Nobody likes to be wrong. I'm the first to admit that I'm the last to admit that I'm wrong about something. I like to think (and there is some truth to this) that this is because I tend not to form opinions about things until I have thought about them and studied them in some depth. Thus if I don't know much (or anything) about a particular topic, I won't weigh in on issues regarding it. I'll just admit that I don't understand enough to comment or that I don't know.
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?
We are all ignorant of most subjects. Yet for some reason I continuously find people talking about subjects, fields, or topics they don't really understand as if they were experts. And I don't get it. True, I'm biased here: if I am interested in some subject I am not content until I am sufficiently familiar with it to understand the technical literature, and I often avod subjects that aren't academic or don't have technical literature because I can't get the kind of answers I look for (e.g., I don't pay much attention to stories in the news as I can't verify the findings the way I feel compelled to). Most people are happy to read popular literature on subjects they are interested in. And that's fine.
Yet time and time again I find people making adamant statements about the implications of the big bang theory, quantum mechanics, special relativity, deterministic physics, neuroscience, the nature of scientific research, the scientific method, logic, math, etc., despite having at best an understanding of these subjects that can be gained from reading sensationalist books, websites, or magazine articles.
Do others also find people reluctant to admit ignorance of a subject/topic? If so, any thoughts on why this is or whether there are particular subjects/topics that individuals tend to believe they have an understanding of which they don't in act possess? Do people tend to insist their beliefs about some subject they actually don't really know much about are correct because they believe they understand the issues better than they in fact do, or is it more because they don't want to admit they really don't understand (or both?)?
What makes people believe they understand subjects or topics (especially academic) and how often do you think they actually do?