Laypeople debating science

[Darth Wong]

With all of the websites and public debates out there purporting to "debunk" evolution and Big Bang cosmology, the vast majority of which are made by people with no relevant training, I must wonder: when did it become acceptable for laypeople to debate scientific matters as if they were not laypeople?

Is it arrogance? Contempt for scientists? Do laypeople today simply feel that the attainment of a scientific education is basically worthless, and that years of higher education can be equalled by a few hours of Googling?

One cannot read a debate about creationism without hearing laughably preposterous arguments such as the one where people ask where the mass/energy for the Big Bang came from (note: this question presumes that there was a time at which this mass/energy did not exist, and Big Bang cosmology precludes the existence of such a time), or the one about how there are "gaps" in the fossil record (news flash: fossilization doesn't work well or at all in many environments such as rainforests so the fossil record will always have gaps, but this does not preclude the formulation of scientific theories based on the parts of the fossil record that have been preserved).

And of course, one can go on and on, but I still remember one particular argument I had with someone over the Second Law of Thermodynamics; he gave me a preposterously wrong definition of how it worked, and when I corrected him, he asked if I had a university education in thermodynamics. I answered that I did, and offered to show him my old uni thermo textbook. It was at this point that he quickly changed the subject to his various thermodynamics arguments, all of which were made without any real understanding of thermodynamics. And the fact that he was staring somebody in the face who was actually qualified to discuss thermodynamics didn't seem to faze him at all.

So how did we get to this point? Why are laypeople so contemptuous of those who have taken the time to get a relevant education when they start arguing things like this? Shouldn't there be at least some deference earned by superior qualifications?

[Lord Rahl]

Simple, because science does not explain everything. When that times comes and there is no God, then people won't "get to this point". You make religious people sound like they don't believe in science. That is hardly correct. Also, last time I checked being a pastor was professional.

[Darth Wong]

Simple, because science does not explain everything. When that times comes and there is no God, then people won't "get to this point". You make religious people sound like they don't believe in science. That is hardly correct.

I didn't say anything about religious people. It seems to me that you're trying to transfer some other argument onto this one.

Also, last time I checked being a pastor was professional.

And ... what does that have to do with the problem of people not valuing science?

[the_mango55]

I didn't say anything about religious people. It seems to me that you're trying to transfer some other argument onto this one.

One cannot read a debate about creationism without hearing laughably preposterous arguments such as the one where people ask where the mass/energy for the Big Bang came from (note: this question presumes that there was a time at which this mass/energy did not exist, and Big Bang cosmology precludes the existence of such a time), or the one about how there are "gaps" in the fossil record (news flash: fossilization doesn't work well or at all in many environments such as rainforests so the fossil record will always have gaps, but this does not preclude the formulation of scientific theories based on the parts of the fossil record that have been preserved).

But seriously, I see your points, but people who are experts in religion could say the same about scientists. "when did it become acceptable for laypeople to debate theological matters as if they were not laypeople?"

I think that it is perfactly acceptable, and always has been, for anyone to give their own theories on things, no matter how crazy. People have to use their own judgement when going to sketchy websites of people claiming to "debunk evolution" or "Prove God isn't real" as most of these people are idiots.

[Atheist Peace]

Simple, because science does not explain everything. When that times comes and there is no God, then people won't "get to this point". You make religious people sound like they don't believe in science. That is hardly correct. Also, last time I checked being a pastor was professional.

Right, science doesnt explain everything, but religion explains absolutely nothing. I could make up any story I want about why the universe came into being, and its just as valid as any creationism story. And being a pastor doesn't make you qualified as a scientist, its not related at all.

[Erik]

I don't think it's a problem with laypeople acting as if they know science.
You wil always have those kind of people.
The real problem is people who listen to the laypeople and give them credibility.

Ignorant people only listen to what they want to hear.
If they don't like the things real scientists say they wil listen to the laypeople instead.

I just find it strange that they don't simply admit they dislike science.
If science gives such unsatisfying awnsers, why even listen to laypeoples science?
Why not simply throw science overboard and embrace other sources for the "truth"?
Nobody is forcing them to accept science, why do they even care what scientists say?

ps: before I get flamed, I am not talking about religious people in general, just about all the people who pick and choose what scientific theories they accept.

[Lord Tomyris]

Indeed; while religious, I personally do not discredit the scientific theories and am a firm believer in evolution.

[PacSubCom]

Is it arrogance? Contempt for scientists? Do laypeople today simply feel that the attainment of a scientific education is basically worthless, and that years of higher education can be equalled by a few hours of Googling?

So how did we get to this point? Why are laypeople so contemptuous of those who have taken the time to get a relevant education when they start arguing things like this? Shouldn't there be at least some deference earned by superior qualifications?

It's strange. I guess it's sheer ignorance. They don't know, so they don't know they don't know. People only want to accept what they can understand. And if it additionally contrasts with their pet religious fantasy, all hell breaks loose. Throw some opportunistic "theist authorities" into the mix, so that people have somebody "learned" to quote and as a reassurance. Voila! You have the phenomenon you describe. Then everybody else has to scramble to limit the damage.

Evolution is particular in this regard. As are theories about the beginnings of the universe. These people don't have problems with science in general I guess, they just choose some of its findings. When you see those arrogant scientists and politicians who want to teach your children what you KNOW is wrong (in other words, which is not what you have sucked in with mother's milk) you call the school board. I mean, if you go to church every day for decades and more or less structure your life all around the cross or whatever, then for you, all what is decent is endangered by secular views concerning origins. For many, the "truth" religion provides is the only thing to empower themselves over an uncaring world. They don't want to lose this. And if because of low self esteem or knowledge, you consider youself to be too stupid (or too biased) to learn science...

Maybe we have to accept that our praised higher education doesn't impress everybody.






"Honour thy tool, and keep it ridgid."

I bid you welcome to TWC...Darth Wong.

[First Crusader]

We could say the same thing for many supporters of global warming.

They claim all sorts of new "evidence" that most real scientists don't take seriously.

[Atheist Peace]

We could say the same thing for many supporters of global warming.

They claim all sorts of new "evidence" that most real scientists don't take seriously.

Global warming exists, that's not in question. The question is whether it is because of humans or a natural climate change. And it is based on evidence either way, someone didn't just decide it would be a nice story to make up, like religion.

[visigothe]

we are exiting an ice age

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I guess I don`t have these problems. Then again my field is so specialized that most laypeople don`t even know it exists. Do you guys know what Pedology is? And no it doesn`t have anything to do with children .

[visigothe]

dont soil this thread with your rubbish

[Muizer]

Do you guys know what Pedology is? And no it doesn`t have anything to do with children .

Tell that to our librarians. I once found a journal of pedology filed under "child healthcare" in the database In my experience, the first step to explaining what pedology is to laypeople involves saying you're not looking for oil or gold.

Muizer

[Chiron202]

In some sence I think its okay for laypeople to debate science, but the problem is that laypeople tend to hold their "scientific views" as though they were opinions. Scientists only say that something is truthful based on evidence. When the evidence changes or is discredited in a very obvious and legitimate way, they change their perspectives on what is scientific truth. When laypeople have their "scientific truths" discredited, they cling to them anyway. There lies the problem. Scientific method calls for constant reassesment and reform. Laypeople don't like changing their views away from what they are comfortable with.

[Erik]

Many scientists have the same problem, Chiron.
Something to do with not wanting to throw away 30 years of your own work just because some new kid discovered some new evidence.
It's wrong, but scientists are just human (some are at least).

I always respect scientists who debunked their own theories, like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.
This for me is proof they are real scientists.

[Guderian]

When the evidence changes or is discredited in a very obvious and legitimate way, they change their perspectives on what is scientific truth. When laypeople have their "scientific truths" discredited, they cling to them anyway. There lies the problem.

Exactly.

I always respect scientists who debunked their own theories, like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.
This for me is proof they are real scientists.

Einstein was a stubborn bastard as any He just wouldn't let it go that there wasn't a universal theory of everything, even the he was refuted on many a occasion...But unlike laypeople, he was firmly convinced that his logic was right but his physical testing methods were flawed.

[Saint-Germain]

I reckon the people who gave in with good grace when some other bastard disproved their theories would be more worthy of recognition.

And Darth Wong, you can't expect people to instantly give in in the face of superior credentials. Fancy letters after your name don't make you right :wink:

[Count of Montesano]

Military matters are too important to simply leave to the generals, in the same way science is too important just to leave to scientists. I think there are two different issues here. I wish more laypeople would educate themselves about major scientific problems (pollution, global warming, alternative energy) and get involved. The problem is people don't take the time to become self-educated, any more than they do to learn about important political issues.

[Darth Wong]

Military matters are too important to simply leave to the generals, in the same way science is too important just to leave to scientists.

Does that mean you would suggest that generals in the field be replaced by people with no military training?

I think there are two different issues here. I wish more laypeople would educate themselves about major scientific problems (pollution, global warming, alternative energy) and get involved. The problem is people don't take the time to become self-educated, any more than they do to learn about important political issues.

There are very few people whose "self-education" even remotely approaches the level of rigour and work required for a university degree. And even if one tried really hard, the problem with "self education" is that there no exams or graded assignments, hence no one out there to identify your errors and help you correct them. You can go off on a completely invalid path, miss some crucial element, and no one will tell you.