Why are so many people wary of science?

[dementis]

Because it pushes us into new places, alot of people *cough* religion *cough* would rather stay in bliss ignorance and say a giant man in the sky does it all rather than figure out how the universe works and how we can use it.

Oh and to all the people who are saying scientists lie, well every religion has been doing that for hundreds, probably thousands of years and it hardly bothers anyone.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

As a scientist in the making I feel that I should say something about the topic here.

1. Negative experiences
Think of all the people in High-School who were confronted with science not understanding (because they were not interested, couldn't get the math etc.) a thing but still having to get some kind of good grade out of it - do not tell me most of these people have a favorable view of science later on....

2. Negative images of scientists
As said multiple times here, scientists are either perceived as having a permanent god-complex thus playing with forces they do not understand (e.g. Frankenstein) or as the naive always-confused good natured theoretician completely oblivious to the world and of possible consequences of his research (e.g. Doc-Brown). These types do certainly not embody some kind responsibility or understanding for their work at all and since they are constantly present in the media...well...

3. Wrong picture of science in general
As far as I see it, science is not pure truth. As mentioned above science consists mainly in modelling certain measured phenomena in nature through mathematic methods - it does not claim to hold THE truth. It never did. The only thing it provides are models for calculating the behaviour of nature - we can see some of the inner workings of nature through it, true, but it is ALWAYS an approximation used to generate usable models. In this sense I personally see science not as a means of gathering objective truths but to generate something we can actually use for our advantage, e.g. to cure diseases or find new sources of power.
I would also see this point as the root of the so-often named conflict between science and religion - there is no conflict as science does not claim THE truth....Religion is always implementable in scientific models for example by God as the maker of Darwinism or the Big Bang...

And don't get me wrong here: I personally hate religion with a passion - I just think this conflict is mainly artificial made up by stupid, egocentrical people who need something they can bash to get them some sense of community....

 

[Cptn_Squishy]

After reading a couple of topics here and else where it struck me that a good percentage of people seem to either harbour doubts about science or openly admit to not trusting scientists in general.
So fellow escapists what do you think about science, scientists and why do some many people dislike "science" overall?

Because political pundits told us to be afraid of science and education, and if you can't trust them who CAN you trust?

 

[flamingjimmy]

Science is good as it helps us know more about the world around us and how and why everything works. People don't like science for various reasons, but some don't trust it as it's always changing. Years ago, science said the world was flat. Yes, that was a long LONG time ago, but it still helps to show the point.

But it's wrong. People have known the world was flat since long before 0 ad

The scientific method was invented in the latter half of the last millenium, over a thousand years after everybody already knew that the earth was round. Science never said that the world was flat, science hadn't been invented when people thought that the world was flat.

 

[feather240]

Science is good as it helps us know more about the world around us and how and why everything works. People don't like science for various reasons, but some don't trust it as it's always changing. Years ago, science said the world was flat. Yes, that was a long LONG time ago, but it still helps to show the point.

Actually, years ago, it was the church who said the world was flat. It also said the earth was the center of the universe.

yes the church did say this....as did the scientists of the day. as it happens my exam tomorrow (which im increasingly becomming frustrated with the studying for) involves the scientific revolution of us changing from a geocentric theory of the universe to a heliocentric theory.

Weren't scientists and the church integrated at that time?

 

[Del-Toro]

I'm all for science, as long as we plebs are still allowed to ask questions and put the screws to scientist's theories. If the theory put forward is punched full of wholes by the plebs asking the right questions, then you can tell that it needs more work. We can't just believe everything someone in a lab coat says because he's wearing a lab coat.


Also, in regards to Galilei, everyone is sounding like the church should have up and believed him unconditionally. I don't care what someone calls themselves, if some guy starts screaming that one of the fundamental facts of the world around me is wrong and that we should believe him because of his fancy far off looking device, I'd tell him to prove it to me or shut up. Although I suppose the whole "heresy" thing was quite overboard.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I think it stems from the whole "If its natural/bio it is good. If its from a lab its unnatural and therefore bad" despite the two things being the same (nitrogen from a plant is the say as nitrogen obtained from ammonia).

Personally I love science. Science is brilliant. Really, really brilliant. I love gaining knowledge and I feel science is great for this pursuit.

I am also fully against the whole natural/bio vs chemical/lab made thing since I KNOW its the same thing. And lastly I will always love science for making blue. I like blue candy and blue slushies. And I know they're not natural. And as such I'm thanking science for that, if nothing else.

 

[katsabas]

Science has always been fun to follow. Gamma rays, the LHC that will someday divide by zero and fuck us all up but one should never take the words of scientists at face value. Proof is what we should be treated with when we are dealing with this kind of stuff.

Also, religion and science are better non-mixed. Religion responds to the Who question. Science explains the way. They are not the same.

 

[Cmwissy]

Most people see the face of science as

Spoiler: this...

Which of course makes them wary that science is for pedantic 'nerd' characters and is not for the common man, although science really is

Spoiler: this

a beautiful study of the natural world and all of existence, which can relate to anybody.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Yes some people were paid to lie about it but that doesnt prove anything except that their are plenty corrupt people who will doing anything for a quick buck.

I'm sorry, are we discussing Science or Religion here?

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Jurassic Park, Frankenstein, The Day After Tomorrow, I Am Legend, Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, E.T, Half Life, and many, many, many other instances of scientific destruction. Take your pick.

Frankenstein's Monster didn't destroy anything, he just wanted peace, it was all the ignorant bible humping villagers that made him rage

 

[voetballeeuw]

I think it's mainly the lack of trust

 

[thats it exclamation]

[

Im a hardcore Christian and i think science is great... does that also baffle you?

same an im lookin foreward to studyin genetics

 

[unoleian]

After reading a couple of topics here and else where it struck me that a good percentage of people seem to either harbour doubts about science or openly admit to not trusting scientists in general.
So fellow escapists what do you think about science, scientists and why do some many people dislike "science" overall?

I dunno about 'disliking' science, but the very processes of science involve actively questioning everything. If someone posits a theory, you better believe it will be questioned. If it was simply accepted, we'd still think the Earth was the center of the universe.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

After reading a couple of topics here and else where it struck me that a good percentage of people seem to either harbour doubts about science or openly admit to not trusting scientists in general.
So fellow escapists what do you think about science, scientists and why do some many people dislike "science" overall?

I don't dislike science, but I am worried that scientists in certain fields are not fully aware of the consenquences certain discoveries and advances might bring. For example, scientists in the robotics field are so enthusiastic about their work (not saying they shouldn't be) that they might forget the risk of making robots too advanced and having them try to replace us.

Sure, it sounds like a silly reason for concern. But when you try to play god, things start to go wrong...really, really wrong.

 

[DracoSuave]

After reading a couple of topics here and else where it struck me that a good percentage of people seem to either harbour doubts about science or openly admit to not trusting scientists in general.
So fellow escapists what do you think about science, scientists and why do some many people dislike "science" overall?

I don't dislike science, but I am worried that scientists in certain fields are not fully aware of the consenquences certain discoveries and advances might bring. For example, scientists in the robotics field are so enthusiastic about their work (not saying they shouldn't be) that they might forget the risk of making robots too advanced and having them try to replace us.

Sure, it sounds like a silly reason for concern. But when you try to play god, things start to go wrong...really, really wrong.

The aspect of robotics that has to do with 'intellegence' is called cybernetics. Cybernetics is actually a study of how humans think, as much as how to emulate that with robots.

But most of the work they're doing with robots isn't going to come out with a killer robot AI that sees us as irrelevant with the tools to do so. There's too many safeguards put into it like "The robot doesn't have the capacity to learn." The reason is, they just don't combine the two that often. Sure, that robot might -look- like an android, but it's just responding to preprogrammed commands that make it -look- like it's emulating realistic movements. It doesn't even have think and is less advanced that the video game you just popped into your ps3.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I blame Hollywood. Rarely if ever have they shown science (movies) to be in a positive light. Maybe alot of movie funding comes from anti-scientific religous groups dedicated to bringing people back to a time where they had absolute power and authority.

 

[mb16]

After reading a couple of topics here

was one about things going light speed?

 

[Kayevcee]

... most of the time, the people who report science to non-scientists aren't scientists themselves and so they get shit wrong, focus on the bad parts and generally screw it all up.

Bingo. Newspaper reporters study journalism, so their scientific understanding is usually nothing beyond high school level. Of course, future writers tend to select language-centric over scientific subjects so they might not even have that. They are trained from the word go to find the "hook"- the part of the report that will grab the reader's attention.

Often with an otherwise dry story about a new experiment or invention, "what might go wrong" is the only hook the writer can see so they focus on that. Thus the LHC becomes the Apocalypse Machine, GM becomes "Frankenfoods" (seriously, a UK tabloid essentially led the crusade to ban GM crops from British fields- and won) and so on.

The sad truth is that by the rules of journalism, the writer is doing exactly what he or she is supposed to be doing. As long as they keep letting people who don't understand the subject matter write pages of text on it on very short notice, then average people are going to view science news and developments in general with suspicion.

Maybe once the news media has migrated more onto the internet, papers will be able to take submissions from a wider range of staff? Probably not, but whaddya gonna do?

-Nick

 

[Double A]

They see what destruction (read: awesome) science can cause in the wrong hands, and assume everyone who believes in science wants to test nuclear weapons on New York City.

Science is a process of trial and error. Some people are turning it into a religion unto itself. This is what worries me, because it is as corrosive to real science as battery acid is to teeth.

Hey, at least it tastes better than tooth paste.