It is kind of shocking to me to see that so few people came to see this talk after the veritasium video, which already has more than 2 million views... are people not curious anymore?
0.1% of people checking sources sounds about right to me. AND we are talking about people watching a science channel. Now do you understand why anyone can say anything on public media and get away with it ? Scary !
Based on the view count of the Veritasium video and the additional views this video has received since the Veritasium video was published, it seems that only 0.12 % of viewers are science-curious. We're doomed.
The "high numeracy" subjects probably already had consumed many other studies on each controversial topic so they tended to reject the unintuitive results because most other sources contradicted that result. They were not necessarily biassed or making reasoning blunders, but were filtering out the deliberately false data presented to them in the experiment. The problem is that the political factions had already studied biassed data fed to them by their communities.
In the study here at issue, the subjects were presented data (not necessarily true), that should necessarily lead to a given conclusion if interpreted in a non-biased way. And it is those numbers and graphs only that they were asked to interpret.
Once you see this phenomenon in yourself, you see it everywhere. It's fascinating and frustrating but ultimately deeply transformative and rewarding in the quest to remove it from oneself. There's identity deconstruction, humbling self-discovery, and more! Collect the whole set.
Are the amount of people in both the test and control groups the same? Even if that study was real how can it reach that kind of conclusion when the amount of people on the groups are different?
Anyone have a link to a numeracy test? I found one, but am not sure I trust it, because the same site also offers tests to determine which Hogwarts house I belonged in. I was hoping Prof Kahan would provide one, but no such luck.
Is there a television network dedicated to presenting false data on scientific subjects? Because if such a network existed, it would skew this data. The incredulity resulting from being exposed to a constant assault of misinformation on political subjects would be noteworthy. If such a network existed, and its reporting were widely disseminated throughout the internet as factual, then any consumer of new information would be rightly suspicious of the veracity of any "facts" concerning controversial, politically charged subjects.
“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.” ― Michio Kaku
Given enough time, yes. Eventually we have to pay the piper, but in the short term, scientific careers and reputations are protected and those who challenge them are destroyed politically and economically and do not receive any vindication until their corpses have rotted away. It's just the way the game is played. A PHD makes you more responsible to the truth and to curiosity, not less. We still have a long way to go on this front.
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - max planck
It is funny that at minute 10:33 the presenter trows me off with his hipothesis because all I see is that the liberals were correct all along on the subjects of global warming and fracking. In other words, both groups moved in the same direction, but in the direction of the original liberal point of view.
sorry to be off topic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly forgot my login password. I would appreciate any assistance you can give me.
@Callen Adan Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site thru google and im trying it out atm. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Even funnier that there was less bias on the variable "scientific curiosity", regardless of the starting position of the subjects, when the matters were controversial. On non-controversial matters, better results is proportional to numeracy, in controversial matters, less so, lower numeracy do better, regardless of starting point of view. Not that "scientific curiosity" is a psychologicall attitude, not an ability. Could going beyond bias depend more on psychological characteristics that even ability? Could ability without psychological attitude be used more to rationalise bias?
Right after Veritasium vid!
Same. :-)
😀
📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈📈
5 years ago even
Same hahahaha
It is kind of shocking to me to see that so few people came to see this talk after the veritasium video, which already has more than 2 million views... are people not curious anymore?
0.1% of people checking sources sounds about right to me. AND we are talking about people watching a science channel.
Now do you understand why anyone can say anything on public media and get away with it ? Scary !
@RationalTrade yeah, also, it would be weird than scary to see science channels peddling fake news and information
We belong to the high numeracy control group bro, thats why ;)
Based on the view count of the Veritasium video and the additional views this video has received since the Veritasium video was published, it seems that only 0.12 % of viewers are science-curious. We're doomed.
And that doesn't include those who watched this without watching veritasium. Yikes.
Isn't it that ppl with more knowledge in science means they are also likely to be above avg curious in science? How do you separate these two groups
Only 13k views?
This will soon increase after the Veritasium video
The "high numeracy" subjects probably already had consumed many other studies on each controversial topic so they tended to reject the unintuitive results because most other sources contradicted that result. They were not necessarily biassed or making reasoning blunders, but were filtering out the deliberately false data presented to them in the experiment. The problem is that the political factions had already studied biassed data fed to them by their communities.
In the study here at issue, the subjects were presented data (not necessarily true), that should necessarily lead to a given conclusion if interpreted in a non-biased way. And it is those numbers and graphs only that they were asked to interpret.
Once you see this phenomenon in yourself, you see it everywhere. It's fascinating and frustrating but ultimately deeply transformative and rewarding in the quest to remove it from oneself. There's identity deconstruction, humbling self-discovery, and more! Collect the whole set.
An important phenomenon to mention.
Are the amount of people in both the test and control groups the same? Even if that study was real how can it reach that kind of conclusion when the amount of people on the groups are different?
you're true.
why not same number of people in both groups. Does he made it complicated deliberately to prove his point?
@@trident1409 Even if he would like to make it complicated that way, I just don't get how his analysis/data is valid that way
Anyone have a link to a numeracy test? I found one, but am not sure I trust it, because the same site also offers tests to determine which Hogwarts house I belonged in. I was hoping Prof Kahan would provide one, but no such luck.
Is there a television network dedicated to presenting false data on scientific subjects? Because if such a network existed, it would skew this data. The incredulity resulting from being exposed to a constant assault of misinformation on political subjects would be noteworthy. If such a network existed, and its reporting were widely disseminated throughout the internet as factual, then any consumer of new information would be rightly suspicious of the veracity of any "facts" concerning controversial, politically charged subjects.
Study democratic and free schools and the unschooling movement.
“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”
― Michio Kaku
Given enough time, yes. Eventually we have to pay the piper, but in the short term, scientific careers and reputations are protected and those who challenge them are destroyed politically and economically and do not receive any vindication until their corpses have rotted away. It's just the way the game is played. A PHD makes you more responsible to the truth and to curiosity, not less. We still have a long way to go on this front.
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - max planck
Arrogant to think that scientists are above popularity contests
@@jimbo4375@jimbo4375 no, scientists aren't; science should be, that is the point ;)
It is funny that at minute 10:33 the presenter trows me off with his hipothesis because all I see is that the liberals were correct all along on the subjects of global warming and fracking. In other words, both groups moved in the same direction, but in the direction of the original liberal point of view.
sorry to be off topic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an Instagram account??
I stupidly forgot my login password. I would appreciate any assistance you can give me.
@Callen Adan Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site thru google and im trying it out atm.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Callen Adan It did the trick and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much you saved my account !
@Kashton Mario no problem =)
Even funnier that there was less bias on the variable "scientific curiosity", regardless of the starting position of the subjects, when the matters were controversial. On non-controversial matters, better results is proportional to numeracy, in controversial matters, less so, lower numeracy do better, regardless of starting point of view. Not that "scientific curiosity" is a psychologicall attitude, not an ability. Could going beyond bias depend more on psychological characteristics that even ability? Could ability without psychological attitude be used more to rationalise bias?