When you disagree with Science...

[Laika]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

 

[Stanyon]

The "man who predicted the Tsunami" (Geologost Masanobu Shishikura) of Japan ended up creating an entirely new area of research after he was proven correct. Many lives may have been saved had respected scientists in Japan just listened to him, instead he was mocked and ignored.

 

[Heyo]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

Usually when you disagree with science without being a scientist in the field yourself, you are just ignorant of the facts and reasons.

 

[SalixIncendium]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

The former. If science makes a discovery that conflicts with or contradicts my worldview, I admit my error and adjust my worldview to the discovery.

 

[Nimos]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

I change my opinions or at least I try to. If everything suggest that something is not as you thought, why wouldn't you try to adjust to that, maybe it can open up for some new interesting things. Seems better than living on something that is clearly wrong at least

 

[Twilight Hue]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

I have a few of those myself. However science/the hard facts will always triumph.

Unless you think there's a more reliable and straightforward method for establishing weither something is actually true or not.

 

[Laika]

Usually when you disagree with science without being a scientist in the field yourself, you are just ignorant of the facts and reasons.

The former. If science makes a discovery that conflicts with or contradicts my worldview, I admit my error and adjust my worldview to the discovery.

I change my opinions or at least I try to. If everything suggest that something is not as you thought, why wouldn't you try to adjust to that, maybe it can open up for some new interesting things. Seems better than living on something that is clearly wrong at least

Isn't there a case to be made that you have a right to defend your positions, even if they are ultimately wrong, and that you shouldn't accept something based on authority alone?

 

[Heyo]

Isn't there a case to be made that you have a right to defend your positions, even if they are ultimately wrong, and that you shouldn't accept something based on authority alone?

Of course there is. In science that means to write a paper and submit it to a refereed journal.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Isn't there a case to be made that you have a right to defend your positions, even if they are ultimately wrong, and that you shouldn't accept something based on authority alone?

I don't understand the logic in defending something I know is wrong.

I don't accept things based on authority. I accept things through experience.

 

[icehorse]

If a specific idea has been rejected by science, I'll tend to go with the science.

But to me the more prevalent and interesting case is when an idea is "as yet unresolved" by science. There are many things that humans can do reliably that science cannot yet explain. So - for example - a certain body worker might truly have a skill / talent for doing body work that helps their clients' well being. What often happens is that the body worker will, often with the best intentions, cook up an explanation for their skill. So often the explanation doesn't have much veracity, but the skill is in fact real.

 

[Nimos]

Isn't there a case to be made that you have a right to defend your positions, even if they are ultimately wrong, and that you shouldn't accept something based on authority alone?

Surely one should do that.

But one should also know when one is simply wrong. Looking at people that believe the Earth is flat and everyone that argues against them are either being lied to without them knowing it or part of the conspiracy to hide it. So millions if not billions of people are part of the conspiracy apparently. I always wanted to ask one of them what all those people which have a job that involve a globe earth is doing when they show up for work and nothing of what they do or have learned seems to work and who exactly want to pay for that

So fair enough if they want to defend such view, but when everything constantly suggest that the Earth is not flat, they ought to know when to admit that they are wrong.

 

[Augustus]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

Not all 'science' is created equal.

If it is in a scientific domain that is highly accurate then that's different to it being in one of the 'coin toss' scientific domains.

 

[Laika]

Of course there is. In science that means to write a paper and submit it to a refereed journal.

But what about us, the "general public" who are non-scientists and aren't particularly well-read of the scientific literature? In debates on the forum, should we stand behind the wrong position to argue it out so we understand why the correct view is actually the correct one?

I don't understand the logic in defending something I know is wrong.

I don't accept things based on authority. I accept things through experience.

It's safe to assume that you believe the world is round and the earth orbits the sun. But, if you were asked to try and prove that based on your own observations, I think most of us would struggle. We are used to taking the authority of science for granted so we end up repeating cliams we believe are "scientific" simply because it has the label.

If we think of science as a method of gaining knowledge, rather than a fixed body of claims, then surely believing something because we call it "scientific" defeats the purpose of science in building our ideas based on observation?

 

[sun rise]

"Science" is not something to agree or disagree with. Scientific findings that have been replicated are not something I would disagree with.

Scientists who are stuck in their beliefs and refuse to accept evidence in their field I would question. This has happened repeatedly in many different fields.

Unreplicated or poorly replicated results are another matter. When I was studying chemistry many moons ago, I gave a talk in a seminar class on a finding called "polywater" which turned out to be a false finding due to contamination.

On the other hand when it comes to climate change, we know about greenhouse gasses absolutely - there can be no question about the science there. We know those gasses are increasing in the atmosphere and what the long term consequences have to be based on the established science. We know that these effects are occurring based on incontrovertible measurements. What is subject to question comes from the complexity of the Earth's ecosystem - how changes will play out locally and how fast some of the changes will manifest.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't understand the logic in defending something I know is wrong.

Isn't there a case to be made that you have a right to defend your positions, even if they are ultimately wrong, and that you shouldn't accept something based on authority alone?

@SalixIncendium I may be wrong, but I don't think Laika was saying: "Isn't there a case to be made that I have a right to defend my position even when I know it is wrong?" IMO, Laika was saying "Don't I have the right to hold and defend a reasoned position which is not a mainstream-accepted position?"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I need proof. No suppositions (like "may have", "probably", "could be") or circumstantial evidence will cut it.

Fortunately, and yet sadly, my understanding of reality has been verified by my observations and experiences, personally and through people I trust, both negative and positive experiences.

 

[Laika]

@SalixIncendium I may be wrong, but I don't think Laika was saying: "Isn't there a case to be made that I have a right to defend my position even when I know it is wrong?" IMO, Laika was saying "Don't I have the right to hold and defend a reasoned position which is not a mainstream-accepted position?"

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I couldn't figure out how to word it though.

 

[halbhh]

We all have beliefs that maybe other people think are a bit "weird", but what happens if you believe something that is widely regarded as pseudo-scientific or as rejected by science?

Do you accept the science and change your opinions? Or do you stand by your beliefs and try to reason them out?

You mean if you disagree with a currently most accepted mainstream hypothesis in some field? A 'leading theory'.

?

For that, ideally, the alternative hypothesis you like better should be testable, and then put to the test, to see if its predictions accord with observations meant that test those predictions.

If fortunate, one could even come up with a better idea, or contribute to a field.

But only a small portion of the hypotheses people come up with will win out like that. Even for gifted scientists, it will be normal to have a lot of ideas that don't pan out. That fail. (they are able to eliminate many ideas pretty quickly, as they come up with them, since they can mentally search through already known observations and facts)

 

[Heyo]

But what about us, the "general public" who are non-scientists and aren't particularly well-read of the scientific literature? In debates on the forum, should we stand behind the wrong position to argue it out so we understand why the correct view is actually the correct one?

Depends on how much time you are willing to invest. Some things in science are high above my pay grade. I can try to study or I have to trust the scientists. There is no third option. "I don't understand, therefore it must be false" is just as laughable as "I haven't studied it but I know more than the scientists".

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think it's necessary to distinguish between the more exact physical sciences (physics, chemistry) from the physical sciences that involve larger, more complex, complicated and/or chaotic systems (geology, meteorology, biochemistry), and from the social sciences, which deal with very complex, complicated and/or chaotic systems.

Example: my own field of social science--organizational science, specifically the theory of motivation. There are literally dozens of viable theories of motivation, rooted in several major theories of human behavior. Some are better at explaining observed human behavior under at least some conditions than other theories, but none can really be said to be "right" or "wrong," as none can explain all of observed human behavior in all situations. Even for scientists in the field, the choice of which theory is "right" can be attacked or defended with good reason.