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

[essentialsaltes]

but think they know the most: study

The study involved genetically modified organisms, where there is little political bias to confuse the issue.

The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics, but the more their “self-assessed” knowledge — how much they thought they knew — increased.

“If somebody is well calibrated, those two things should be pretty highly correlated: If I know how much I know, then if I know a little I should say I know a little, and if I know a lot I should say I know a lot,” Fernbach explained. “Therefore there should be a high correlation between self-assessed and objective knowledge.

“And indeed, that’s actually true for the people who are moderate, or people who have the attitude that is consistent with the scientific consensus,” he said.

However, as people become more extreme, that relationship degrades and flips so that people who think they know more actually know less.

 

[Zetetica]

Do me a favor if you would, define science.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Interestingly, the study says the pattern did not emerge with opposition to Climate Change. So, those that deny climate change are not as unaware of the science thereof.

I think it was an obvious conclusion regarding GM foods, as opposition to them is usually coupled to worship of the 'natural'. So herbalism, homeopathy, etc. and such quackery is obviously overly represented in those opposed to GM foods. So I doubt it can be generalised to "anti-science knows the least" at all. The internal validity may be sound (though I haven't checked that in depth), but its external validity or application in general is probably not. Not really sure what is meant by the 'Scientific Consensus', as this seems a protean term that can be readily bandied about. This is why Medicine has Evidence-Based Medicine and Consensus Conferences are a thing of the past.

 

[Zoii]

I read the paper that the article you linked referred to. Its an interesting piece of research. It has significant value as well, particularly in an age where their is downward pressure on Science. That downward pressure is perpetuated by well financed lobby groups - eg carbon polluting companies who seduce the public to vilify climate scientists.

You end up with those having no scientific or professional qualifications or experience in climatology, influencing critical programs that affect the welfare of our planet.... ie the ones who know the least, professing to know the most, and having influence over those who actually know what they are talking about.

 

[A_Thinker]

Do me a favor if you would, define science.

Science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[dzheremi]

Well yeah. This is true in every field. Like the quote almost says: if you know how much you know (say because you've studied it to the point of getting a degree in the subject or whatever), then you probably know that there's a lot out there that you don't know, and moderate your opinion accordingly. You recognize that you still have a lot left to learn. Whereas if you read a few blog or forum posts, or watch a dozen YouTube videos, and then decide that you've learned all there is to know, you're not going to wonder what else is out there. Your learning is finished once you see the thing that you are convinced by, not once you've obtained the background necessary to actually know what knowledge of the topic really looks like. It's sad not only because people's egos are out of whack -- it also leaves them open to scammers and predators of all types.

 

[Zetetica]

Science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Thank you. I'm certainly not a science denier then. Therefore, by your logic, how much do I know?

 

[devin553344]

but think they know the most: study

The study involved genetically modified organisms, where there is little political bias to confuse the issue.

The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics, but the more their “self-assessed” knowledge — how much they thought they knew — increased.

“If somebody is well calibrated, those two things should be pretty highly correlated: If I know how much I know, then if I know a little I should say I know a little, and if I know a lot I should say I know a lot,” Fernbach explained. “Therefore there should be a high correlation between self-assessed and objective knowledge.

“And indeed, that’s actually true for the people who are moderate, or people who have the attitude that is consistent with the scientific consensus,” he said.

However, as people become more extreme, that relationship degrades and flips so that people who think they know more actually know less.

You will probably notice that most people that deny the sciences often benefit themselves by going to doctors, driving cars, using the internet, watching TV, using cell phones, etc. But then there are the Amish colonies. Some people choose not to advance with technology. And I find that technology is proof that science is reality. In other words if a cell phone works to communicate around the earth, then perhaps science is correct.

Perhaps some just think scientific enlightenment is evil? Something worldly?

Some tend to not want to take advantage of what the world has to offer.

 

[Dale]

but think they know the most: study

The study involved genetically modified organisms, where there is little political bias to confuse the issue.

The more extreme the opposition, Fernbach and his co-authors found, the less people knew about the science and genetics, but the more their “self-assessed” knowledge — how much they thought they knew — increased.

“If somebody is well calibrated, those two things should be pretty highly correlated: If I know how much I know, then if I know a little I should say I know a little, and if I know a lot I should say I know a lot,” Fernbach explained. “Therefore there should be a high correlation between self-assessed and objective knowledge.

“And indeed, that’s actually true for the people who are moderate, or people who have the attitude that is consistent with the scientific consensus,” he said.

However, as people become more extreme, that relationship degrades and flips so that people who think they know more actually know less.

When I was a kid, they used to tell me:
"The more you know, the more there is to know."

 

[Cis.jd]

I have never seen/experienced such anti-reason in any other forum other than theology boards. It pains me to see the levels of irrationality and just disinterest in "unscriptural" evidence or realistic philosophy from posters here. I am sort of debating with myself in staying here - maybe i should just stop posting on this forum in order to save myself as being identified as a christian.

 

[Kylie]

Do me a favor if you would, define science.

A systematic investigation of the world/universe around us using methods based in logic and reason that are testable and repeatable so that they may be verified by others who can follow the techniques and processes we use.

 

[Kylie]

Interestingly, the study says the pattern did not emerge with opposition to Climate Change. So, those that deny climate change are not as unaware of the science thereof.

I've seen that climate change is more politically charged than other areas of science. That could have an effect.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I read the paper that the article you linked referred to. Its an interesting piece of research. It has significant value as well, particularly in an age where their is downward pressure on Science. That downward pressure is perpetuated by well financed lobby groups - eg carbon polluting companies who seduce the public to vilify climate scientists.

You end up with those having no scientific or professional qualifications or experience in climatology, influencing critical programs that affect the welfare of our planet.... ie the ones who know the least, professing to know the most, and having influence over those who actually know what they are talking about.

From the abstract of the journal article:

"This pattern did not emerge, however, for attitudes and beliefs about climate change."

So the applicability and value in that regard is neglible.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Science- The study of the way God did things .

 

[Norbert L]

The are related issues with that which turns into a problem for the scientific field. Using the fact that a segment of society is ignorant about present day scientific conclusions can keep science stagnant.

The scientific method goes under continual refinement. What was once believed as a rock solid fact and held as a consensus by scientists, with later research is proven wrong. From the history within the scientific community there is also a resistance to believing their own knowledge is actually obsolete and antiquated.

To inject a quote from that article. Scientists also can have "an inflated sense of what they actually know."

 

[A_Thinker]

Thank you. I'm certainly not a science denier then. Therefore, by your logic, how much do I know?

I don't know you ...

 

[A_Thinker]

You will probably notice that most people that deny the sciences often benefit themselves by going to doctors, driving cars, using the internet, watching TV, using cell phones, etc. But then there are the Amish colonies.

Some people choose not to advance with technology. And I find that technology is proof that science is reality. In other words if a cell phone works to communicate around the earth, then perhaps science is correct.

Perhaps some just think scientific enlightenment is evil? Something worldly?

I agree with all of your points here ...

 

[A_Thinker]

When I was a kid, they used to tell me:
"The more you know, the more there is to know."

I, generally, find this to be true.

For instance, study outward ... has yielded the solar system, the galaxies, the universe.

OTOH, study inward has yielded cells, molecules, atoms, quantum particles, etc.

It certainly seems neverending ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I am sort of debating with myself in staying here - maybe i should just stop posting on this forum in order to save myself as being identified as a christian.

By being here, you show that you are, at the least, interested in Christian opinion ...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is pretty hard to define "moderate". I tend to think that almost any subject has infinite depth to be known. Getting a bachelors degree in s subject might be considered moderate or extensive. But compared to PhD and beyond it is minimal. The more one learns the more one realizes how little of a subject she or he knows.