The science of anti-science
Debunking bunk about non-bunk that is
perpetuated as bunk
Skepticism luckily keeps science honest but
outright science denial is a step outside skepticism to absolute denial of
reality even when faced with evidence proving otherwise. For example;
evolution, climate change, vaccines, AIDS, archaeological evidence for ancient
civilizations, space exploration, etc. are just a few examples of some of the
types of science that is commonly denied.
The real issue is that it is easy immediately dismiss the
people who deny that AIDS exists or deny that we landed on the moon, but that
it's difficult to dismiss people who deny vaccines, climate change,
archaeology of ancient civilizations, and sometimes evolution.
It's difficult because they're everywhere, it is
alarmingly popular.
The belief that climate change is a hoax seems
to be not rooted in any actual argument but for political motivations; that
somehow if we all agreed we'd be taxed as a way to solve it (which is a leftist
perspective) and fear of those implications means throwing out the science all
together (which is a rightist perspective). The real problem with this is the
fact that politics should take no place in the realm of science. Similar to the
billions in bailouts paid by the U.S. taxpayer to fund alternate energy
companies who in turn just went bankrupt as committed by the current (left)
administration, just as the left pushes to take away certain freedoms and think
forcing the tax payer to pay for something that has no current monetary value
in solving will somehow solve the whole issue, the right wing side or former
administration replaced scientists with lobbyists for the oil industry to fund
research on the denial of climate change and then claimed that it
"wouldn't alter the results".
There is no "correct" answer to the
issue of climate change from either sides of the political spectrum because
they're both wrong simply because it's political.
Vaccinations hold the same merit, as long as a
few celebrities are willing to risk their entire careers being against a
science that has saved millions of lives, claiming it is causing an autism
epidemic. So instead of looking at the facts or talking to your doctor, you're
willing to risk your child catching a disease because you don't want to
"risk" your child developing a disorder that they're not really at
risk for.
Or when the History channel (claiming to be
about actual history) airs hour long segments of UFOLOGY and ancient alien
theories to somehow "debunk" the non-existent bunk surrounding the
fact that human beings figured out a way to build something that seems unusual
to us, so we must revert to the most absurd assumption possible and claim that
extraterrestrials built them for some unknown reason.
Are republicans responsible for science denial?
No.
There is science denial on both sides of the political spectrum.
Vaccination
denial, nuclear energy safety denial, and genetically modified foods safety
denial seem to be semi isolated in the realm of the political left with some
historical denial thrown in.
While
evolution and climate change denial seem to be semi isolated in the realm of
the political right with some historical denial thrown in. The common belief
that all anti-science solely comes from the right is also bunk that comes from
the left.
These individuals believe these claims because
they're more "fun" than believing the facts and believe them with
absolutely little or no convincing, while it could take a lifetime of factual
convincing just to get them to consider the other option.
They may seem as if they're only a few steps
away from understanding because of their ignorance in certain scientific
premises, which is true.
(An example would be denying global warming
because the sun will "burn out" like a log fire. A simple
understanding of nuclear fusion (should) change that person's perspective.)
But there is something else entirely that is
going on in the minds of these people.
Why are these people so crazy?
A psychological explanation:
Denial is a psychological defense mechanism (as
stated by Freud) that even when you're faced with the facts and even when you
understand the facts you still revert to some un-provable rationalization
because you simply don't "want" to believe it.
I want you to think of this the next time you
have a conversation with someone and they are making these outlandish claims
and once you've provided the facts for them, they still are absolutely ignorant
to the facts, then understand they have a psychological disorder.
They simply cannot accept reality because it is
too painful to them, it is too painful for someone to accept that the Bible may
have got it wrong on creation or that the world is just a little more complex
that you'd like to think and this is too much for you to emotionally handle.
An evolutionary explanation:
In early humans; our brains made quick
assumptions based our positive or negative feelings about something or someone.
Our brains are programmed to apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only about
people or predators but also data. This is basically also the reason for our
capacity to believe in things that are not true. (as explained in a previous
post)
We needed to make quick assumptions to avoid
predators while having limited amounts of information. However useless it is
that our brains still do this, the fact is your brain doesn't really know the
difference between rationalization or reasoning. You feel before you think, and
basically any argument you have with no preparation is an argument on feeling,
whether or not your feeling is rational or irrational. Politics is the hidden
persuader in anti-science, (i.e. fear of nuclear war, therefore fear of nuclear
science.) Politics sway people by the emotions in the same way that early
humans were swayed emotionally by their environmental stimuli.
How do you solve this problem?
Convincing someone who is anti-science may be
easier than you think. It could basically require you demonstrating the
faultiness in human perception. Show them an optical illusion and explain the
reality of it, explain what is going on in their brain and make it fun. Then
explain the purpose of science and how science is a method and process in which
we weed out any possible interference with human perception and our emotional
assumptions. Then explain why people can believe in things that are false.
Then.. get to your original point and show the data. There may be a chance that
this particular individual may consider for a brief moment that they were
wrong. This approach may not work because this seems to happen only if the information is
being spoken about on a large scale and repetitive. Similarly in the evolution
in early humans, if the rest of my group that protects me decides to believe
something else, I will too, for fear of rejection from the group.
Politics is a method that continues to keep
science tribal.
If you get science out of politics and keep
tribalism out then you won't have several different "tribes" of
people cherry picking the facts and denying the ones they don't like. (The very
people who vote, whom make decisions that affect lives of others, whom are in
charge of funding research to advance and improve the lives in human
beings)
Science is for everyone and it is here to help
us truly understand our world and better our lives and the lives of our future
generations.
The biggest mistake
Try not to be abrasive in communicating with
these individuals.
If you aren't one of these people then you're
most likely infuriated when speaking to one of these people, because you
emotionally cannot fathom why anyone would be so ignorant to reality.
Here's the issue, you must be the one whom takes
the high road if you want to see less anti science and the reason is this;
If the basis for science denial relies on our
early human's survival needs to deal with threats, then abrasiveness will only
keep that emotion going. A scientific understanding of why people think this
way is important to know, because now you know how to take your own emotions
out of the argument and understand that if you possess a human brain then you
are every bit capable of the same thinking patterns.
0 comments:
Post a Comment