Ignorance of Science

[DarthTimon]

The human race has come a long way down the centuries. From some very humble beginnings, to developing the means to land probes on other planets. Once, diseases like smallpox were a scourge; now they're all but erased. There was a time when it took weeks, even months, to cross an ocean, at great peril. Now we can on the other side of the world in a day. Whereas messengers would have to run or ride to convey information to distant lands, we can now do so instantly.

These developments are the result of an unrelenting, insatiable desire to learn more, to peel back the layers of creation, and understand what make things work. The pursuit of science has led us to develop some powerful and dangerous weapons, but equally, we have learned all sorts of positive elements too. Why then, do some people desperately cling to ignorance?

I'm inspired to write this because of my experiences with religious fundamentalists. I know of at least one who insists the Biblical narrative is 100% literally true, and no level of evidence or logic will sway them. What's worse, there seems to be a steady rise in people disputing and distrusting science. They reject the science, and expert experience, in favour of their limited armchair research, and their half-hour Google search. Sometimes, in an hilarious-yet-tragic fashion, some of these wilfully ignorant people will lecture those with scholarly credentials, and dare to suggest their 'knowledge' is equivalent.

How can we be in the 21st Century, having learned so much as a species, having overcome so much, see what we have accomplished slide? When did the pursuit of knowledge become something to be derided? How is it that society-at-large seems to be letting the ignorant drive the narrative?

How might we push back against this dangerous rejection of fact and logic?

 

[BillJ]

They reject the science...

Science is getting to an odd point of fluidity. Some of the things we thought were true and taught for decades are now under debate, like the Big Bang. That is all the opening many need to question science, front to back.

Not the way I operate, but there is profit in division. There are those out there that drive the anti-science narrative for their own gain.

How is it that society-at-large seems to be letting the ignorant drive the narrative?

More ignorant folks than smart folks. The opening of Idiocracy spelled it out pretty clearly.

 

[publiusr]

Gatekeeping makes folks trust science less—like this:

Lying increases trust in science, study finds

Research by philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, Byron Hyde, looked at the role of transparency in fostering public trust in science.

phys.org

How the COVID-19 pandemic has affected political trust

Five years have passed since 22 March 2020, when the German government at the time imposed the first lockdown in an effort to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. What began as a two-week measure developed into a prolonged crisis that led to restrictions on close interpersonal contact, curfews, and...

phys.org

Gradualists/uniformitarianists rejected the Missoula Megaflood concept—no doubt thinking it something a young earther pulled out of his behind:

Channeled Scablands - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Impact theory…how asteroid craters and Maar type lunar volcanic craters look similar—all show you have to be very careful when you hear someone claim to be a champion of science—-that can be another form of zealotry.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I remember the first time i connected to the internet way back in 1999, it was mind blowing, access to what seemed like the sum knowledge of humanity at your finger tips, at everyones finger tips, and i thought this can only help propel the human race forward even faster in every way for the better, but it seems i was wrong and in fact the internet seems to have actually made a lot of people more stupid.

 

[publiusr]

Gemini is a problem.
Even after I asked it about neutral hexanitrogen (a liquid explosive) I asked it about N20 (like N6, an all nitrogen explosive).

It said all nitrogen explosives didn’t exist.

I asked it what spacecraft might intercept 3I/ATLAS.

It said nothing was near….not exactly true:

The Feasibility of a Spacecraft Flyby with the Third Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS from Earth or Mars

We investigate the feasibility of a spacecraft mission to conduct a flyby of 3I/ATLAS, the third macroscopic interstellar object discovered on July 1 2025, as it traverses the Solar System. There are both ready-to-launch spacecraft currently in storage on Earth, such as Janus, and spacecraft...

www.arxiv.org

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Juno.pdf

Gemini needs updating to keep up with the bleeding edge.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Spoiler: Sabine HossenFelder - Why Science is Broken

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Spoiler: Sabine HossenFelder - This is how People Game Science Publishing

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

AI is causing major problems in the Scientific Community Again!

 

[Owain Taggart]

I hear you. It can be incredibly frustrating to have people try to debase science. I would say, about 15 years ago when the idea of a flat earth resurfaced, at first I thought these people were joking, that nobody could possibly believe such a thing especially as it's an archaic way of thinking, but the sad reality was that there indeed were people that fully believed it. And the whole idea that the moon landings were faked is incredibly insulting to everyone involved in the work, including the astronauts who've risked their lives. The person who tried to educate Buzz Aldrin had it coming. Some people simply aren't happy with global achievements; they've got to try to steal them away from others to make themselves feel better.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I hear you. It can be incredibly frustrating to have people try to debase science. I would say, about 15 years ago when the idea of a flat earth resurfaced, at first I thought these people were joking, that nobody could possibly believe such a thing especially as it's an archaic way of thinking, but the sad reality was that there indeed were people that fully believed it. And the whole idea that the moon landings were faked is incredibly insulting to everyone involved in the work, including the astronauts who've risked their lives. The person who tried to educate Buzz Aldrin had it coming. Some people simply aren't happy with global achievements; they've got to try to steal them away from others to make themselves feel better.

Denying overwhelming evidence seems like a form of mental illness to me and much of it is apparently due to religious fervour - whether actual or adjacent. Some people apparently want to be martyrs to useless causes, In any case, it's not science.

In a couple of hundred years time, we might similarly look down on people who interpret the CMBR as evidence of the surface of last scattering at the start of the recombination era rather than when copious metallic* dust from early star formation and extinction that caused a resurgence of opacity to radiation became more dispersed and the photon mean free path increased again. Similarly, we might might disdain those who do not acknowledge the significant role of electromagnetism and plasma currents in the early Universe or those who adhere to string theory, loop quantum gravity, the Copenhagen interpretation or the Standard Model.

* Metallic in the astrophysical sense means elements with atomic number greater than two.

 

[Crazyewok]

The opening of Idiocracy spelled it out pretty clearly.

This.

That film was probably the most accurate dystopia prediction.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That film was probably the most accurate dystopia prediction.

Turns out that reality was even worse with the worldwide implementation of the plot from the TOS episode "A Piece of the Action".

 

[Owain Taggart]

Denying overwhelming evidence seems like a form of mental illness to me and much of it is apparently due to religious fervour - whether actual or adjacent. Some people apparently want to be martyrs to useless causes, In any case, it's not science.

Agreed. And it's somewhat ironic that many of these people are curious enough to ask questions, which often drives scientific pursuits, to seek out knowledge. We're trained to ask questions and be curious at a young age, and it's one thing to be a skeptic, as at least with that you still end up learning , asking questions and try to view things from different perspectives. The issue arises when people shut themselves off from what's already been proven and deny evidence and question the professionals who've made it their lives. Science is always changing, always in flux as new evidence unfolds, never an absolute. It's the reason why we always get new evidence of such as new details when it comes to dinosaurs and the like. It's also the reason the flat earth theory eventually declined out of favor because new and better models of understanding came to light. It's not an accident.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I just wish they'd expend their curiosity and energy on worthwhile pursuits instead of wasting everyone's time. I'm sure quite a few current scientific paradigms are ripe for overturning. That goes for the young earthers, hollow earthers, and creationists as well as the flat earthers and moon landing deniers. Believing something must be true because it fits a particular worldview, and cherry picking, denying or fabricating evidence to feed one's confirmation bias is not healthy. I have inklings about how reality might be organised that aren't mainstream, but lacking evidence or ways to falsify my suspicions, I try my best to not bleat on about such things like the nutter on the bus.

 

[Spider]

I blame religion and Republicans for how stupid our society is becoming.

"You can't tell me I came from no damn ape." Well, yes you did, and you still are.

 

[Santaman]

Curse of "social" media, every LOUD moron has his or her stage now...

 

[Owain Taggart]

Curse of "social" media, every LOUD moron has his or her stage now...

Well, the internet in general has made it much easier for people to have a voice. Essentially like giving each person their own soapbox and megaphone, only it's like the annoying kid who won't stop using it is suddenly an expert on all things in life.

 

[opali]

Some don't see a backslide into ignorance, they see the fruition of years of effort to align what they see around them in their community as a reflection of what their deeply personal faith dictates (I'm speaking from a U.S. perspective, and anecdotally, of course). You can't overcome or push back on your fundy's faith-based beliefs with the scientific method, evidence or (your application of) logic, because that isn't how faith works. The scientific method cannot address what is not observable, repeatable, measurable, falsifiable etc. There are organizations, such as the Institute for Creation Research, who try to marry the two, but it devolves, as @Asbo Zaprudder pointed out, into cherry picking, outright fabrication, or re-interpreting what geologists/anthropologists, etc. have theorized without submitting it to criticism or peer review.

having overcome so much

Septima Clark wrote, "Therefore it seems to me that the chaos we had created in the richness of the earth, in our variety of governments and institutions and in the minds of 'We The People' present us now with a very special gift, the opportunity to breed new life for all of us." She considered the chaos of disorder and unrest during the Civil Rights Movement as a unique chance, a gift in fact, for us to better understand each other as we think about things in a new way. The condescending arrogance of some (the overarching 'some,' definitely not a personal attack!) assuming that we know what is best for others because the scientific method in research was applied, the math adds up, or because we've almost all but eliminated fallacy in an argument, doesn't provide a catalyst for social change because it is in that environment that one narrative oppresses another, just as ignorance (borne out of religion or whatever foundation) is wont to do. I'm a fan of the saying, 'sometimes people need to be seen before they can hear.' In difficult conversations, where folks really arm wrestle with tough ideas, and where listening and learning about others actively takes place, we are more apt to gain ground because we are approaching challenges in a new way together. Where true communication starts the forward motion, empathy and understanding surely follow behind.

 

[1001001]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.“
- Isaac Asimov

 

[opali]

It's baked in, unfortunately.