Why Don't Some People Believe In Science?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- Some people don't believe in vaccines or climate change or other scientifically proven things. Why not? Why don't people trust evidence?
Socrates: The Father Of Western Philosophy - • Video
Sign Up For The Seeker Newsletter Here - bit.ly/1UO1PxI
Read More:
Let's Discuss Climate Change In Donald Trump's America; Trolls Welcome
www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/...
"'We believed that the consensus was phony,' Ebell told PBS in an interview explaining why he and others went to work to try and dismantle it. 'We believed that the so-called global warming consensus was not based on science, but was a political consensus, which included a number of scientists.'"
Exploring status quo bias in the human brain
www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
"The more difficult the decision we face, the more likely we are not to act, according to new research by scientists that examines the neural pathways involved in "status quo bias" in the human brain."
Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-co...
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
____________________
DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos daily.
Watch More DNews on Seeker www.seeker.com/show/dnews/
Subscribe now! ruclips.net/user/subscription_c...
Seeker on Twitter / seeker
Trace Dominguez on Twitter / tracedominguez
DNews on Facebook / discoverynews
DNews on Google+ plus.google.com/u/0/+dnews
Seeker www.seeker.com/
Sign Up For The Seeker Newsletter Here: bit.ly/1UO1PxI 
Наука
I hate that people say they don't "believe" in science. You can't "believe" in science. Science and the scientific method is quite factual, reasonable and logical.
Coras Ⓥ I agree.
No one says the don't believe in science, that's what the powers that be say about these people when they see data that conflicts with the majority position. It's a smear to avoid debate.
They don't believe in science because they are idiots. Simple as that.
Anybody who doesn't believe in facts is just plain stupid.
Craig from Johnslist no we look into why it's happening and develop a hypothesis.
Think about it. People can not believe in science.
You can't test everything. You can't do research on every little fun fact you hear. You can't test every aspect of science. You have to believe that what the scientists are saying is true. You can choose to not believe in many science-related things. You can choose to believe that the way scientists said how gravity is working is false. It most likely means that you believe in something that is incorrect, but you can still believe it.
You don't "believe" in science. You either understand it.... or you don't.
Jerry VanNuys Very true.
Jerry VanNuys you either accept it or you don't
Jerry VanNuys There are people who dont understand it but still believe in it.
blubb I actually enjoy the method of science :/
Jerry VanNuys really? Wow that made just common sense.. people liked your comment cause they felt sorry for you
the cool thing about science is that it doesn't care if you don't believe in it, because believing doesn't determine the existence or validity of something.
True but if people don't accept climate change we are doomed.
Bart van Arkel He said that based off of our actions. If we had a completely clean society, it would be much longer. Plus his estimation was for how long humans have left.
Bart van Arkel Stephen Hawking was making an assumption. He has no facts to back up what he's saying.
Right, people can choose to disbelieve in gravity but it's still going to make them go splat if they jump off a building. And if you still think not believing in science is going to stop it then mix some bleach and ammonia and see if it doesn't kill you.
yeah, its not god
My former English teacher thinks that you can hear in space because you can hear on the top of Mount Everest. She later goes to say she doesn't see the point of learning science. Crazy!
recon7david ... I can't hear you... are you in space?
Was your teacher younger than the damn students or some shit?
recon7david You pretty much told the main commenter to shut up for telling a funny story, you're asking for someone to call you out. Stop with the "no one was talking to you" shit because you asked for it.
Sadly, my brother told me that when he was in school, one of his teachers told him that "there was a man that lived to be 200 years old before he died, and that people used to live even longer then that to about 300 years ". I was beyond words. He went to public high school and his teacher is teaching him this. Go figure
She probably has better grammar than you.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
2987ms nice
true
I think it would actually be the other way around, you can't reason someone out of a position that they DID "reason" themselves into.
2987ms I'm gonna use this. Great phrase
***** Who were you replying to, me or Darkspace?
People who say stuff like the earth is flat or that climate change is a hoax make me sick
I'm currently in a comment's war with these people who believe in the flat earth
The Gray Jedi lmao don't even try to convince them
This morning the person commented "GRAVITY ISNT REAL!!!"
The Gray Jedi Dude has never opened a science textbook...
I think I'm better than a science textbook
Only in America where climate change is a political issue....
no
AndrewRG10 and thats somehow a good thing??
You did not start it you accelerated it.
Azzinotica climate change is fake
Andrew Actually no. We WOULD be going through a cold cycle, but since we’ve accelerated and thrown everything off the normal cycle and making the outcome worse and worse, that won’t be happening and now we have no way to prove it because we keep on messing with it.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Science isn’t always true, it’s a processes of building on the mistakes of others and expanding our knowledge. I am a huge believer in science but that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in mistakes. That’s why if research is super important it is, repeated over and over to make sure we have all the facts and it is correct. Than as technology improves we go back and revisit the topic. That’s what I love about science it’s a never ending process that can always be improved.
@@Ryan-ep7ru science is nature and it is not created by anybody.
So it's always true whether you believe in it or not.😉
Search up philosophy of science
@@technicalboys8513 The map is not the territory. We can't access reality/nature directly; we perceive it only through imperfect senses so we can only approximate it with models. Science is the process we use to build better models of reality.
Because ultimately science is just another form of business. Money will corrupted science.
the scary part is sometimes I see them deny mathematics. it's the stuff of nightmares.
Ben Grosz it's coz they don't understand number. and you always fear what you don't understand.....
matt kerr But mathematics is different from science. Science does have a degree of uncertainty, but you simply can't debate the theorems of mathematics. It's like denying that you exist. It is logically impossible. Math is logic.
Ben Grosz well maths is just science.
How exactly do they deny mathematics? 2+2 != 4?
I know, I can't believe they teach it in schools. I'm indoctrinated with it every other day in college.
Incoming triggered people
Fan Pop Triggered
Google Famous TRIGGERED
*INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION*
no, it's ''literally shaking''
Maximillion INTERNALIZED OPPRESSION
Let me talk shit about "Science" while sitting on chair, using computer connected to internet, which sits on Desk!
Robert Oppenheimer And uses electricity.
Robert Oppenheimer because nothing of the comfortable things like phones and cars use sicenece
SolarSurvioar 1 what? Basically everything uses science
***** Engineering = Applied Science!
SolarSurvioar 1 Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or real?
Well, if you don't believe in science, then publish a paper with references to counter it. If you can't, it is not believe or not, it is you don't understand it and also won't bother to learn.
Define "belief"
@@jeffsandrock6553 Thank you. When you go on the street, do you know for certain you won't got hit by a drunk driver, can you prove you won't be or do you believe it will not happen or at least believe it's not very likely?
P.s. Based on what you offered, when someone believes in science, does that mean science cannot be independently verified by the common person or proven as accurate/true?
@@stephenson19861 1. You don't and you can't.
2. No, science is not built on belief, it's built on evidence, it's you whether or not you believe in that evidence.
Another definition of belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."
@@imdumbbut8915 I am not talking about what science is built or isn't built on. I am only wandering what does it mean "I BELIEVE in science"
"Believe in science"? Why does science need believing? Science *is*. Science is the literal expression of reality and facts in life. Does 2+2=4 need believing in? Does any part of H2O being 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms need _believing_ in? Who says it's "science versus religion" anyway?
a guy literally said if the bible said 2+2=5 he would believe it
That is why there are suicide bombers in the Middle East.
eazon also because science isn't taught and indoctrination is popular
scientific studies can be done with bad methods and give wrong results.
scientists can be influenced by politics.
scientific studies that are not sensational tend to be forgotten or maybe not even accepted, even if they are true.
Ja, dunno how people even compare religion and science, religion is a package deal, science is a method; incomparable things
One does not "believe" in science. Stop treating the scientific method like a religion. Religion requires belief. Science requires doubt. Yeah. Think about it. It requires doubt.
Stephen Walker yes but doubt doesn't mean literally rejecting something that is proven to be true. With evidence that you yourself can test.
Science requires belief if you want anyone to act on the findings of science.
^^
I'm doubting your sentence.
there we go...this fucker gets it....
Ironically most people who don't believe in science wouldn't even watch the video or know about this channel.
EMS, Very true. Maybe the algorithms should be built so an event is triggered when they watch an alarming number of Kardashians-related videos, causing science related videos to flood their stream instead 🤔
That's a lie
Most of my religious family thinks science gets stuff wrong most of the time, which means science doesnt work. Getting stuff wrong is literally what science is about...
@Emre MUTLU Science is a paid actor.
@@barnacleboi2595 It's called trial and error. They cast out the stuff that they get wrong and keep the stuff they get right. How many times did they get flight wrong until they eventually got it right.?.
This reminds me of a meme I saw that read "Religion....Because Thinking Is Hard".
That must be why so few people pursue any kind of philosophy these days.
+Will McClain Ironic because humans are actually getting less intelligent, it's statistically true!
Vibranium Anarchist
How are people getting less intelligent?
The larger the human population grows, the average human I.Q. seems to
drop. Studies conducted in recent years have shown a direct correlation
between population growth and the decline in the standard I. Q of
countries such as New Zeland, Australia, Brazil and Mexico. The
average world I.Q. for 2011 is calculated to be 88.54 - the lowest I.Q.
rate in years. At that rate, for every 10 years a .30 I.Q drop occurs,
so it is predicted that by the year 2050, the average I. Q. will have
fallen to 89.32 from 91.64 in 1950.
This tells me that the poorest countries are are the lest intelligent, while the richest countries are the most intelligent. Also, human population is actually declining in many parts of the world (rich and poor) which means according to this article people of those poor/developing countries should be getting smarter.
Literally half the planet is below average intelligence...
Because it is easier to love unicorns than physicists.
David Henson what about a unicorn physicist? More SciTwi in MLPEG, perhaps? 🦄
jrcharney Throw in a rainbow and you got a deal!
Chris Seals Idiots do not need crosses. They are a renewable resource. All they need is food and water and they thrive like weeds.
I suppose you are LGBT or Q.
You brats are speaking of other human beings like they are trash. You sound like Nazis.
People needs more Jesse pinkman to yell Science Bitch
rurutu M technically he says "Yeah science!"
WHERES MY SCIENCE BITCH??!!
+Jorge Reyes Yup, but let him have this one. His idea's quite valid.
Chris Carmona k
Say my name !
Religion is why.
According to the facts presented in the video, because science would probably encourage them challenge the beliefs that they had their entire lives, which would require a lot of effort and therefore they would automatically reject it. So yes, in part, religion is why; but hey, everyone is different.
ShadowDurza well I used to be Jewish until I grew older and realized how ridiculous religion is.
That's why i said everyone is different, my high-school biology teacher was a devoted Lutheran and he was a strong believer in evolution and global warming.
My grandma was a Jehovas witness and she said "You can't have it both ways"
Prounce proudly i realized that too
Let me be president. Ill set shit straight. Science will be prioritized over religion and politics. Within reason, science all the way ! Whuuuuw!
#RocketLR4President2020
I'd vote for you.
yay first item on the agenda - how can we use science to make pizza faster, cheaper and healthier than chicken salad. I'll need the world's best scientists and engineers ontop of this stat!
RocketLR So you're advocating for an oligarchy. And because large government grants, and your job depending on finding a certain data point couldn't possibly influence what you believe. And the science isn't settled. I bet everyone on this comment thread doesn't know why one would not believe in climate change.
The fact that you think the President has that much power makes you unqualified to hold the office.
because....Republicans...
I am a Republican, and I believe in climate change. I do however agree that the Republican party is stupid and rejects climate science.
Are brainwashed?
Political status has nothing to do with this
Liberals tend to reject the science of gmos and vaccines more than conservatives. They also tend to be against nuclear power. Neither side of the left/right dichotomy has a monopoly on science.
In the case of 'Murica, it does. Most people in the Republican party believe global warming is a myth, thus leading to people who support Republicans believe it's utter bs too. That ofc doesn't mean all Republicans don't believe in global warming.
so emotions make people stupid?
got it 👍
SILENT KILLER .... Ok. I didn't say anything about god
FrozenEternity yes god does exist
+Jesus Christ Yo dawg make my life better already I've been waiting for years now. I want some fat stacks in my pockets.
I think what he's trying to say is people should shut down their emotions to avoid stupidity :v
emotional thinking is far different than rational thinking. And if you base beliefs on emotion rather than rationality, your beliefs are probably wrong. Look up plato's tripartite soul.
I like how he tried to avoid religion and used the term "emotions" xD
He did that because religion is a subject which excites emotion. It makes more sense to use something which we are all subject to in just about every decision we make, regardless of whether or not we go by evidence. It has to pass that emotion filter, no matter who you are.
Ady Adrian
I mean I am religious and I "believe" in science.
I love science. To me it makes sense. I actually did a project in philosophy comparing religion and science and if they are completely different, the same, etc.
I try to be an open minded person.
Suggesting they are even remotely similar, science & religion, in any respect, is not being "open minded". Its being a fool.
Oxy Worgon
Religion was how ancient people tried to explain the world around them. Science has provided the answers and not a single one was because of a magical deity. As Neil de Grasse Tyson said; ".... God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance".
Believe in God if you want and because it comforts you but understand that it is irrelevant as an explanation for existence.
alex826 Regardless of how the world came to being doesn't matter to me. The only thing I care about is "...[If I ] do not have love, I am nothing."
Basically, just don't be an asshole.
Care for others and be nice to people.
The rest is up to interpenetration and it is fun to think about, but in the end it doesn't matter.
The bible was told in stories for people to understand in simpler times. The thing that matters the most is what you take out of it.
I do think that there is a God that created the universe. But even if I am wrong, I still think that treating others with respect is important.
I didn't even know science is something you can't believe in, it's not Santa Klaus, it's SCIENCE ...
Sölvi Már Þórisson
I think you're thinking of the panic when they discovered the first hole in the ozone layer back in the 80's, and it was a case of "if nothing is done, by 2007 the ice at the poles _may..."_ Still, big chunks of the Ross ice shelf have been breaking away over the last couple of years, so, maybe just the timing was out?
I believe in science and religion at the same time Religion for me too fell well you know That maybe we really aren't alone and someone watches us
And science for well SCIENCE
Such people should not go to a hospital when ill or take any medicine. Then they may have the word.
Hypocrites.
That's stupid
C. J. Bailey
Just sit your arse and pray for your imaginary friend and do not be a hypocrite. Bigot.
I have a massive cock.
Maximillion
Hahahahah - me too.
*****
Untrue. See the % of religious people and the hospital's full of people.
What science? God gave me mobile phone with WiFi. Peroid
Carl CIFER cthulu made me immortal. praise be to cthulu.
To be fair engineers gave you an iPhone not science. You can science the hell out of something and will never actually have a product you could buy. All you get is the knowledge to theoretically create something.
Engineers use science...
iPhone? Designed by God, assembled in China
The troll is real
my faith in humanity has hit an all time low reading some of these comments
LitcheTheArsm Yours is the second one in my stream, but I'm going to guess it gets ugly.
yup. it continues to surprise me every time..
I mean, they are not too terrible so far. What the hell did you see that made you lose faith?
Buckets i see.. dead people. they're everywhere.
LitcheTheArsm If you come to the RUclips comment section to enhance your faith in humanity...... You've come to the wrong place LOL.
lol what's next? people denying math?
Ian damn, that was 🤣🤣🤣
In this age of flat earthers, Raw water and alternative facts, I wouldn't be surprised.
1+1=3 my mom said . :3
2+2=potato
Have you tryed the common core math, there is your first step.
We need to develop those skills in our education system
Then we won't have these issues 😅
We need to develop these skills *ourselves* (emphasis added where the fallacious statement was corrected).
Its not enough to look at others and say that they think wrongly. We're thinking wrongly ourselves.
You wouldn't want us developing too much thinking skills or we might just become smart enough to not put faith in certain inventions of human creativity.
stefiheem we would put more money into schools if it weren't for greedy politicians.
Critical thinking would be the key here, looking at both scenarios and what has a more supported conclusion.
Constant Eclipse the one that has a surpported surcluestion
To the people that do not believe in science and never will, I have a question for those who are here now. It is not to be rude or anything, but why would non-science-believing people be watching videos by DNews (a channel dedicated to science)? There is nothing wrong with that or anything. I was simply curious.
Ramped Upp because talking about everything from a scientific stand point and using facts and numbers in propaganda.....
Ramped Upp "Science has a liberal bias"
Flowey The Flower so the GPS in your car, the car itself, your home, this thing your using right now to reply to me, it's liberal. you live in a world of liberal things created because science
+Trec93 And you know that how?
Gabe Lee Because people watch youtube.
I have a friend like this, when he gets angry, he just stops thinking and instead of trying to figure out whether a statement is correct, he tries to find ways to figure out why it is wrong. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence he delays the verification of this evidence in until he's exhausted by trying to find a reason why he's correct.
He's not stupid, he's actually pretty smart, it's just that you need to wait till they calm down and then provide more evidence.
ironically this is the essence of what makes an actual scientist. with every bit of skepticism they question things and exhaust every bit of information to arrive at a conclusion. this is what science is. of course, as with anything, if you’re already set in your argument and only looking for ways to validate your preexisting world view, that wont matter anyway
587 dislike from a religious people who hate science but still take advantage to use Facebook, twitter and RUclips to watch this video.
I blame 2016
Bloody Grundel
You can't blame time
Hylian Montage then I blame Dicaprio, everything went to shit since he got his Oscar
Ignacio Galindo lmao well played
Hylian Montage
tell that to your ocarina
Ramped Upp
I'm still blaming Harambe
how can some people not believe in science...its like saying....i dont believe that if you add 2 things to other 2 things it will together be 4 things
If you know math good, you know that not every time 2+2 makes 5=)
My 4 eggs only made one omelet.
So far all of the 'God-given' frameworks of reality have turned out to be complete bull shit though.
Can you explain the 2+2 !=4? What are you referring to?
Because not every single aspect of what's included in certain theories can be repeatedly observed and tested to be true. If one can't observe it, then it isn't science. It's more of a philosophical supposition.
bozy99 theoretical science you shouldn't believe it because only it's only theoretical not factual
Why don't people believe in science?
Because they're too busy believing in God.
Oh yeah only fox news watching christian conservatives disbelieve in science... did you know gender is not a social construct and you cannot be a woman no matter how much money you spend? really makes you think eh ?
Slougun Restrictions Christian scientists aren't creationists
Slougun Restrictions Correct me if that wrong but that counts more as Intelligent design ratehr than creationism? I dont know
Slougun Restrictions Okay makes sense now
A creationist that believes in evolution is an oxymoron :P.
Evolution completely destroys the bullshit that is creationism, with the added bonus that evolution (as are other facts) will not stop being true just because you don't "believe" in it, gravity is not going to "turn off" just because you decide that you don't "believe" in gravity.
And no, the fact that some scientists believe in god means shit, they don't turn to god for answers.
And what you believe has no impact on how nature works, reality will not change to fit your views.
Trust me, humans are better without religions.
Why do people not believe in evidence? Because I have words, I have the best words. Nobody respects woman more than me. I am the least racist person you ever met. Nobody lies better than me. Believe me!
what?
vocal cords you just mad you voted for Hillary like a libtard and lost.
ksnab If you assume he was talking about Trump that really shows us something
what evidence? oh the thing that somebody wrote on some page and he told you heres the evidence? and you believed it just like that?
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true". - Carl Sagan
You can't not believe in science, science it the observation of nature, not believing in science is like not believing in nature and simply denying facts. You can't choose to not believe in science, we don't make it up, we just observe it. Get your head out of your primitive religion and learn some actual facts. If you're skeptical of evidence well then I can understand that however, the burden of proof is then placed into your shoulder so you must figure out a way to back it up.
Mayrbek Sos actually no the Quran says the earth is flat like a carpet with rugged mountains. Do a quick google search please. Also the Quran was written around 600 CE and Pythagoras (one of the earliest round earthers) lived around 500 BCE. So even if it did it's nothing impressive.
and yet some people don't because they almost think science is like a religion maybe because that's just what they are accustomed to and not very educated
Spectra Phantom Don't forget people have ambiguities.
Spectra Phantom
Skepticism is actually required. That is what makes science self correcting
as an intp i have no problem separating emotions from thinking and judgement. It also makes me really frustrated by alot of people at their irrational opinions and actions. This also explains why religion and war are still on the earth.
Your mind is always changing. You don't have to be stuck adhering to a personality label given to you through a limited personality assessment. Avoid stagnancy and science is easier
hey miss america.... as an intp you should know how irrational it is to think there will never be war or religion
Rylan Delap im not trying to adhere to anything its who i am, and of course im always changing but that generally doesn't not alter how my brain is wired.
Skjald The Bardbarian again people cant follow logic, take a step back and think. Its obvious why what you said is a tad stupid. A good example about how I feel about people, completely driven by emotion rather than reason yet in general, are not aware of it.
+Jimmy James lol dude you didnt even get it...its okay ...
i dont think world peace is obtainable its unrealistic and irrational to think it is at this point
so while you said people think irrationaly...you ate your own foot
Science doesn't claim to know everything, only religion does that.
It doesn't.
Science think they know everything but they dont
I was taught to question everything. Big thanks to my teachers. Especially the elementary school science teachers who taught my classes with a hands-on approach of letting us do experiments ourselves.
I too do that but sadly some people really don't like that. I am working on asking questions in a way I don't hurt someone's feeling. But I will believe in science for the rest of the time I am alive
Maybe some people don't believe it because they are not affected by that ( for now )
TheLinkinTALLICA 1000 years from now I just feel sorry for the people in the future because they will have to fix what we messed up on this planet.
Daniel Bagang it already has and only on blink of to late will they belive
When you say "are not affected by that for now" I can't stop but thinking about this article: www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/parents-views-vaccines-are-changing/
Mainly because of religion, and America's bad education system.
Oh dont worry other countries too
@@Seld6863 nope
I do in science, but I also hate hate it with a deep passion. My middle school/high school years were the worst because I rarely understood anything. I listened, took notes, did my homework just to end up getting a 60 percent on almost all my tests and exams. I tried to tell my parents I was struggling and I might need a tutor or a visit to some brain doctor to see if there was anything wrong with me, but they never listened. All they told me is I'm lazy and not trying hard. I've been grounded so many times become of it, i've spend so many nights crying because I couldn't do it. Maybe it's my fault I did bad, maybe not. So that's why whenever someone mentions science, I just stay quiet.
Sorry for the rant
It's alright. You don't have to be able to science. Just believe in evidence and facts. I hope you are doing fine now
Science, unlike religion, doesn't require your belief. It works regardless of what you think.
Sometimes scientists are wrong... it happens and people shouldn't be dogmatic and say everything today of science is 100% fact.
jonathan phoenix wait what? Scientists are individuals so of course can be wrong the scientific consensus with overwhelming evidence should not be ignored. maybe I misunderstood your comment, but you shouldn't reject scientific evidence.
"Sometimes Science is wrong, so we should stop doing it and just base it off... something else, uh.. the tarot. yeah. that works!"
yeah but not when thousands of scientists all say the same thing without any outside intervention or information. Sometimes they can be wrong but we have nothing to lose and it would make our earth a better place.
Jachim Soyer not saying that you are putting words in my mouth. I'm only saying you should always question things.... you're making an argument that I'm not arguing
Nick Cline I'm not talking about Global warming or etc. etc. etc.
Hi, can you add on the description of every video all the "according to the studies ... " mentioned? It would really help :)
i argue that scientific partisanship is the most dangerous threat to the scientific enterprise, not religion, magic or any other contradictory positions to science
Because it conflicts with their interest.
I rarely listen to anything said by DNews because I'm too distracted by Trace's cute face to pay attention.
Aren't we all?
o.o
We are going 1000 mph around the Earth but the pepperoni spinning on my pizza is flying off my pizza at 1000 mph ?.
NOOOOLO! Not the pepperoni.
I could not agree more. People are naturally curious. Make them question their beliefs before giving them an answer they might not want!
I like this episode, because I like psychology. I don't like other people saying _other people_ are stupid. My take is as long as someone's opinion (in this case, on science) isn't doing anything any harm, then why bother. Now the President-Elect and his associated peoples could really cause harm with their beliefs so that is bad.
My dad on the other hand, isn't really doing any more harm than the average person with his disbelief in global warming, so I don't bother arguing with him about it. It's so not worth it arguing with someone who just goes, "IT'S FAKE CREATED BY DEMOCRATS" 5 seconds after hearing the words 'global warming'.
I like this episode because you explained why people react like that! It's interesting; I love learning psychology.
On that one instance it may be, but your father (assuming he is american that is), is part of the voting populace. And in order to start making headway on some issues, it unfortunately requires government interference, aka voting by the masses. Also, if your father believes in this 1 conspiracy theory, how many others does he believe in? It's a compounding effect and it is dangerous. I've gotten into many arguments with my own mother over scientific things (evolution). She doesn't believe we evolved from Apes/Monkeys, and I'm fine with that, but when I tried talking about evolution in general, she stopped listening and shut it down with "I don't believe in evolution"... BUT EVOLUTION ISN'T JUST ABOUT WHERE HUMANS COME FROM!! Ugh... I had to explain that to her because it is a dangerous line of thinking or lack of thinking that eventually effects us all with how people act, how they vote, what they consume. But yes, it is very interesting from a psychology stand point. I love psychology and social psychology.
Sounds like your dad and my mom should be friends! lol... But yes, I know my mom won't change her mind either, unless reality hits her in the face (as in she finally got to know someone who happened to be gay, and then she mostly changed her view on homosexuality). If you get a chance, definitely study psychology. I once took a class called Paranormal Psychology and it was about why people believe in paranormal (religion included). Fascinating class!
Their beliefs in incorrect information DO cause harm as those people tell others and bad info begins to spread like a disease. Then people make real world decisions based on that bad info.
Reptarsaurus People won't take climate change seriously until it is too late, which is quite bullshit. People need bloodshed first or nothing gets done.
Psychology hardly qualifies as a science. I prefer neuroscience. Much more concrete.
religion, the way they were raised, their political parties, etc... but all sums up in four simple words: lack of proper education.
Thinking is hard, therefore most people judge.
I read that quote somewhere on internet and now I understand why.
science is never settled, and the problem is that the notion to "believe in science" means we don't have to think about it and that's not what science is.
All facts are actually opinions, because, in order to state a fact, a group of scientists has to agree with the same opinion that was stated. Because they all have to "agree" - some of them can "disagree", therefore the fact is actually an opinion.
But an opinion becomes a fact when one has tangible evidence that supports said opinion.
And on the other hand, evidence for the negative results can exist equally.
No it isn't. Fact are Based on tested evidence. Opinions are not based on facts. They are simply formed according to prior beliefs.
The evidence is made in order to convince scientists. Because they have to be "convinced" - they just tell their opinions - "the evidence makes this opinion a fact" or "the evidence doesn't make this opinion a fact".
avi12 no a fact isn't an opinion, saying that earth rotates around the sun is a fact not an opinion
Because science isn't politically correct.
He spent 5 minutes saying they are lazy and stubborn and maybe hinting they are stupid. I have a new found respect for Trace.
I was taught growing up that I was supposed to believe that Creation and the Great Flood were literal. So even into my 20's, I still believed in these literally. According to Neil deGrass Tyson, approximately half of all scientist have faith, like them I do too. Like Neil said, it's ok to have faith but keep it out of the science classroom.
I don't doubt the existence of climate change, or even that mankind has contributed, even significantly to it. What I'm opposed to is more government regulation. Regulation is expensive, even for those already in compliance because you have to prove you're in compliance.
But in terms of people 'not believing science' -- some of us have been around long enough to know that "science" (as broad and indeterminate as that term is) keeps changing its mind on things (speaking broadly, not specifically about climate change). Wait a decade or two or three and a new theory and the predominating ideas will have changed. Someone can be 100% convinced of something today, only to find out in a few years that they were wrong. Textbooks will have been published in that time, laws may have been enacted to enforce the predominate views at the time, etc. only to discover later on that they were wrong. I think (again, speaking broadly, not climate change) that as a society we (1) act too quickly on ideas that are still just theories, and (2) are too accepting of working theories as fact.
In other words, some of us get tired of "science" crying wolf, and being forced to change education and behavior based on ideas that are still just working theories.
doubledeej That is a really fair point and thank you for having the courage to make your opinion known. Doing so in RUclips comments is especially brave! So good on you.
However, there is a considerable amount of evidence that climate change is not only real but a significant threat. Debating this only wastes valuable time that should be used to make any improvements we can towards our planet and the future of humanity. It's that serious. Govt regulations are tough and costly (and arguably inefficient sometimes- trying to be fair) but at least it's a step in the right direction to do the right thing. If govt regs are too tough for corporations to comply then why not negotiate a better solution? Instead of condemning climate and earth science why not bring those same experts and engineers in to come up with ways to make compliance easier (faster and cheaper)?
Also look to the folks with a "Startup" mindset. I'd imagine some amazing results if you brought that kind of talent to a roundtable with scientists and engineers.
markigirl15 Pretty much, yep! We can only do the best we can with what info we have at the time.. but at least we make the effort.
The whole idea of using government regulations to fix things is what bugs me. I mean, we don't have to regularly file reports proving that we didn't murder someone. Or that we didn't speed while we were driving. For the most part we're allowed to run our own lives and then the government only steps in when there's an obvious infraction.
Not only is it expensive to not be in compliance, or even expensive to be in compliance, it's expensive just to run the tests to know if you're in compliance.
That said, I'm generally conservative, but I hate that the political right basically takes the approach of "this doesn't exist" rather than "let's find a better way to know we're on the right track." I also hate that the political left tries to cram regulations down our throats. There has to be a better way.
You don't understand what Regulations are then. Regulations put in place by government are PROTECTIONS. In every instance where you see the word regulation, replace it with protection and see if you want to get rid of them. Every protection the government enacts has a basis in something that has gone wrong. Protections against corporations dumping toxic waste in your water, or allowing your employer to force you to work in unsafe conditions, or not requiring safety devices cars or other heavy machinery. Someone has gotten hurt, sick, or died for nearly every protection the government has put in place.
Those are most definitely not the type of regulations I've had to deal with in my career. I'm a contract software developer and have done projects over thirty years in numerous industries, and what I've seen is far different than what you're describing.
What I've seen and had to comply with are things like regularly capturing and sending data to regulatory agencies. Studies that have to be done before a project can start (even when the outcome is known ahead of time). Processes and procedures that are regularly audited, documentation that has to be kept, certifications that have to be held by people working on a project, etc. It takes up a huge amount of time and effort. Depending on the project and the industry, compliance training, implementation, testing, and certification often takes far more time than the rest of the project. And most of it is busy work at best, and even harmful in many cases.
These aren't isolated incidents. I encounter this stuff pretty regularly no matter what industry I happen to be working in at the time. It's everywhere.
The worst part about it is the people that write the regulations very often don't understand not just the industry being regulated, but basic principles of business. If I was to field a guess, I'd say that about 60-75% of the things we're asked to comply with are frankly a waste of time and offer no practical benefit. Stuff that was clearly written by people who just don't understand how things work.
maybe some of the discovery channel executives should watch this video so we can cut down on all the pseudo science bs on discovery networks.
I wonder does this has connection with believing that there is a man in the sky that can know everything about you and not called as stalker.
Denialism is a very dangerous thing. It can change the way a person thinks and effect a person's personal life.
Always trust science.
"Research why people dont believe in science." Ironic.
Not believing in science is like not believing in the concept of learning.
This actually got me thinking about the relationship between intelligence and emotional response. Is there a correlation (positive OR negative) between intelligence and the belief in science? What about between intelligence and emotion itself? Are people who are generally more intelligent more likely to believe in science and be more willing to learn than those who are not as intelligent? It's an interesting concept, and it would be pretty cool to try to study it. Though there are so many factors to control in that. How do you measure someone's intelligence to be able to prove (or disprove) that theory? You can't realistically put intelligence on a linear scale, nor can you do so with emotion. It's definitely something to think about though. How does emotion or lack thereof impact our learning ability?
I have some religious neighbour's (I'm fine with them being religious) but they don't believe in science and I hate that so much
this is a pretty good explanation of the Trumpanzee brain. nice work
I'm not going to listen to you, I only believe in SCIENCE
Some people hear what they want to hear, and try to ignore the rest. To be fair that seems like most people.
I think that's called confirmation bias OR confirmation bias is a close relative to what you describe. I also think ALL people are guilty of this (including me) - it's just part of the human condition. And we have to actively be aware that it exists and work hard to minimize its impact on what/how we think. I also think everyone is a hypocrite (yes - including me).
I had never heard of "hot cognition" before watching this video but I'm going to use it for the first time here -
Hot cognition + Confirmation bias = FAIL (can't find the right words).
CARS DO TOO FLOAT!!
I think it's more simple... People just can wrap their minds around it
Just like for me with physics.
When you roll a ball off the table, depending on the height, no matter what it will land on the floor at 5 seconds (height is fixed)..
If the same height, and you roll the ball faster, it falls to the floor at the same time (5 seconds).. And let's say you roll that ball even FASTER like 5mph faster, the SAME fkn ball is hitting the ground exactly 5 seconds later.
IF that ball was rolls off the floor at the speed of a bullet... It still fkn hits the floor exactly 5 seconds later! Why? Because physics say so... You can prove it, it's a fact, but for some odd reason... My mind is telling me logically, that's fucking impossible lol
given all things are fixed ofcourse in this scenerio (air resistance etc etc)
Science is the poetry of reality
-Dawkins
just one article or person that says that something is a hoax even though that something is the truth is enough to spark a wild fire of doubts lol
Separate emotions from facts. Change your views to fit the facts, don't alter the facts to fit your views. Facts are facts, and science is true even if you don't believe in it.
I can see the anger in traces eyes
because science isn't a belief system. It's a method that relies on skepticism to understand the world. You don't prove things in science you merely present the findings from your experiment then present your hypothesis. so people not believing in science is not the result of stupidity but rather people treating science as it really is. Something that maybe true and can have very strong evidence pointing to it being true, but ultimately be false as is the case for most scientific theory's. science is mostly trial and error after all.
Ignore is bliss, the motto to people who deny evidence
Science isn't a belief.
Lets be perfectly honest here.
I'm not a climate denier, but I'm really getting tired of people saying "just look at the evidence" for global warming.
Yes, we can look at the evidence and we see these warming trends. But the issue with that is that no one disputes that the Earth is getting warmer or that these events that are attributed to climate change are happening. The dispute is always about the CAUSE of these events. That's a MUCH more difficult question to answer.
Again, I'm not a climate denier, but lets be honest. How many of us have actually studied enough of this subject to actually be able to say that we "follow the evidence." Almost all of us simply listen to what some expert somewhere has said and we listen to them. I'm guilty of it, your entire show hinges up on that, none of us here are actually following the evidence.
That isn't to say that climate change isn't a real phenomenon, but it is to say that you're talking shit about how we actually come to conclusions about scientific "facts." We're not following the evidence, we're following PEOPLE who follow the evidence. There's a world of a difference there.
dude, just look at the evidence :)
insidetrip101 There are many factors that cause the Earth's climate to change, human made pollution is one factor
But we could say that for everything else now can we. It's like your saying that you were sick and your family care doctor tells you that you have a viral infection (after testing of course) but you say to yourself "But this is an expert. How should we all know that it's truly a viral infection? I'm just listening to some random person say so. No, I'm pretty sure I committed a sin and God is punishing me."
There's more to just "recording the data" of sea level and overall global temperature. We already detected that the ozone layer is diminishing and this can be achieved with the presence of chlorine in the atmosphere. You have to ask yourself, "Where is the chlorine coming from?" You can challenge yourself by saying, "The chlorine was already present in the atmosphere" but then you would have to also ask "Then why is it happening now?" and you can say "There was probably more ozone present already" but THEN you also have to ask "If that much ozone was present then why wasn't life exterminated from the beginning?" Too much ozone is dangerous to have in the atmosphere. And ozone diminishing increased its rate most likely from the Industrial Revolution with the introduction of coal factories (or sometime after the Industrial Revolution. I don't know, I stink in History). And you also have to consider, if Venus is hotter than Mercury because of its thick atmosphere made of carbon dioxide then wouldn't the same happen to us using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels DO release large amounts of carbon dioxide. It's not like the carbon dioxide goes up in the air and disappears. Eventually it accumulates there and acts as a green house gas (well, it is a green house gas). And we know that through testing and learning its chemical properties. Scientists already did this kind of questioning and some more. But, we can also do the same (to some extent) and if you really want to challenge them then I'm pretty sure they written papers about it and its open to the public (I think). But basically I'm just stating that most of the time it isn't harmful to follow experts, especially when 90% of them came to the same conclusion. It's all right to question them (it's science after all) but you need to look at their evidence and what they have to say. I guess you were addressing that people don't look at that evidence when they start denying?
Constant Eclipse
"But we could say that for everything else now can we. It's like your saying that you were sick and your family care doctor tells you that you have a viral infection (after testing of course) but you say to yourself "But this is an expert. How should we all know that it's truly a viral infection?"
Yea, that was kind of my point.
I'm not saying that it would be prudent to go against the doctor, but when you go to the doctor then you're not the one "following the evidence," unless you did go to medical school.
We're not following evidence, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In today's world we can't possibly hope to be experts on everything, but can we please stop parading evidence based thinking about topics that we really have no clue about.
"There's more to just "recording the data" of sea level and overall global temperature."
Again, yea, that's kind of my point. There's a lot more to evaluate about climate change than simply saying here was the average global temp in 1653 and here is the average global temp today. There's tons and tons of evidence that you or I have not evaluated.
But that's the difference between me and you. I'm going to be honest when I tell you that I haven't followed the evidence on climate change. I've read one book on a terribly complex topic. That doesn't suddenly mean that I'm "following the evidence."
"But basically I'm just stating that most of the time it isn't harmful to follow experts, especially when 90% of them came to the same conclusion."
Again, I agree.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment. It sounded adversarial at first, but now it seems like you only commented to affirm my original position.
"I guess you were addressing that people don't look at that evidence when they start denying?"
No, I'm addressing EVERYONE. I'm sure there are people on both sides who have good arguments.
I happen to find myself on the side that is more cautious and wants to be proactive about trying to find ways to solve climate problems instead of denying that the problems exist in the first place. For example, on a somewhat unrelated note, just because Malthus was wrong that the human population would never exceed a million, doesn't mean that he was wrong that over population was (still is) an issue. It could be the case (it is the case) that he was unable to predict the extent of humanity's ability to engineer society in a way that was able to overcome his assumptions. Climate change is much the same way, but in order to solve the problems presented in climate change, we must accept that the problems are real. I apologize for the digression.
Either way, on both "camps" you have the majority of people made up of people like me: the people who just listen to what the opinions of those whom they agree with. However, while I don't study climate science in my spare time, and my opinion about climate change clearly isn't based on the actual evidence I'm actually willing to admit that. I really don't know.
Most, however, whether they're full on climate denialists or vegan treehuggers, are both going to say they just "followed the evidence" when the reality is that neither of them has (more likely than not) spent anywhere near the time required to have actually evaluated evidence.
The worst intellectual illness is fooling yourself into thinking that you know something you don't.
+insidetrip101 Ok thanks for clarifying your point. I see what you mean and, yes, its true. We put our trust into scientists and think its true. Scientists can be wrong too. It depends on how much factual evidence one has to win an argument, at least, in this case. However, I think if the nonbelievers were to put some thought and critically think about the issue at hand they can make better arguments than just saying "it's just stupid" or "there's evidence." I did some critical thinking in my previous reply and although it's not a perfect attempt it certainly does more than the nonbelievers do so far I've seen. The best way I find to go through this process is to ask questions to yourself, trying to disprove or change your mind while responding with logical reasoning/factual evidence and then trying to disprove that and just repeat the process.
I needed this video back in January 2016 when I was writing my thesis about science, society and mass communication...
"The science is settled"
Words that should never be spoken.
Belief is the enemy of Knowing
Resistance to silly doom laden headlines done by clueless media has resulted in a backlash against against the concept by those who are incapable of doing the math themselves.
LEWIN!!!!!
You quote Lewin ... a true fucking genius!!!!!
The more people push, the more others will reject.
Most people judge through emotions rather than facts.
This may be your BEST video yet!!! It all makes me sad though, people not accepting science.
People have the right to have opinions but people don't have the right to their own facts.
Very well put :)
Reading the comments I'm thinking of the presenter's sign off: "...if I haven't convinced you with any of this, maybe re-watch this video." Good advice, and please actually listen this time.
I love everything about science, and I do find people who blindly follow the idea of science rather than real observable experimentation. I also hear people second the thoughts of scientists but are unable to replicate/imagine the experiments themselves, or communicate their understanding of it.
Wow Trace. That's the most simplified I've heard it. Very well laid out.
Because science is not about faith. Science is about facts. Facts do not need belief.
4:43 Don't appeal to their emotions?
That's pretty good advice.
4:48 Avoid presenting evidence that would trigger joy? Why? What's wrong with triggering joy? But I agree, avoiding triggering anger, fear, or disgust also makes sense.
The best way to escape a sinking car is to let it fill with water, then get out.
Reality is the thing that remains real regardless of anyone’s opinions. When climate changes hits them they will believe and they will want scientists and engineers to save them, not clergymen pedaling hope at inflated prices due to it’s created scarcity.
How exactly would you appeal to one's curiosity rather than emotion?
Perhaps an overall distrust of those who are in power.
They denying facts because IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH