The anti-science movement.

steddyeddy · 15-02-2015 08:35PM #1

In the last few decades we have made extraordinary advances in science. We can treat diseases more effectively, we know more about our evolutionary past and we know more about the world and universe around us.

Despite this there seems to be an increase in what I call anti-science (I'm open to debate on my labelling), Creationism in some countries is flourishing, measles in America is on the rise, NASA and meteorological agencies around the world have to argue the case for man made climate change and we still have the situation where scientists have to argue that science in itself has value and needs to be funded.

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developed countries? It would be easy to say religion but I don't think religion plays a part in the climate change or vaccination argument.

Zamboni · 15-02-2015 08:56PM

Because the majority of the human species are fcuktards.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 15-02-2015 08:59PM

Ach, leave them alone in their ignorance. All the more science for the rest of us.

newmug · 15-02-2015 09:02PM

Denial. In the case of climate change and realising that we descended from monkeys anyway.

steddyeddy · 15-02-2015 09:03PM

Aubrie Big Wildebeest wrote: »

Ach, leave them alone in their ignorance. All the more science for the rest of us.

Their ignorance isn't leaving us alone. In America we have the measles outbreak, some people want to teach creationism in schools and the climate change sceptics are denying a that human activity is accelerating climate change. This all bears a heavy cost for the enlightened.

KomradeBishop · 15-02-2015 09:06PM

I posted this in A&A recently, which ties into this:

Fantastic article here on how people - throughout the ideological spectrum - who hold conspiratorial/crank views about many topics (anti-vax, climate change denial), often hold those views due to a 'crisis of authority', i.e. (if I'm understand this right) distrust of an authority (often for good reason), whether that authority be government, religion, or even science itself:
www.salon.com/2015/02/07/anti_vaxxers_climate_deniers_and_the_crisis_of_authority

Never thought of it from that angle before, as the author ties a lot of related things together very well.

I think that politics is the main driver of anti-science views: In order to justify political/economic policies that harm people and the world, you need to be able to deny and spread doubt, about the evidence discrediting your political views - and fooling people into rejecting science itself, and making sure they aren't properly taught the critical thinking abilities they need to discern 'good science' from 'bad science', is an excellent way of making people pliable to propaganda/bullshít, on a population-wide scale.

Shenshen · 15-02-2015 09:07PM

Because people generally don't want to believe things they don't like.

And people don't like being the baddies who are ruining the planet, they don't like being "just another animal", and they generally don't like things that can't be explained in a single sentence using only monosyllabic words.

Harry Palmr · 15-02-2015 09:09PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developing countries? It would be easy to say religion but I don't think religion plays a part in the climate change or vaccination argument.

Because it happening so damned fast, once upon a time and not very long ago, the rate of development was fairly leisurely now we are seeing genuine world changing technology rushing at us - the emerging worlds of biotech and nano tech is going to be incredible once its fully understood for example. Now at the same time we have this piece of trickery - the web. Upon which people who think "they" (intelligence agencies, politicians, businessmen, the media, the Jews) are out to get us in this new epoch convince us its all the work of the devil.

My name is URL · 15-02-2015 09:10PM

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developing countries

I was with you up until that bit. People in developing countries can be forgiven for having anti-scientific views, given that the (now) developed world has by and large fcuked them over for the last couple of centuries.

There's a growing mistrust of science in developed countries... and it's mainly down to the same sort of greedy anarcho-capitalist people who have been fcuking people in developing countries over for so long.

One just has to look at the oil industry to see it. For so long they didn't pay much attention to what people in the West thought, because we had no alternatives.. they just focused on taking from the 'developing world', promising the moon and stars in return. Now that viable alternatives exist, they focus their attention on denying the science and economics behind them instead. And developing economies have little or nothing to show for their sacrifices.. the corrupt and powerful became super rich while ordinary people in those places realised nothing in the way of progress.

KomradeBishop · 15-02-2015 09:15PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Because people generally don't want to believe things they don't like.

And people don't like being the baddies who are ruining the planet, they don't like being "just another animal", and they generally don't like things that can't be explained in a single sentence using only monosyllabic words.

You also have a lot of people whose personal belief systems (and potentially much of their self esteem), may be based on ideas/beliefs that are threatened by science as well - i.e. practically all religions, many 'New Age' beliefs, and cults (like Scientology or Libertarianism), even well respected fields of study (like mainstream/neoclassical economics) - so they have to tie themselves in knots intellectually, in order to defend their beliefs and possibly self esteem.

This is why it can sometimes be so so hard to get things through to such people - for a lot of them, it'd probably be a big impact personally, to accept that what they believe is false (especially if they invested a lot of time in those beliefs).

Buford T. Justice XIX · 15-02-2015 09:17PM

We live in a very disconnected society where there is relatively little interaction with people outside our own belief systems.

There is little opportunity to sit and debate rationally and calmly with someone of an opposing viewpoint and where those that shout loudest are viewed as leaders despite having little knowledge or balance about a subject.

I despair at times reading and listening to reports on subjects that I would have a fair degree of knowledge on, just the sheer populism and vested interest angles that seems to dominate and drive an agenda.

steddyeddy · 15-02-2015 09:19PM

Hang on guys I meant developed countries! Not developing ones.

KomradeBishop · 15-02-2015 09:20PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

We live in a very disconnected society where there is relatively little interaction with people outside our own belief systems.

There is little opportunity to sit and debate rationally and calmly with someone of an opposing viewpoint and where those that shout loudest are viewed as leaders despite having little knowledge or balance about a subject.

I despair at times reading and listening to reports on subjects that I would have a fair degree of knowledge on, just the sheer populism and vested interest angles that seems to dominate and drive an agenda.

I'd agree with all of that except for the first sentence: I think that the Internet, means everyone is more exposed to different belief systems, than ever before (though yes, that doesn't necessarily lead to productive discussion

).

expectationlost · 15-02-2015 09:21PM

its not anti-science, creationism is linked to dominionism which is fueled by rich industrialist who want to continue to mine and pollute the earth resources, anti-vaccination in the UK and the US is about undermining the public health system and government control of it, and leftwing anti-vax/anti-fluoride/anti-gmo is a distrust of corporations/government and an undermining of them.

Harry Palmr · 15-02-2015 09:22PM

Oh I also blame the stupification of mass media, why engage in debate about the big issues when Kim Kardashian's arse can be talked about? The big issues are debated but they are squeezed to the edge by passing sensation.

hfallada · 15-02-2015 09:23PM

I think the problem lies with the internet. Any idiot can write a blog and people will believe it. There is thousands of sites against vaccines, etc. But even when the smallpox vaccine was introduced, people were against it. Now smallpox is completely gone

I dont think there is a rise in anti-science. But more people hear about it, as its more acceptable.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 15-02-2015 09:27PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'd agree with all of that except for the first sentence: I think that the Internet, means everyone is more exposed to different belief systems, than ever before (though yes, that doesn't necessarily lead to productive discussion ).

As far as I can tell, people only seek information on subjects that interest them from sites that already have agreeable viewpoints to their beliefs.

It's almost impossible to find a balanced site on the Web or, at least, I haven't found one.

And reading 'information' that correspond to your own views only reinforces that view rather than explore the nuances of of a subject.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 15-02-2015 09:31PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Oh I also blame the stupification of mass media, why engage in debate about the big issues when Kim Kardashian's arse can be talked about? The big issues are debated but they are squeezed to the edge by passing sensation.

Well, with the size of her arse, most things would be pushed to the side...

Shenshen · 15-02-2015 09:35PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'd agree with all of that except for the first sentence: I think that the Internet, means everyone is more exposed to different belief systems, than ever before (though yes, that doesn't necessarily lead to productive discussion ).

Yes and no - having the internet means people CAN expose themselves to all sorts of different belief systems, but I think very very few actually do.

I might be cynical, but I expect the majority of people use the internet to connect to people they already know via facebook, and read the Daily Mail online rather than go out and buy it.

The_Valeyard · 15-02-2015 09:37PM

The intro for the film idiocracy makes a good case about this

Dave0301 · 15-02-2015 09:39PM

I agree with what other posters have said. The advent of social media and the ability for all manner of people to have a platform from which to speak will allow misinformation to be spread. I actually did some research for my dissertation on how it is important in the modern digital age to be able to discern what sources of information are credible

Unfortunately there will be a lot of people that don't so that. I present exhibit A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

Desolation Of Smug · 15-02-2015 09:44PM

Zamboni wrote: »

Because the majority of the human species are fcuktards.

yes, but fcuktards didn't invent nuclear weapons and let hundreds of them off to "test" them. The fcuktards would have toddled on forever. It's the "clever" cnuts that feck it up for everyone.

ash23 · 15-02-2015 09:47PM

Science has also become very profitable. With the drive for profit also comes shady decisions and a certain amount of deception. And that breeds mistrust.

I'm very grateful for advances in science. Its given me a treatment option that wasn't available ten years ago. I'm also aware that the treatment I'm on is driven by money for the company who manufacturer it and the glossy brochures and marketing to convince me it's the best choice. And at 50k a year it's not peanuts we're talking. These companies have a motive and it's money at the end of the day.
The scientists working on it might have the best of intentions and be noble but the manufacturers are not so noble at all times.

KomradeBishop · 15-02-2015 09:48PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

As far as I can tell, people only seek information on subjects that interest them from sites that already have agreeable viewpoints to their beliefs.

It's almost impossible to find a balanced site on the Web or, at least, I haven't found one.

And reading 'information' that correspond to your own views only reinforces that view rather than explore the nuances of of a subject.

Some people do that, sure - but then you also have Google and relatively-authoritative sources of information like Wikipedia (not perfect, but a very good guideline/starting-point for reading up on stuff), and people can't easily ignore these sources, and challenges to their views that derive from them.

There's a lot of garbage on the Internet, but it's not a monoculture like e.g. TV is.

coolhull · 15-02-2015 09:48PM

Dave0301 wrote: »

I agree with what other posters have said. The advent of social media and the ability for all manner of people to have a platform from which to speak will allow misinformation to be spread. I actually did some research for my dissertation on how it is important in the modern digital age to be able to discern what sources of information are credible

Unfortunately there will be a lot of people that don't so that. I present exhibit A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

The siren sounds in the background is hopefully the men in white coats coming to collect her

My name is URL · 15-02-2015 09:52PM

I guess the reason the Koch brothers etc are trying to limit internet freedoms and accessibility is because so many people are 'anti-science' these days :rolleyes:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-neutrality-is-marxist-according-to-this-koch-backed-astroturf-group

Or could it be because more people are aware of their own ant-scientific agendas and lobbying exercises?

Funny how it's neo-cons that want an end to net neutrality... considering how they let on to be all about 'freedom' in other areas... like their own freedom to do business without regulation and out of sight of critics etc.

15-02-2015 10:11PM

I think it's a lot to do with people's perceptions of their own individuality with one group, and with poverty of intellectual freedom with another.

People who are devoutly religious (to the point of believing the Earth is a few thousand years old not the majority) in the West are often so because of two factors, lack of intellectual curiosity and education, and a lack of social supports. When the State or society doesn't provide, some people cling to their faith and hope that God will instead. Blind faith is a comforting thing, bringing with it an assurance that everything will be all right in the end. No wonder so many want to hang on to that thought, when they might have very little else going for them.

The more 'alternative' group are ones who see themselves as perhaps more enlightened, and might consider science to be somewhat empty of spiritual insight and free thought, and tend to belong to the more 'natural'-leaning school of absolute idiot. These are the folks who are adamantly anti-vax, without having enough insight to realise that the only reason anti-vaxers don't have their kids dropping off in droves (exceptions everywhere) is because the rest of us are smart enough to vaccinate, or the reason they can follow their dreams to achieve that degree in Clown and Circus Skills is because the rest of us did useful degrees and now pay the tax to indulge them. They're all about the freedom, not so much about the responsibility. Something the parenting styles of the sixties and seventies child rearing gurus like Dr Spock actively encouraged amongst the baby boomers without realising the consequences.

I'm not a great supporter of big pharma with their astronomical profits while 39 million people live with HIV and AIDS, most of them without the access to cheap generic drugs that would bring this worldwide atrocity to an end, but... without drug companies and their research the world health map would look very different. It's hard to fathom why people would trust magic water, and yet that is exactly what they do.

Personally I don't understand how anyone could prefer the concept of Fry's capricious, angry God to the knowledge that we are each made of stardust, or prefer the concept of magic water to real-life miracle potions made in labs that save humanity from disease, deformity or death.

Wibbs · 15-02-2015 10:30PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Because it happening so damned fast, once upon a time and not very long ago, the rate of development was fairly leisurely now we are seeing genuine world changing technology rushing at us.

Yes and no HP. For much of the 20th century it was arguably happening faster than today across more areas and more obviously. EG my oul lad who was born pre 1920 saw biplanes cross the sky, including a memory of Lucky Lindy getting across the Atlantic, then monoplanes, then jets, concorde, the Jumbo and watched men stand on the moon. He also went from the wireless run off an accumulator, to transistors and TV and ZX81'a and Apple Macs(and used all of the above). Never mind the massive rise of personal communications, or the medical breakthroughs like antibiotics and mass immunisation, or the huge changes in the arts. And that's in one lifetime and folks like him weren't anti science for the most part(and were generally more religious, so it's not that). Today we perceive any changes more IMHO. The mass media and online media makes us feel that way and more and more consumerism tells us changes are happening faster(and we must buy them). Put it another way, the world of today across the board isn't very different to the world of a decade ago and if I transported someone through time from say 05 to today, they'd hardly get future shock with the changes. If I transported someone from 1955 to 1965, they would. If I did the same with someone from 1955 and brought them to 1975 it would feel like an alien world.

Much of the anti science stuff is US based and that's down to their increasingly dumbed down education system in primary and secondary and increasingly at third level too. Their media is getting "dumber" by the year and more lower common denominator. And their is an undercurrent of fear laced through their media on many subjects. And this is the culture that put the aforementioned men on the moon, who drove the IT world, who impacted world culture in a big and usually positive way. Oh and most of those working on projects like Apollo were god fearing "good ol boys" from outside the east/west coasts. A culture that would be more likely to believe in angels and creationism today. It's a damned waste IMH.

Calibos · 15-02-2015 10:53PM

Desolation Of Smug wrote: »

yes, but fcuktards didn't invent nuclear weapons and let hundreds of them off to "test" them. The fcuktards would have toddled on forever. It's the "clever" cnuts that feck it up for everyone.

The fcuktards haven't had a world war with a few 10's of million deaths since.

The M.A.D. principle........Its FANtastic!!

SpaceSasqwatch · 15-02-2015 11:16PM

expectationlost wrote: »

and leftwing anti-vax/anti-fluoride/anti-gmo is a distrust of corporations/government and an undermining of them.

where you going with leftwing?If anything they are capitalists.
Most of the muppets that are against flouride and vacinations have an agenda..ie peddling bollox as an alternative for $$$$$.

Take our own special fuktard aisling fitzgibbon aka The Girl Against Flouride.She repeatedly repeats debunked studies(peer reviewed I might add) to back up her fuktardness.Shes a qaulified angel healer,nutritionist(not a dietician,similar to the difference between a toothologist and a dentist) .The campaign manager for her anti-flouride campaign is her mother and she believes the pill can cause homosexuality.

The mother/daughter pair are also making money selling a cure for autism.
http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2014/03/gaps-in-thinking-irish-times-promoting.html

It would be funny if it wasnt peoples health they fukking about with.

steddyeddy · 15-02-2015 11:18PM

Well scientists shouldn't make government policy IMO but they should advise on it. Feynman and the rest of them were geniuses and they worked on the Manhattan project, later claiming they didn't think of the implications. I'd well believe that. Some scientists only focus on the science and little else. One of Einstein's colleagues in Germany Fritz Haber was a chemist who designed toxic gases upon the outbreak of WW1. Einstein said Haber was a mild mannered man until the outbreak of the war.

Einstein said Haber insisted on being on the front line in order to see the effects of his newly invented chlorine gas. Chlorine is a inhibitory neurotransmitter and inhalation will lead to paralysis, blindness and suffocation as the victim is unable to breathe. So in short it's a nasty weapon. Haber later became known as the father of chemical warfare. This is off topic I know but I wonder how many scientists would go against their ethics when given the chance to study something that fascinates them.

The anti-science movement.

Comments