Thoughts on "Anti-Intellectualism," is the "truth" becoming unknowable within reason?

[Kryten]

What you're talking about is a failure of wikipedia, not a strength. "Warning, this article is scientifically disputed". One small banner, done. If scientists want to go on their soap box and dispute homeopathy, "Homeopathy, Criticisms of."

Wikipedia rarely follows NPOV; if homeopathic medicine's article can be littered with "by the way, this stuff is fake"; why can't modern medicine's article? By the way, homeopathic doctors believe that unnecessary medicine causes illness in the body.

It is not your place to tell others what to believe, if people want to believe in homeopathy then the encyclopedia entry should be educating them about homeopathy, not trying to convince them otherwise.

I think there is an applicable quote here "let me control the textbooks and I will control the state."

Sorry, but homeopathy objectively does not work, and we have the studies to prove it. As others have pointed out in this thread, science is about forming and disproving hypotheses, not what scientists believe, and the hypotheses behind homeopathy have been disproven.

EDIT:

NPOV does not mean that every side of an argument should be given equal representation. To even think one should is already a fallacy by itself. NPOV is intended to allow everything factual to be represented (still not equally: more evidence means more representation in general); it surely is not followed strictly, but not giving homeoquacks the banners is not one of them.

The section about this on the wiki policy page explains this quite well;

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Kryten

[KerikBalm]

Back to the OP... I was *easily able* to find the information.

The OP, for some reason, on a question of science, didn't go to the scientific literature and look at the actual study, reports, and data - but instead went to read summaries from various biased groups that completely lacked data.

It wasn't anti-intellectualism to be skeptical of a claim made without evidence/proof.

But it was... I don't know...sad? that he wasn't able to find the easily accessible information after an (apparently) significant search.

The first article he read had some citations... 4 of them... presumably to lend credibility to it. Examining them.... 3 were unverfiable crud, and the 4th was the scientific article that actually disproved what they were claiming.

If you're skeptical, check the references...

Despite all the googling the OP did, he failed to do that.

[CaptainKipard]

Good topic.

I don't really have anything to add that wouldn't be redundant, except a few links for further reading, and just an observation that this wouldn't even be a problem if children were taught logic, critical thinking, and scepticism from a young age. I've been alive long enough to realise that most people have no concept of what it means to be logical, or what science is, what it does, and how it does it.

Anyway. The question in this thread is one that's relevant to a branch of philosophy called epistemology if anyone cares. It's about the nature and meaning of "knowledge".

Second link is for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's the effect that causes unskilled and ignorant people to overestimate their knowledge and abilities. The dumber someone is, the greater their bias. What's funny is that the opposite is also true. Wise and skilled people underestimate themselves.

Third is a list of logical fallacies. This article makes me smh so much. How bad are we at reasoning when there are SO MANY different ways in which we make reasoning mistakes?

And lastly inductive reasoning. When someone tries to question science and "the scientists" point out to them that that scientific consensus seems to be correct 99.99% of the time, so it's probably going to be right this time too. There's nothing wrong with placing your trust in the people who spend their lives trying to disprove eachother. If they keep failing, then what emerges is for all intents and purposes correct.

[jwenting]

This is why we have to trust the experts. A person cannot make reasonable judgments outside their own field of expertise. (Unfortunately, many people are too unwise (or dumb) to understand the simple fact of their own ignorance and stupidity, and blindly follow their beliefs as if there is no question that they are true.)

And neither should one blindly trust people calling themselves "experts" unless one is capable of oneself verifying that that person is indeed speaking the truth.

One should be cautious, accept that "expert" as likely knowing more than oneself, but not being perfect.

And one should never accept claims as being true that are made on the basis solely of "you must believe this, because I'm a scientist" or "97% of scientists have reached a consensus about this so it must be true". Which is sadly what is all too often the case.

Always use common sense as well as all the data available to you to come to some sort of conclusion about whether the "expert" makes sense or not, and if not be skeptical about his statements.

He might be more likely to be correct than you, but that doesn't mean he's automatically always right or that what he says is fully correct, he might just be closer to be right than you are while still wildly off the mark.

Remember that "experts" for hundreds of years claimed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. They were so adamant in their opinions that they could not accept any opposition and would imprison and execute those who'd dare oppose them, even if (or especially if) those opponents brought scientific data to support their claims.

And such behaviour is not uncommon even now in many areas.

[KerikBalm]

All this talk on this thread, yet no acknowledgment that the OP's claim:

The search for truth, it seems, has become beyond ridiculous, and arguably, not even worth the effort. This is a problem that seems new in our society, ever since the beginning of mass communication. Unfortunately, the amount of time invested for a con-artist to create a work of total bull, is far less than the time required to reveal the work as such. The problem is amplified because EVERYONE can be an 'expert' now, and all they need is a blog.

shouldn't be taken for granted.

The search for the truth was ridiculously easy for me, and I'm not an expert in the field (granted, I am a biologist, but I don't study immunology).

Having a blog *DOES NOT* make you an expert, and this comment is very revealing.

The anti-intellectualism here is going to blogs and political websites, instead of the scientific journal that was linked in the first article

The problem seems to be that some people simply don't know how to look for the truth.

I think my BS detector is pretty good, and a con-artist would have a very hard time getting anything from me.

I don't need to disprove every assertion (s)he makes... the burden of proof(or at least evidence, or sound logic) is on them.

Don't believe everything you read. If they are consistently vague, or jump to conclusions, they are full of BS... move on.

Edited April 23, 2015 by KerikBalm

[RedParadize]

Which is why science doesn't depend on individual experts,it depends on the scientific consensus. What most experts agree on. It is not always correct, but scientific consensus truly represents the "best guess(es)" of the scientific community. Yes, there can be more than one best guess, as there is frequently more than just one plausible and reasonable explanation for something- there can be competing explanations. Among competing explanations, you can even have the case that multiple explanations are indeed correct, or that NONE of the competing explanations are correct!

GOOD scientists do not "believe" in a theory or hypothesis like a theist person believes in deities. A scientist will believe that a new explanation he/she has proposed might be true. They could spend their whole lives defending only the concept that their idea might be true! It is important to understand this to understand one of the major differences between science and religion. Scientists never believe or claim they are providing absolute truth- they merely believe they are trying to find the best explanation. However, this best explanation may be so good and fit the facts so well that we can treat it as if there is no question it is true (like atomic theory or evolutionary theory).

Sorry, but I feel the need to redefine what have been underlined. Formulated like that, it can lead to misconception. "Scientific consensus" is often misunderstood, a bit like the word theory and how people understand it as "just a theory". A scientific consensus is achieved when none in the scientific community managed to falsify the said theory. "Bigger" is the scientific community is of a given feild, more likely error will be found, if there is any.

And, sometimes, because of instrument limitation or else, a margin of error in the prediction will be seen as acceptable by some and not by other. Its in that blur that most scientific disagreement reside. So, its not about what most expert agree on, its about what is left to argue about.

I will not comment the rest of you post, but I will say this, science is a process that lead to factual knowledge, it ignore what can't be falsified, acknowledge what can be proven and discard what can be proven to be false. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited April 23, 2015 by RedParadize

[PakledHostage]

And one should never accept claims as being true that are made on the basis solely of "you must believe this, because I'm a scientist" or "97% of scientists have reached a consensus about this so it must be true". Which is sadly what is all too often the case.

I have little doubt to what you are referring with your "97% of scientists have reached a consensus about this" remark given your previously stated position on the topic, but you seemingly didn't read the post above yours. Cpt. Kipard made a very valid point:

And lastly inductive reasoning. When someone tries to question science and "the scientists" point out to them that that scientific consensus seems to be correct 99.99% of the time, so it's probably going to be right this time too. There's nothing wrong with placing your trust in the people who spend their lives trying to disprove each other. If they keep failing, then what emerges is for all intents and purposes correct.

Most scientists would love nothing more than to be able to disprove an established consensus. If nobody has succeeded in disproving a consensus that exists among 97% of experts in a field (who, as previously stated, would love nothing more than to disprove one another), you'd be a fool to doubt the consensus. You might retain a bit of healthy skepticism, but in the absence of a conspiracy the experts are probably correct and can be regarded as such.

[vger]

The search for the truth was ridiculously easy for me, and I'm not an expert in the field (granted, I am a biologist, but I don't study immunology).

Having a blog *DOES NOT* make you an expert, and this comment is very revealing.The anti-intellectualism here is going to blogs and political websites, instead of the scientific journal that was linked in the first article The problem seems to be that some people simply don't know how to look for the truth

I think the following quote nailed that.

The problem isn't so much the truth, but the fact that we have far too much information with far too little ability to actually process it... and then we lie to ourselves by saying "Oh, just read the wiki article."

Truth is the needle being buried in an ever-growing haystack, where each piece of hay is an opinion, article, blog, 24/7 speculative news coverage, etc.

Sorry, but I don't get how this responds to what I wrote...You realise my post was about the masses, right¿ I was not talking about ideal scientists, but how the man on the street sees them and what he actually believes. They won't care about about what you wrote because, blatently speaking, they are too stupid or stubborn to realise. In other words, they will hear what they want to hear and only seek evidence that supports their view, however wrong or unfounded.

This is worsened also though by the fact that most people cannot read scientific jargon anymore than they can read legalese. And then more often than not, what people are stuck with is dealing with a middleman who serves as a "messenger" between scientists and the common folk. Generally those 'representatives' fall into two categories. One is reporters, who are notorious for manipulating data to suit political agendas or sensatonalism requirements. How many times have we been told that NASA has achieved warp drive... based on just one test that revealed what in all probability was simply innaccurate data? The other is doctors, who are notorious for moonlighting as salesmen for pharmaceutical companies. There's a pretty old joke that goes something like, "If a doctor tells you that you need surgery, you can never be sure if you're dying or if he's just planning a vacation."

I don't really have anything to add that wouldn't be redundant, except a few links for further reading, and just an observation that this wouldn't even be a problem if children were taught logic, critical thinking, and scepticism from a young age. I've been alive long enough to realise that most people have no concept of what it means to be logical, or what science is, what it does, and how it does it.

It would be wonderful if that could be standard curriculum. One thing that has always bothered me about school is that it always seemed to be teaching the 'what' and not the 'why.' Kids being raised, basically to be info-sources, capable of spitting out information when asked for it. The trouble is that it's only information that has been given to them. Real problem-solving, the kind that requires improvisation, seemed completely absent. We were only being taught to handle the problems that were being given to us, with no basis for finding solutions to problems we have never encountered.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever see children being taught these things in any greed-based society. Marketing (AKA mind-control) is far more important than product, so a whole population of intellectual critical thinkers would probably crash the economy.

[KerikBalm]

Truth is the needle being buried in an ever-growing haystack, where each piece of hay is an opinion, article, blog, 24/7 speculative news coverage, etc.

Then people need to develop better BS filters... I think I've got a pretty good one.

This is worsened also though by the fact that most people cannot read scientific jargon anymore than they can read legalese.

I've never understood the problem with this either, but then my plan after finishing up my PhD (<1 year to go!) is to become a patent attorney (and I've already got some experience dealing with patent applications and such).

And then more often than not, what people are stuck with is dealing with a middleman who serves as a "messenger" between scientists and the common folk.

Exactly what people need to filter out.

Hear a claim on a popular news site that interests you? great, you can check those... once something catches your interest, consult the scientific paper.... an abstract or the discussion section isn't too hard to read, even if you don't understand the experiments being done in the results section.

[CaptainKipard]

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever see children being taught these things in any greed-based society. Marketing (AKA mind-control) is far more important than product, so a whole population of intellectual critical thinkers would probably crash the economy.

I'm not sure that's correct. Northern Europe seems to have great education, and they're thriving.

[Technical Ben]

The moon doesn't fall. (Use the 2 year old's definition of fall; pre-newtonian physics)

You're finding truth in a statement you have a fixed belief in; that's akin to saying "I am right because I know I am right."

I asked do things fall. No statement of truth tautology there. You tried to choose a thing that does not fall from certain perspectives. In actual answer (AFAIK) the moon is constantly "falling". So yes, the moon "falls" all the time. Does it approach earth in the sense a 2 year old understands "falling"? No, but other things do. So we can know what we are talking about, we can know if things fit logically into the definitions we give.

I do not decide the moon falls. I can describe what I see. So, do you agree things fall? The next question is "do all things fall"? But I did not ask that.

We can choose the same definitions, or choose different ones. We can try to agree or try to argue. We can come to a common understanding. When it come to the world around us and reality, we can understand it and know what is true, as an individual or as a group.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Technical Ben

[vger]

I've never understood the problem with this either, but then my plan after finishing up my PhD (<1 year to go!) is to become a patent attorney (and I've already got some experience dealing with patent applications and such).

That really doesn't help as it applies to normal life. OF COURSE anyone studying to be an expert isn't going to have these problems. It's preposterous to think that everyone needs a chemistry degree just so they can know that a shampoo company isn't screwing them over.

If it's your profession, then great! But are you suggesting that everyone needs to spend another ten years on education than they already do, just for BASIC life skills?

In spite of technological and medical advancements, the warranty on our bodies still runs out at around 40.

[Beowolf]

Science coverage in all news media is a terrible joke. Here's how I sort truth from fiction:

1. Saw an excited headline or blog post about some breakthrough: Probably false.

2. Follow the link to the actual published paper. Read the abstract. Note what they actually claim vs. what the media article said: That part is tentatively true.

2b. If there's no link to a real journal article, the media story is bull and can be ignored.

3. Once some other research team replicates the original results: Probably true. Note you have to go looking for this, as the media never reports on this step even though it's by-far the most important step in the scientific method.

4. Once multiple independent teams have replicated the results, I am willing to treat it as fact.

Be aware that people pushing crazy agendas can say completely accurate things that are still intended to deceive. For example, the US 9/11 conspiracy theorists make a big deal about the melting point of steel being higher than the combustion temperature of jet fuel. This is correct. Unfortunately, they then use that verifiable fact to claim that explosives had to be used to bring down the towers, which is bull. True, steel doesn't melt at that temperature, but it softens, losing 80% of its strength. Steel doesn't melt abruptly like ice does. So fact-checking individual claims isn't very useful unless you get lucky and catch them in a lie the first time.

For political stuff, I use independent sites like politifact.org and factcheck.org. I pick two, with different leanings. When they both agree, they're probably right. When they disagree, I consider them both wrong. If the issue was something interesting, like orbital mechanics, I'd probably dig into sources until I knew. But I don't care enough about politics to go to the trouble. And anytime someone tells you an anecdote, start by checking snopes.com. It's probably already debunked there.