Why do those who don't understand even basic science offer opinions on it anyway?

[KevinKohler]

If gun liberties supporters would apply that standard to literally every other field--education, science, diplomacy, taxes, sex, women's rights, civil rights, etc.--then I would treat their positions with a lot more respect. But that respect is earned, not entitled.

Some do, some don't. Just like any other group of people.

 

[gfm7175]

A very good question... let's look into it together...

Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway

Irrelevant. One only needs a basic understanding of science to offer opinions on evolution. Science is a set of falsifiable theories; that's all science is. Evolution is a non-falsifiable theory, therefore it is NOT science. It is, instead, a religion. This comment of yours is also Bigotry towards Creationists, since you infer that they all don't understand that Law from the truth that a few of them don't understand that Law.

Anti-Vaxxers -- have no idea what neutrophils are, or how herd immunity works,but offer opinions on vaccinations anyway

You'd have to be more specific here... I personally am all for vaccinations.

Anti-GMO activists -- don't know even what ATGC means, but offer opinions on GMOs anyway

You'd have to be more specific here... I am not informed enough on GMOs to make an intelligent statement about them.

Alternative Medicine wackos -- think anything "natural" is OK, without understanding even VERY BASIC biochemistry, and that all medications are ultimately derived from naturally occurring substances.

"Derived from natural substances" and "natural substances" are two different things. I mix in some apple cider vinegar with my water/apple juice when I have heartburn (or before I eat something that will typically end up giving me heartburn), and it alleviates (prevents) heartburn. I'm not knowledgeable about why it does that, or if it's even supposed to do that, but I just know from experience that it works for me.

AGW deniers are no different. They don't understand how the Greenhouse effect works,

There is no such thing as the 'greenhouse effect'... It denies the Stefan Boltzman Law, among other Laws of science.

don't understand the EM spectrum, isotopic ratios, are utterly ignorant about BASIC chemistry, physics,geology and climatology. Most of the time they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet they form opinions on this topic, and strongly voice them anyway.

Irrelevant, because global warming (climate change) are both Void Arguments... They are arguments based on meaningless buzzwords. Those words can't be defined in a non-circular fashion, so the arguments that stem from them are void. Any basic understanding of Logic shows you that much...

 

[uptower]

The government is who is financing the studies claiming climate change means the government should impose massive fees and fines that go into the pocket of government. Look who is paying for the climate change studies. It is the government directly or thru grants.

Or the eventual goal: polluters clean up their act and stop causing externalities. Or you could be cynical and believe that govt only wants the fees. There are many solutions to pollution after all and many steps govt and industry can take, but this thread is not about the merits of each.

This does not mean the science behind it is wrong.

 

[joko104]

Or the eventual goal: polluters clean up their act and stop causing externalities. Or you could be cynical and believe that govt only wants the fees. There are many solutions to pollution after all and many steps govt and industry can take, but this thread is not about the merits of each.

This does not mean the science behind it is wrong.

What? Virtually all concerns about "pollution" have been erased to instead talk about "climate change," which isn't much different that debating whether tomorrow will probably be warmer than night sometime shortly after sunup.

 

[uptower]

Pollutants cause climate change as well. I would say you're right, a lot of the debate has shifted in that direction. However the EPA and similar agencies in other still have to deal with day to day factory spills, emissions standards and other safety concerns. Big tobacco for example used to challenge the science behind that, as did/do producers of certain pesticides and herbicides. So there has always been a lot of science-denial coming from those who have a vested interest in not being forced to clean up their act.

that is by far the simpler explanation - because it has already been proven over the decades - than a nefarious govt plot to make stuff up in order to raise taxes. They can do that on their own anyway.

 

[concernedpuma]

Because we human beings like to talk.

That's why we have a mouth.

Like most members, I want to blow off steam, even if I do not know what I am talking about.

That's why the dictionary lists the word "opinion."

What is a little curious is the elevated platform the poster granted to themselves. Science is constantly changing, and to assume one is the depot for perpetual Scientific truth's isn't only vain, it is laughable. Had the DP exited in times past, the poster would be defending the use of leeches to cure angry blood, or repeating the Scientific surety that going too far will result in falling off the earth. Science is interesting and it is all we have today, but I have yet to see a responsible Scientist not preface their words with... current thinking is, or based on this we believe....
Has anyone witnessed a Reputable Scientist say; this is the final truth, and nothing more need be added, or changed?
Regards,
CP

 

[AlbqOwl]

Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway
Anti-Vaxxers -- have no idea what neutrophils are, or how herd immunity works,but offer opinions on vaccinations anyway
Anti-GMO activists -- don't know even what ATGC means, but offer opinions on GMOs anyway
Alternative Medicine wackos -- think anything "natural" is OK, without understanding even VERY BASIC biochemistry, and that all medications are ultimately derived from naturally occurring substances.

AGW deniers are no different. They don't understand how the Greenhouse effect works, don't understand the EM spectrum, isotopic ratios, are utterly ignorant about BASIC chemistry, physics,geology and climatology. Most of the time they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet they form opinions on this topic, and strongly voice them anyway.

So my question is why? My guess is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is sometimes bolstered by a belief in conspiracy theories.

NOTE: For some reason, I was not given the option of offering possible responses. My guess is because of my (now deleted) poll about Trump's IQ yesterday.

But what of us who DO know what neutrophils are and what herd immunity is and who can explain the Law of Superposition and do have at least a rudimenaryunderstanding of ATCG--it is ATCG instead of ATGC as you wrote it--and passed their biology and chemistry and other science courses in highschool and college? I claim absolutely zero expertise in any of those things, but I am familiar enough with each to ask appropriate questions and to understand most of what I read. Should I not be allowed opinion on any of them?

What if the so-called experts were to be believed in everything they report. To be trusted without exception because they are smarter in these things than we are? What of us who have studied the history of the development of scientific theory and hypothesis? I can assure you the accepted body of scientific knowledge over the centuries has been shown to be gravely in error if not flat out wrong more than it has gotten right. Do we assume now that science and scientists have evolved so that there is no more room to question or to grow or to improve knowledge? Is it certain that all scientists are 100% honorable, reliable, and trustworthy and never look to their own personal/political interests when it comes to scientific opinion?

And what of those who are open minded enough to conceive of a Creator who is the author of the universe and science and all that is included in it? Can anybody say for certain that there is not?

God help us when it is only those with certain credentials who are allowed to have opinions and to dictate what the rest of us must believe.

 

[Xelor]

Why do those who don't understand even basic science offer opinions on it anyway?

Now there's a question for which I wish I had an answer because if I had that, I could sell it to Pfizer and they could create a pill to cure people of that affliction.

 

[concernedpuma]

But what of us who DO know what neutrophils are and what herd immunity is and who can explain the Law of Superposition and do have at least a rudimenaryunderstanding of ATCG--it is ATCG instead of ATGC as you wrote it--and passed their biology and chemistry and other science courses in highschool and college? I claim absolutely zero expertise in any of those things, but I am familiar enough with each to ask appropriate questions and to understand most of what I read. Should I not be allowed opinion on any of them?

What if the so-called experts were to be believed in everything they report. To be trusted without exception because they are smarter in these things than we are? What of us who have studied the history of the development of scientific theory and hypothesis? I can assure you the accepted body of scientific knowledge over the centuries has been shown to be gravely in error if not flat out wrong more than it has gotten right. Do we assume now that science and scientists have evolved so that there is no more room to question or to grow or to improve knowledge? Is it certain that all scientists are 100% honorable, reliable, and trustworthy and never look to their own personal/political interests when it comes to scientific opinion?

And what of those who are open minded enough to conceive of a Creator who is the author of the universe and science and all that is included in it? Can anybody say for certain that there is not?

God help us when it is only those with certain credentials who are allowed to have opinions and to dictate what the rest of us must believe.

Well put. The end of discovery will be a sad day indeed. But, not to worry, that won't happen.
Regards,
CP

 

[Xelor]

I would ask the exact same question of gun control advocates.


Everyone wants to micro manage things they don't understand.

I bet you would....

 

[concernedpuma]

Now there's a question for which I wish I had an answer because if I had that, I could sell it to Pfizer and they could create a pill to cure people of that affliction.

Yeah. How about a pill for pseudo-profundity as well?

 

[Renae]

1) We don't have a fundamental difference regarding the cause of Global Warming. You just don't see it as a problem.
2) IN fairness, I had to explain to you that changes in ice sheets and thermal expansion DO play a role in sea level changes as seen in the Mesozoic. You don't need an asteroid impact to change them.
3) You don't need to understand v=f*lambda to understand the Greenhouse Effect, or the role GHGs play in it.

Inert gas of several parts per million is gonna wreck the world!!! unless we all agree to huge costs in energy, lower standards of living.. well unless you're in the elite group, then you can harp on it in your manion as you rest from yachting as you wait for SUV convey to take you to your private plane because you wanted breakfast in Paris...

 

[concernedpuma]

Inert gas of several parts per million is gonna wreck the world!!! unless we all agree to huge costs in energy, lower standards of living.. well unless you're in the elite group, then you can harp on it in your manion as you rest from yachting as you wait for SUV convey to take you to your private plane because you wanted breakfast in Paris...

The absolute height of Human vanity is to make the leap that anything we do will change the Cosmos. Global warming - How about Ice ages? Good luck with warming the planet with all your carbon dioxide when that cold term rolls around!
Regards,
CP

 

[polgara]

But what of us who DO know what neutrophils are and what herd immunity is and who can explain the Law of Superposition and do have at least a rudimenaryunderstanding of ATCG--it is ATCG instead of ATGC as you wrote it--and passed their biology and chemistry and other science courses in highschool and college? I claim absolutely zero expertise in any of those things, but I am familiar enough with each to ask appropriate questions and to understand most of what I read. Should I not be allowed opinion on any of them?

What if the so-called experts were to be believed in everything they report. To be trusted without exception because they are smarter in these things than we are? What of us who have studied the history of the development of scientific theory and hypothesis? I can assure you the accepted body of scientific knowledge over the centuries has been shown to be gravely in error if not flat out wrong more than it has gotten right. Do we assume now that science and scientists have evolved so that there is no more room to question or to grow or to improve knowledge? Is it certain that all scientists are 100% honorable, reliable, and trustworthy and never look to their own personal/political interests when it comes to scientific opinion?

And what of those who are open minded enough to conceive of a Creator who is the author of the universe and science and all that is included in it? Can anybody say for certain that there is not?

God help us when it is only those with certain credentials who are allowed to have opinions and to dictate what the rest of us must believe.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Well said! !!! :thumbs:

 

[Felis Leo]

Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway
Anti-Vaxxers -- have no idea what neutrophils are, or how herd immunity works,but offer opinions on vaccinations anyway
Anti-GMO activists -- don't know even what ATGC means, but offer opinions on GMOs anyway
Alternative Medicine wackos -- think anything "natural" is OK, without understanding even VERY BASIC biochemistry, and that all medications are ultimately derived from naturally occurring substances.

AGW deniers are no different. They don't understand how the Greenhouse effect works, don't understand the EM spectrum, isotopic ratios, are utterly ignorant about BASIC chemistry, physics,geology and climatology. Most of the time they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet they form opinions on this topic, and strongly voice them anyway.

So my question is why? My guess is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is sometimes bolstered by a belief in conspiracy theories.

NOTE: For some reason, I was not given the option of offering possible responses. My guess is because of my (now deleted) poll about Trump's IQ yesterday.

I would add anti-Nuclear Power fanatics who want the cleanest form of energy on Earth to be ended, and hyperexaggerate the dangers of nuclear power.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread Closed