Scientists and knowledge

So here's a general question... inspired by the fracking thread because I can see where this is going...

When a car mechanic tells you a bearing needs swapping people respect his knowledge and experience.

When a plumber knows more about plumbing than you do you assume her arrogant for knowing about her trade?

So why does everyone immediately distrust scientists and doctors and call them arrogant when they manifestly know more than you?

Serious question.

As a scientist both subject to questioning in fields in which I am well educated and guilty of questioning things in which I am not a specialist I think this is going to be very interesting and very complicated.

One of the problems we have is that all science is lumped in together. Some science is more definitive than other science. In physics everything comes with figures of merit, uncertainties and confidence levels. Not all science is like that, so I am naturally more dubious about "softer" science which could offer such figures of merit but by convention doesn't.

On the other hand we're all subject to confirmation bias: More inclined to accept evidence if it supports what we would like to believe. I know I am.

I generally don't mind when non-experrts question my view of my own field. I think it's healthy. And at least if they ask, then they hear the answers and perhaps in some cases I can help then to eventually come around. It also helps me to have my views challenged, otherwise it might not occur to me to question them and that's dangerous for somebody who likes to be right.

So here's a general question... inspired by the fracking thread because I can see where this is going...

 

When a car mechanic tells you a bearing needs swapping people respect his knowledge and experience.

 

When a plumber knows more about plumbing than you do you assume her arrogant for knowing about her trade?

 

So why does everyone immediately distrust scientists and doctors and call them arrogant when they manifestly know more than you?

 

Serious question.

Surely we should be thinking about motive?

If a roofer came and gave you a quote, he would be making money from doing the work.

Most scientists and doctors salary is not reliant on your £1000 payment, but I am sure some will not agree

Random thoughts:

1. Because scientists and medics are all in the pay of Big Pharma. All of them. I know this because I read it on the internet, and I tend to only go on sites which support my own fledgling views about the world.

2. Because Gwyneth Paltrow, 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, Oprah and, probably, various Kadashians are as valid a source of healthcare advice as a qualified medical professional. I know this because the newspapers I read and the TV programmes I watch present their views as having equal weight as the stuff I mostly snored through in science classes at school.

3. Because magazines like 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' exist.

4. Because the wilfully ignorant media pours out unfiltered crap as fact (the front page of The Express, at least once a week, for example) and most people don't have the ability to navigate their way through it. Because click bait. Even the ones who don't cynically push obviously outrageous boswellox still fill their pages unquestioningly with contradictory, unfiltered press releases.

5. Because science journalism is often rubbish. Otherwise respected publications - Private Eye, I'm looking at you for a start - contributed to the MMR affair, for example.

6. Because people can't cope with the notion of uncertainty: a 5% probability that the results are due to chance = fake science.

7. Because science is hard and dull. Simple, comforting words of wisdom from Instagram-friendly Gwyneth about kale are easier to take on board than some incomprehensible twaddle about neurotransmitters from some ugly bloke in a white coat.

8. Because there's still so much we don't know it's easy for some charismatic nut job to fill a knowledge hole with his idea that shoving raisins in various orifices will help burn fat. A book promoted by Gwyneth, a front page article in The Express, and a slot on Oprah and the notion will take off. Plumbers either know how to attach pipe A to tap B or they don't; not many alternative theories exist about how to stop a tap dripping.

9. Because some scientists and medics are arrogant. Being talked at by Dawkins, or some random condescending bloke on an internet forum, is more likely to turn people off than have them listen and understand. Even otherwise media-friendly scientists like Ben Goldacre can come across as a bit of an arrogant know-all, on occasion.

I would think it is because no one really knows what the final effects may be of fracturing sections of the earths structure.

People will naturally be wary of the opinion of scientists and engineers in the pay of concerns whose aims are inimical to the general well being.

dont have to worry, all technology, science and such like discovered/developed since the 1950's will be banned post brexit.

Random thoughts:

 

1. Because scientists and medics are all in the pay of Big Pharma. All of them. I know this because I read it on the internet, and I tend to only go on sites which support my own fledgling views about the world.

 

2. Because Gwyneth Paltrow, 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, Oprah and, probably, various Kadashians are as valid a source of healthcare advice as a qualified medical professional. I know this because the newspapers I read and the TV programmes I watch present their views as having equal weight as the stuff I mostly snored through in science classes at school.

 

3. Because magazines like 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' exist.

 

4. Because the wilfully ignorant media pours out unfiltered crap as fact (the front page of The Express, at least once a week, for example) and most people don't have the ability to navigate their way through it. Because click bait. Even the ones who don't cynically push obviously outrageous boswellox still fill their pages unquestioningly with contradictory, unfiltered press releases.

 

5. Because science journalism is often rubbish. Otherwise respected publications - Private Eye, I'm looking at you for a start - contributed to the MMR affair, for example.

 

6. Because people can't cope with the notion of uncertainty: a 5% probability that the results are due to chance = fake science.

 

7. Because science is hard and dull. Simple, comforting words of wisdom from Instagram-friendly Gwyneth about kale are easier to take on board than some incomprehensible twaddle about neurotransmitters from some ugly bloke in a white coat.

 

8. Because there's still so much we don't know it's easy for some charismatic nut job to fill a knowledge hole with his idea that shoving raisins in various orifices will help burn fat. A book promoted by Gwyneth, a front page article in The Express, and a slot on Oprah and the notion will take off. Plumbers either know how to attach pipe A to tap B or they don't; not many alternative theories exist about how to stop a tap dripping.

 

9. Because some scientists and medics are arrogant. Being talked at by Dawkins, or some random condescending bloke on an internet forum, is more likely to turn people off than have them listen and understand. Even otherwise media-friendly scientists like Ben Goldacre can come across as a bit of an arrogant know-all, on occasion.

As an aside, I recently saw an article by a doctor. I'll summarize/paraphrase.

He said that doctors are accused of being influenced by big pharma into prescribing injections, which actually damage his patients. He said that he is in fact influenced by "big insura". By giving the injections, his liability insurance premiums are reduced. Insurance companies are influenced by the bottom line.

I would think it is because no one really knows what the final effects may be of fracturing sections of the earths structure.

 

People will naturally be wary of the opinion of scientists and engineers in the pay of concerns whose aims are inimical to the general well being.

Well you're quite wrong there. We've been excavating underground with digging and explosives since god was a lad. Nothing really new here, just more efficient methods.

If you imagine that cracks are being created through the entire crust, you've rather got the wrong end of the stick. The just use water and such to smash rocks and let trapped gas out. It's nothing world-shattering.

I would think it is because no one really knows what the final effects may be of fracturing sections of the earths structure.

 

People will naturally be wary of the opinion of scientists and engineers in the pay of concerns whose aims are inimical to the general well being.

Hmmm...

... well I've been giving this a bit of thought, and in the interests of forum members I have just carried out my own bit of scientific research into this phenomenon by constructing a model of the Earth (not life-sized obviously) from a packet of Jaffa cakes.

Having dunked my creation for a few minutes in a mug of lukewarm coffee to simulate the effects of pumping vast amounts of liquid into the Earth's core (obviously), I can announce that the final outcome was... bits fell off!

So, although I accept that my experiment was not carried out under strict laboratory conditions (and my findings are admittedly from a sample of 1), I am nevertheless relieved (like I suspect most forum members will be) that we don't live in the Southern Hemisphere...

As a scientist both subject to questioning in fields in which I am well educated and guilty of questioning things in which I am not a specialist I think this is going to be very interesting and very complicated.

 

One of the problems we have is that all science is lumped in together. Some science is more definitive than other science. In physics everything comes with figures of merit, uncertainties and confidence levels. Not all science is like that, so I am naturally more dubious about "softer" science which could offer such figures of merit but by convention doesn't.

 

On the other hand we're all subject to confirmation bias: More inclined to accept evidence if it supports what we would like to believe. I know I am.

 

I generally don't mind when non-experrts question my view of my own field. I think it's healthy. And at least if they ask, then they hear the answers and perhaps in some cases I can help then to eventually come around. It also helps me to have my views challenged, otherwise it might not occur to me to question them and that's dangerous for somebody who likes to be right.

This is the sort of thing we agree on entirely. Of course with a major difference, as you say - different science! - I am a qualitative scientist and think that paradigmatic shift in positivist work is hilarious.

In case anybody is wondering what the alien gibberish I wrote in the previous paragraph means: what is better, breastfeeding or formula? I rest my case.

Hmmm...

 

... well I've been giving this a bit of thought, and in the interests of forum members I have just carried out my own bit of scientific research into this phenomenon by constructing a model of the Earth (not life-sized obviously) from a packet of Jaffa cakes.

 

Having dunked my creation for a few minutes in a mug of lukewarm coffee to simulate the effects of pumping vast amounts of liquid into the Earth's core (obviously), I can announce that the final outcome was... bits fell off!

 

So, although I accept that my experiment was not carried out under strict laboratory conditions (and my findings are admittedly from a sample of 1), I am nevertheless relieved (like I suspect most forum members will be) that we don't live in the Southern Hemisphere...

Is that how you base most of your scientific knowledge?

Sarcasm and Jaffa cakes?

So here's a general question... inspired by the fracking thread because I can see where this is going...

 

When a car mechanic tells you a bearing needs swapping people respect his knowledge and experience.

 

When a plumber knows more about plumbing than you do you assume her arrogant for knowing about her trade?

 

So why does everyone immediately distrust scientists and doctors and call them arrogant when they manifestly know more than you?

 

Serious question.

A doctor or scientist may have better knowledge, experience and know more but that does not necessarily mean they are correct in every situation. Is it also not arrogant to actually state that these people know more than others? as arrogance is defined as a display of superiority, self importance or overbearing pride?