Storm to her credit despite my derision keeps firing off clichés with startling precision Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition
You’re so sure of your position but you’re just closed-minded I think you’ll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist
Wow that’s a good point, let me think for a bit Oh wait, my mistake, that’s absolute bullshit Science adjusts it’s views based on what’s observed Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved
The replication crisis started in psychology, but undoubtedly extends to nutrition science:
We should have a low confidence in most scientific claims reported in the press, at least outside the hard sciences, and shouldn’t have a high confidence even in expert consensuses in the social sciences. But an awful lot of people seem to take an all-or-nothing view, where the experts are either infallible, or they are useless - and you believe random pundits instead.
Or maybe chemistry just isn’t as visible to them? It’s not competing with religion to answer big questions like “how did we get here?” or giving them unwelcome diet and lifestyle advice, so there’s no reason to object to it or even think about it much.
That’s a huge problem I see- black and white / binary thinking. If one study says X is true, and another says X is false, then in their minds, the studies are entire BS, not an indication that more research and experimentation needs to be done. Or the classic “it’s just a theory” mentality where because it’s described as a theory, they think it’s not complete in some fashion. They don’t quite get that everything is a theory except for some very specific scientific equations and concepts that are called “laws”.
I don’t really know how you get past this stuff. I recall that in school, there was always about 20% of the class that flat out didn’t get it/didn’t care, another 60% or so that may or may not have got it, but could regurgitate enough to get whatever grade they were aiming for, and about 20% who actually “got it” in the fundamental sense that the teachers were hoping for.
The big problem is that the votes of the bottom half of the class are equally valid as the top half. Which despite being a rabid democracy advocate, has always bothered me somewhat, because of the potential for demagogues, poorly considered votes, and the like.
On the plus side, it’s much easier to drop their weight, simply by measuring their feed differently.
You also get a quick demonstration that, for as much as people much not like it, calorie reduction is really the core of it all. Everything else is just dealing with the psychology of it.
As the thread notes, people don’t need much to depart from science if it conflicts with their emotions.
Yes. And it ties into the wider debate about misinformation: if you don’t want people exposed to conspiracy theories, then you have to censor them somehow, but that means handing some probably-government body the power to decide what is true and false, and the ability to hide any information they don’t want us to know.
We should not get complacent about this, either. Being smarter and more educated does not necessarily protect you from believing conspiracy theories:
It is a problem, but there’s no good solution. The “bottom half of the class” - or at least the bottom fifth - are collectively going to have significantly different lives, problems, and preferences compared to the top half, and they need their interests represented too.
Being uncomfortable with uncertainly (“We think X is true, but we’re not sure, and additional evidence could make us more sure or could change our minds”), and
Being uncomfortable with things that aren’t black-and-white, all-or-nothing (“X is sort of true, or true in one sense but not in another, or true under certain conditions”).
I suspect it’s a modification of #1- namely that if experts don’t conclusively know everything about their field, then they aren’t trusted. And never mind one who admits what they don’t know and/or changes their tune because of new information.
For example during the pandemic, TPTB saying we didn’t need masks early on, then saying we indeed did need them did a whole lot of damage to their perception because it seemed either untruthful or it seemed to many like they didn’t know what they were talking about.
There’s stuff like economics and meteorology where they’re inherently inexact, but that uncertainty just makes them un-credible to these people because they can’t quite fathom the idea of quantifying uncertainty as they do with rain forecasts
That Guardian article is selective in invoking research correlating advanced education levels with conspiracy theory beliefs. There are multiple studies showing the opposite.
My take is that capacity for critical thinking is often, but not universally correlated with extent of education. We probably are all familiar with PhDs who believe the most outlandish crap, and I’m not just referring to Naomi Wolf (read up on Nobel Disease, for instance).
It’d be terrific if teaching critical thinking skills was mandated starting in elementary school. There’d be a ton of resistance to this project though from elements of society that depend on manipulation to achieve their aims.
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
What I’ve observed, including and maybe especially on this board, is that cleverer, better informed (which might come from education but doesn’t have to) people make better and more convincing arguments. And that’s true whether or not they are correct. When smart people debate, both sides have powerful arguments, but they can’t both be right. I’ve also observed that people are very rarely convinced by rational arguments, no matter how good they are - and they are probably right not to be! Because someone who is smarter or merely better informed on an issue than you are can make seemingly very convincing arguments, and the fact you can’t counter them on the spot does not mean that strong counter arguments do not exist. What these arguments do do, is make the arguer and those who already agree with them more convinced they are right, and they may also convince those who do not yet have strong opinions. The disadvantage for a smart person is that when they encounter a good argument or evidence against one of their beliefs, they are better able to explain it away to their own satisfaction, rather than actually questioning whether they are right.
Not coincidentally, conspiracy theorists are generally a lot better informed on the area of their conspiracy than the general public are, even though a lot of the things they believe about it are incorrect. This is one reason they are able to convince others who may not have particularly strong beliefs yet.
IMO the truth is that people mostly adopt the views of those around them, in particular of other people they like and trust, and who are high status in their (sub)culture. And that’s arguably better than them using their own judgement, given most people don’t have particularly good judgement, or enough background knowledge on the majority of subjects in order to exercise it effectively.
What happens if you try to teach everyone critical thinking skills in school? For a start, you are going to get the same “20% simply don’t get it, 60% can regurgitate enough to pass a test but may or may not understand, 20% actually understand as intended” result you see in science lessons. I don’t think it’s entirely unlikely that the net result could be more belief in conspiracy theories.
I’m not going to get involved in the philosophical discussion here, but I want to say a word about dog food, which was used as an example and it is indeed an interesting and contentious one. By “dog food” I mean commercially available kibble.
In my view, there are three basic grades. There’s the rock-bottom cheap stuff you’ll find at discount stores and many supermarkets. There’s the higher quality name brand stuff, most notably Science Diet and Iams, which tends to be available mostly through pet supply stores and veterinary offices. Then there’s the expensive boutique stuff which has a cult following, said cult trying to “educate” the world on how terrible brands like Science Diet are.
Who’s right? Damned if I know, but following your veterinarian’s guidance would seem to be sensible. The Cult, however, claims that vets have been “bought” by the dog food industry and bribed and cajoled into promoting their products. Vet’s offices, incidentally, also have prescription varieties of brands like Science Diet for special needs, which I believe can only be sold by vets.
Here’s my take. My vet was a wonderful caregiver for my dog and truly cared about him, so I trusted him. He recommended Science Diet (not because he sold it, since it was available from any large pet supply store) but because he thought it was a good basic food. But I also feel that kibble alone may not be a sufficiently balanced diet and in any case isn’t terribly appetizing. So my dog’s meal would always be a base of kibble with hot food on top – things like boneless roast or grilled chicken, sausages, beef stew, and sometimes grilled steak. How much these things contributed to his nutrition I cannot say, but they definitely contributed to his happiness, and that counts for a lot.
The bigger issue for me was when they were suggesting that people more knowledgeable about republican politics represented “smarter” republicans as opposed to being more staunchly conservative. But overall I think it was a good article.
Which of course leads to the question of how people ever change their opinions.
The main way ISTM is incidentally; where a person hears a fact, or correction, without that source being aware that the person’s own view may differ. With no emotional capital invested, it’s easier to switch sides especially if the new fact seems more comprehensive or accurate than our current understanding.
…and of course in our new media environment, such incidental contact with facts seems to happen less and less often.
I agree with you that debates are largely useless. I’m always amazed when, after watching a very one-sided debate, the comments remain largely an equal split of people believing their side won.
e.g. Darth Dawkins has a devout fanbase just for “owning the atheists” despite the fact his (pre-sup) arguments can all be trivially refuted. But he insults and talks over people, and that looks like “winning”, I guess, if you started out with a position similar to his.
I have seen on occasion though, that a person can go from a strong belief in X to a weak belief, to “I don’t want to talk about X” to finally switching their view, only on the basis of watching, or taking part in, debates where numerous flaws of X were exposed.
It tends to be a slow process though.
I don’t know that rational arguments have ever convinced me, but the training in making them has given me great skills in discerning irrational arguments, and the disconnect between other people’s arguments & actions.
This sounds a lot like the observation that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Yes, teaching Critical Thinking is not perfect, but the effort is good rather than bad.
Of course, the issue in the USA and other countries is that in Schools, it is not a priority in many places and in many places, it is not taught at all.
Somewhere (I was young, no source, alas) I read that humans struggle to conceive numbers bigger than 6. Which kind of suprised me, while looking at my hands. But it was a genuine report on a psychology paper.
I can’t conceive millions or billions. I understand the concepts, and even, say, number of grains of sand on a beach being in that range, but it is completely an abstract, not a concrete.
I was raised lower middle class in West Virginia, but I’m always encountering people who assume that since I’ve been to college, my family must have been wealthy. I think this is an example of the OP’s point, that people often adopt beliefs that make them feel good, regardless of the facts. “If only rich people can go to college, I’m not to blame for my lousy life.”
Actually, that kind of demonstrates the point; looking at your hands is turning to something outside your own mind to anchor its attempts to work with higher numbers. Just a less sophisticated version of writing the numbers down.
When I was young, I remember reading an example of how to see big numbers from the Reader’s Digest, no less. From one of the little notes and tales at the bottom of articles:
"A rich guy gave his wife one million dollars, with instructions to spend $1000 every day, it took her 2 years and 9 months to do it.
Then the husband gave the wife one billion dollars with the same rule. It would have taken her 2,740 years!"