies made for compelling junk science. Also teaches about how monetary interests effect science institutions at all levels.

Just generally leaves you with a lesson of why, above all else, being scientifically minded is about mistrusting experts, not trusting them.