# Selective ignorance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111 "2019-12-19T20:20:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/81 "2020-01-22T23:04:52Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > I think you are confusing scientific method with scientific fact. Leaving, the Gödel’s discussion aside, the scientific method is, and has been, hacked many times by no other than scientists themselves. Here are 3 examples : 1. Replication crisis : “According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments)…” More here : [Replication crisis - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) 2. P-hacking : “Results from a study can be analyzed in a variety of ways, and p-hacking refers to a practice where researchers select the analysis that yields a pleasing result …” More here : [We're All 'P-Hacking' Now | WIRED](https://www.wired.com/story/were-all-p-hacking-now/) 3. Untestable theories / hypothesis : “ My conclusion, as you’d expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term …” [Is String Theory Testable? | Not Even Wrong](https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=533) String theory is just one untestable theory but there are a plethora of them. So, in my opinion Scientific Method is not the biggest strength of science. The biggest strength of science is it’s ability to self correct and continuously evolve as new data and facts come to light. So it’s the scientific peers and the community of science that keep it alive and well 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/82 "2020-01-22T23:22:38Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Sometimes atheists don’t help their own cause by introducing social justice warrior contempt into the discussion. > > I heard this exchange recently on an atheist call-in show: > > Atheist: No! No! Don’t you make any justifications for slavery! Slavery is wrong now and it was wrong then! Period!! Get off my show!! (Hangs up on caller) > This might make for an exciting show, but it just cements atheists’ reputation for being contemptuous know-it-alls, and doesn’t foster any sort of beneficial discussion. \ I know exactly the show you are mentioning, and you probably don’t know that this is the zillionth call the guy has got on slavery, and rational discussion doesn’t work. Often the host tries to get the caller to admit that slavery is a moral wrong, the caller equivocates and goes on in the way you accurately transcribed, and the host (let’s call him Matt 🙂 ) hangs up. I’ve listened to other hosts who don’t hang up, and it doesn’t go well. At least hanging up moves to another caller. The point here is not whether god exists, but whether this particular believer has any moral sense, and why he considers a god who endorsed a moral evil a benevolent god. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/83 "2020-01-22T23:27:58Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > As for the argument that even though there is no evidence of God, there is also no evidence there isn’t a God, I beg to differ. It’s been scientifically proven that God and gods in all it’s forms were created by man’s fertile imagination, and you have biologists, archaeologists, neuro-psychologists and anthropologists to thank for the evidence. And it is cumulative evidence. The first thing to consider when saying there is evidence there is no god is which god? The deistic god who created the universe and then left can have no evidence against him since he has made no visible mark on the universe by definition. The god who created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago and then flooded us out has lots of evidence against him. Theists admit there is evidence disproving gods - the ones they don’t believe in. Better to say there is no good reason to believe in any god and good reasons to disbelieve in many. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/84 "2020-01-22T23:43:46Z")
> [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Atheism is a religion. Religion is a particular faith in a concept, ideal, or supreme being. Atheists believe there is no god, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence, it is a religion and atheists are religious. So when you talk about atheists, you are talking about religion. quote shortened well some people believe there is no bigfoot or no Loch Ness monster, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence not believing in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are religions. I don’t think not believing in something makes it a religion. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/85 "2020-01-23T09:20:26Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Sometimes atheists don’t help their own cause by introducing social justice warrior contempt into the discussion. > > I heard this exchange recently on an atheist call-in show: > > Caller: Our morality is based on biblical principles. > > Atheist: Do you agree that it’s wrong for one person to own another person as property? > > Caller: Yes, slavery is wrong. > > Atheist: You do realize the Bible supports slavery? > > Caller: But you see, back in those days… > > Atheist: No! No! Don’t you make any justifications for slavery! Slavery is wrong now and it was wrong then! Period!! Get off my show!! (Hangs up on caller) > This might make for an exciting show, but it just cements atheists’ reputation for being contemptuous know-it-alls, and doesn’t foster any sort of beneficial discussion. That particular person clearly knew more than the caller thought didn’t they? Plus I suspect I know the show you are referring to and I contest that the exchange was exactly as you report it here. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/86 "2020-01-23T09:26:50Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > In the call-in show, the atheist host would’ve done better not to just hang up on the caller, trying to show his audience how woke he was on civil rights. Instead, it could have gone like this: > > Caller: But you see, back in those days, a lot of people owned slaves. The Bible had rules about how to treat them, and even mandated freeing them during Jubilee or in cases of abuse. > > Host: So, you’re saying what the Bible says about slavery is okay because back then slavery was an accepted thing. > > Caller: It was. And the Bible had rules… > > Host: Yes, yes, the Bible had rules that were acceptable back then, because slavery was accepted back then. But the thing about what is acceptable in society evolves with changing times. Would you agree that times have changed since the Bible was written? Slavery is no longer acceptable? > > Caller: Of course slavery isn’t acceptable. > > Host: Yes, because morality has evolved. But the Bible, as written, cannot evolve. It is frozen in time. You can have different translations, but they all say the same thing. How can we base an evolving morality on a static set of biblical rules? > And the discussion could go on, and it still would be interesting. You seem to be assuming that the caller is willing to concede the points being made by the host. If this is the show that I think it is you’ll find that any caller being as thoughtful and conciliatory as you imagine above does indeed get treated with respect and credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/87 "2020-01-23T09:31:24Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > So, in my opinion Scientific Method is not the biggest strength of science. The biggest strength of science is it’s ability to self correct and continuously evolve as new data and facts come to light. So it’s the scientific peers and the community of science that keep it alive and well 🙂 The self-correction and evolution \*is \*part of the scientific method. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/88 "2020-01-23T10:53:50Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The self-correction and evolution \*is \*part of the scientific method. Is that your belief or a commonly accepted / published definition? I quote two reputable sources for describing “scientific method” and both have no mention of your belief : Wikipedia : “ The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises” > **[Scientific method](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)** > > The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. (For notable practitioners in previous centuries, see history of scientific method.) > The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it t... Merriam-Webster’s : “ : the process that is used by scientists for testing ideas and theories by using experiments and careful observation” > **[Definition of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20scientific%20method)** > > the process that is used by scientists for testing ideas and theories by using experiments and careful observation… See the full definition ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/89 "2020-01-23T11:46:36Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Is that your belief or a commonly accepted / published definition? > > I quote two reputable sources for describing “scientific method” and both have no mention of your belief : > > Wikipedia : “ The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; **and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings**. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises” > [Scientific method - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) > > Merriam-Webster’s : “ : the process that is used by scientists for testing ideas and theories by using experiments and careful observation” > [The scientific method Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20scientific%20method) It is all there in your first definition. I’ve boldened the specifically relevant part for you. I suggest you read the full article and then consider again whether you think self-correction and evolution are not part of the scientific method. And the word “belief” is irrelevant. I no more “believe” in the scientific method than I “believe” in gravity. Or perhaps more accurately I \*believe \*in the scientific method to same degree that I \*believe \*in gravity. i.e. it works. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/90 "2020-01-23T12:55:34Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Is that your belief or a commonly accepted / published definition? You should reconsider. There is nothing wrong with **Novelty’s Bobble’s** definition, I think that’s a very succinct way to describe it in one sentence. A very long definition of the scientific method can consists of many, many pages. There are various disagreements as to what the scientific method should consist of. Hypothesis, theory and law are some of the basics of the scientific method. Even when something is established as law, it shouldn’t still be considered as absolute, we’ve seen what happened to Newton laws in the quantum world, although they still work quite well in a classical sense. I don’t expect any major upheavals, but there is still some slight tweaking that occurs, there’s been a few dealing with the laws of conservation. Scientists are always questioning what they know all the time, even when something gets firmly established as laws, some are still exploring with it. Falsifiable testability wasn’t even built into the scientific method until Karl Popper came along in 1930’s. It’s still not universally held, but the majority of scientists think it a very important tool for the scientific method. Placebo controls came along about that time too. Double-blind experiments didn’t start to take hold until a few decades after that. Look at the history of the scientific method over the centuries, you’ll find it has done just that, evolved, and continues to correct itself as new information deems it necessary to do so. Which is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/91 "2020-01-23T12:57:42Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It is all there in your first definition. I’ve boldened the specifically relevant part for you. I suggest you read the full article and then consider again whether you think self-correction and evolution are not part of the scientific method. I have copied and pasted the part you bolder here : \*\*“ and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.”[\B] I suggest you read the full article on Pi-hacking or the Replication Crisis before reiterating the same sentence. I will try to summarize for you : The replication crisis Or Pi-hacking is not because the published scientists failed to “ \*\*“ refine (or eliminate) the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.”[\B]. They did that. The replication crisis is due to these Scientists lacking integrity or ethics or insight or something on those lines. This was suspected not because of the individual experimental result but a broad enquiry into a pattern research. The scientific method talks about the individual experimental result and its relation to the individual hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/92 "2020-01-23T13:16:07Z")
**am77494,** Re-reading some of your posts, looks like we are saying the same things, but still not sure why you object to **NB’s** succinct definition, when it seems like you agree that’s how science works, but catch up to your other parts later, see if I can see what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/93 "2020-01-23T13:24:00Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > I have copied and pasted the part you bolder here : > \*\*“ and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.”[\B] > > I suggest you read the full article on Pi-hacking or the Replication Crisis before reiterating the same sentence. > > I will try to summarize for you : The replication crisis Or Pi-hacking is not because the published scientists failed to “ \*\*“ refine (or eliminate) the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.”[\B]. They did that. The replication crisis is due to these Scientists lacking integrity or ethics or insight or something on those lines. > > This was suspected not because of the individual experimental result but a broad enquiry into a pattern research. The scientific method talks about the individual experimental result and its relation to the individual hypothesis. And it also applies to meta-analysis of a wider subject…as it did in those cases you mentioned and those revelations themselves will also be subject to criticism, review and revision. So I’m fully aware of those issues and have been for many years. I don’t see anything in them that contradicts my assertions that the scientific method does include refinement, correction, evolution etc. You point to failures to apply the method rigorously or of very human failings with integrity and ethics, my response would be…and? Humans are humans, the reason for the scientific method is as much to stop us fooling ourselves as anything else. It is a method not magic, is an inquisitional toolkit not a universal constant. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/94 "2020-01-23T15:02:09Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > … It is a method not magic, is an inquisitional toolkit not a universal constant. Fully agree and exactly my feelings and intent of the post. The scientific method is no panacea of objectivity and it can be hacked just as easily as other constructs. The real heroes are the community of scientists dedicated to the integrity of scientific endeavor. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/95 "2020-01-23T17:05:30Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Fully agree and exactly my feelings and intent of the post. The scientific method is no panacea of objectivity and it can be hacked just as easily as other constructs. The real heroes are the community of scientists dedicated to the integrity of scientific endeavor. True, any method is only as good as the people who apply (or misapply) it. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/96 "2020-01-23T21:27:24Z")
I should point out that coming to an objectively stupid conclusion while discussing the scientific method doesn’t make that conclusion less stupid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111.md?page=4)