People with extreme anti-science views know the least...

[Hieronymus]

....

Look, i'm not here to waste my time with frustration.
Maybe better to put you on my ignore list then, because it seems impossible to have a discussion.
So when i don't reply to you anymore, you know why.
No offense to you as a person.
It's just as much my weakness, i guess.

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you object to the naturalistic theory that explains and predicts orbital motions in the solar system?

You know the answer and your trap isn't working.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You know the answer and your trap isn't working.

Well, since I know the answer, here it is.

Of course I, Hieronymus, do not object to celestial mechanics. It accurately predicts and explains past and future events throughout the solar system. However, I believe God set all these planets and asteroids and whatnot into motion at some point and oversaw everything to the minutest detail to ensure that things unfolded according to her plan. This does not detract in any way from the naturalistic explanation, nor does it contradict the scientific explanation in any detail.

Similarly, when we turn to biology, I think God had her hand in everything, but given that the theory of evolution is extremely well-established based on the evidence, I would be rash to contradict it. My theism is entirely compatible with biology on a great many issues. While God in some sense oversees everything, just like she does the motions of the planets, the mechanics of cellular respiration follow all the naturalistic explanations to a T. But in other areas, like evolution, I have some objections to the theory, but no evidence to offer that contradicts the established theory. Mostly, I have alluded to 'purpose'. If I thought about it for a while, I might come to see that the same divine purpose I see in the solar system can also be seen in the things of biology -- and in neither case, would I necessarily have to reject the scientific explanations of these things.

 

[Zetetica]

In the context of the study, they looked at opposition to GMOs and opposition to gene therapy to correct genetic disorders (where they saw the effect described in the OP), and denial of human-caused climate change denial (where they didn't).

Beyond that, there are any number of anti-science (or pseudoscience) views:

Flat earthism
Young Earth Creationism
Vaccines are harmful
Homeopathy
Astrology
Psychic powers are real

I am not expressing my personal views or beliefs here, I’m simply taking a critical approach to what you have listed as “anti-science “ views.

1. List the evidence for a spherical model. Ideally, evidence which hasn’t yet been rendered as inconclusive.

2. Provide indisputable evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

3. Prove the safety of injecting an infant with 6-16+ vaccinations.

4. Prove homeopathy impotent.

5. I agree on that one. There is no scientific basis to warrant astrology as credible.

6. There is evidence of extraordinary perception and super-normal ability in humans. I wouldn’t label these “psychic powers” but there is evidence for a variety of super-normal abilities.

 

[Tinker Grey]

5. I agree on that one. There is no scientific basis to warrant astrology as credible.

Cool. Then you won't mind being asked: Prove astrology impotent.

 

[Zetetica]

Cool. Then you won't mind being asked: Prove astrology impotent.

Can I prove a negative? I simply see no evidence that the motion of bodies or lights above, influences human personality or destiny.

Correlation is not proof of influence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Can I prove a negative? I simply see no evidence that the motion of bodies or lights above, influences human personality or destiny.

So WRT homeopathy, isn't it sufficient to say "we simply see no evidence that" homeopathy has any influence on human health?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am not expressing my personal views or beliefs here, I’m simply taking a critical approach to what you have listed as “anti-science “ views.

They are outside (in some cases, far outside) the bounds of established science.

Are you disputing that these views are 'anti-science'?

If you want to dispute whether any of these views are correct or not, please take that to a new thread. This thread is about some psychological aspects of people who have extreme anti science views.

 

[Zetetica]

They are outside (in some cases, far outside) the bounds of established science.

Are you disputing that these views are 'anti-science'?

If you want to dispute whether any of these views are correct or not, please take that to a new thread. This thread is about some psychological aspects of people who have extreme anti science views.

I don’t consider any of the views you have listed to be “extreme anti-science”.

My questions to you are relevant to the topic, since your entire premise is based on a flawed assumption that “anti-science” views exist in enough of the population to be surveyed accurately, let alone for psychological studies to be conducted on persons holding these views.

 

[Zetetica]

So WRT homeopathy, isn't it sufficient to say "we simply see no evidence that" homeopathy has any influence on human health?

There are accounts but not a sufficient amount to prove validity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don’t consider any of the views you have listed to be “extreme anti-science”.

The extreme was not about the anti-science, but about how strongly held the anti-science positions were. This is the source of the correlation: strength of the view held, with higher self-assessed knowledge, but lower objective knowledge.

"The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics"

My questions to you are relevant to the topic, since your entire premise is based on a flawed assumption that “anti-science” views exist in enough of the population to be surveyed accurately

One study involved more than 900 people with views against GMOs. Why is that not enough?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Think one this: There are no nonbelievers in hell.

Atheists should be safe then

 

[Sound Doctrine]

Atheists should be safe then

Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is why there are no nonbelievers in hell. By the time you are sent there, you will know who sent you, unless of course you turn from sin and to the Savior of our sins. We are all sinners, and faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord who resurrected from the dead saves us from our sins and from eternal torment (the second death, the first being physical death).

 

[Zetetica]

The extreme was not about the anti-science, but about how strongly held the anti-science positions were. This is the source of the correlation: strength of the view held, with higher self-assessed knowledge, but lower objective knowledge.

"The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics"



One study involved more than 900 people with views against GMOs. Why is that not enough?

Views against GMOs by laypersons shouldn’t be considered as relevant, outside of being accepted as uninformed conclusions, (not having intimate knowledge on the subject).

For example, I can’t agree or disagree that “GMOs are deadly to humans health”, simply because I lack intimate knowledge of genetics. While I can read various claims, papers, and so on, at the end of it all, I don’t work with genetics; I only have opinions, based on what I’ve read from various parties.

 

[Hieronymus]

So WRT homeopathy, isn't it sufficient to say "we simply see no evidence that" homeopathy has any influence on human health?

Big pharma, big power, big business.
Ideally no healing but dependency.

 

[Hieronymus]

Views against GMOs by laypersons shouldn’t be considered as relevant, outside of being accepted as uninformed conclusions, (not having intimate knowledge on the subject).

For example, I can’t agree or disagree that “GMOs are deadly to humans health”, simply because I lack intimate knowledge of genetics. While I can read various claims, papers, and so on, at the end of it all, I don’t work with genetics; I only have opinions, based on what I’ve read from various parties.

But it's not JUST about health of the consumer.
It's about messing with nature for monopoly and big bucks.
It's about patenting products of nature and making small farming illegal unless they use their seeds, and things like that.
As a lay person i oppose these things for good reasons.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is why there are no nonbelievers in hell. By the time you are sent there, you will know who sent you, unless of course you turn from sin and to the Savior of our sins. We are all sinners, and faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord who resurrected from the dead saves us from our sins and from eternal torment (the second death, the first being physical death).

Lol! I hope mighty Zeus will forgive your rash words

 

[Zetetica]

But it's not JUST about health of the consumer.
It's about messing with nature for monopoly and big bucks.
It's about patenting products of nature and making small farming illegal unless they use their seeds, and things like that.
As a lay person i oppose these things for good reasons.

Your reasons are sound and I agree with them. You’re not opposing the science, you’re opposing the consequences and matters pertaining to new laws.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Views against GMOs by laypersons shouldn’t be considered as relevant, outside of being accepted as uninformed conclusions, (not having intimate knowledge on the subject).

Nobody says they are relevant (to the question of whether GMOs are safe to consume). However, on their own, as a matter of psychology, these views can be an object of study. Hence, the study, which discovered some interesting and valid correlations.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This is why there are no nonbelievers in hell. By the time you are sent there, you will know who sent you, unless of course you turn from sin and to the Savior of our sins. We are all sinners, and faith and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord who resurrected from the dead saves us from our sins and from eternal torment (the second death, the first being physical death).

Cool story.