Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

[taxslave]

You guys aren't reading the article are you?

If you did, you would recognize that people don't have the luxury of time in critical analysis.


That's pretty much the crux of the intention of the OP.

By not taking the time for critical analysis we may very well doom ourselves. The one I like to use is Thalidomide. In the rush to get this product to market thousands of children were bore deformed. Why? Because there was no time for critical analysis.
The whole point behind AGW is to redistribute wealth from us to third world countries. Will it stop the earth from warming? Doubtful but it will put a lot of money in pockets other than the ones who created the wealth.

 

[mentalfloss]

Can you show me where Alberta's carbon pricing policy is the scheme you have just proposed?

 

[taxslave]

Actually, what you just posted taxslave, is entirely indicative of the gap between the purpose of science and the common misrepresentation people have in their minds.

People are dismissing preliminary results as they feel science should provide completely objective answers at the onset.



What is the antiquated method you are suggesting here?

Well of course. Nothing like taking a product that is "good" for you just to find out a year later that it actually is killing you because someone was in a hurry to market.

 

[petros]

Ludicrous! People don't doubt science, they doubt other people.

 

[relic]

So if the scientists stayed in the background, and robots did the press conferences, everything would be hunky dory ?

 

[taxslave]

Can you show me where Alberta's carbon pricing policy is the scheme you have just proposed?

Just another way for greedy governments to raise money. If it goes anything like BC's it benefits city people (where the votes are) while having a negative impact on industry and anyone in rural areas that must heat with oil because NG is not available and drive long distances because there is no such thing as public transit outside of the cities.

 

[mentalfloss]

Well of course. Nothing like taking a product that is "good" for you just to find out a year later that it actually is killing you because someone was in a hurry to market.

Are you saying that this sweeping generalization is indicative of a significant measure of scientific endeavours?

 

[taxslave]

So if the scientists stayed in the background, and robots did the press conferences, everything would be hunky dory ?

Some people fear robots too.

Are you saying that this sweeping generalization is indicative of a significant measure of scientific endeavours?

Yes. It pays to be cautious. Blindly accepting the word of a scientist, especially one that is paid by Big Pharma is just as bad as blindly accepting whatever a preacher tells you.

 

[mentalfloss]

Just another way for greedy governments to raise money. If it goes anything like BC's it benefits city people (where the votes are) while having a negative impact on industry and anyone in rural areas that must heat with oil because NG is not available and drive long distances because there is no such thing as public transit outside of the cities.

Alberta will be getting a significant deficit soon, and without any form of taxation, that deficit would be even higher.

 

[taxslave]

I'll take it one further, Automotive industry. Engineers are pressured to improve the product and get it to market. Then there are hundreds of recalls every year because they didn't follow through.

Alberta will be getting a significant deficit soon, and without any form of taxation, that deficit would be even higher.

Better cut spending on social programs then. Or raise existing taxes. Don't spend more than you make. Most important, tell it like it is, Government mismanaged the money and now they want more. Don't lie and claim it is to clean up the environment.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes. It pays to be cautious. Blindly accepting the word of a scientist, especially one that is paid by Big Pharma is just as bad as blindly accepting whatever a preacher tells you.

If the aim of scientific research is simply for profit, then it is not truly science.

This is something the scientific community regularly condemns, and is largely the a symptom of the problem of private industry (not science).

 

[petros]

95% of scientists work in private industry.

 

[gerryh]

If the aim of scientific research is simply for profit, then it is not truly science.

This is something the scientific community regularly condemns, and is largely the a symptom of the problem of private industry (not science).

Oh? So the "scientific community" is willing to do their research pro bono?

 

[Cannuck]

About 90 percent of the fluoride added to public water supplies comes from silicofluorides, chemicals produced mainly as byproducts from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, according to the CDC.

Oh dear!! Somebody should tell somebody.

 

[mentalfloss]

Better cut spending on social programs then. Or raise existing taxes. Don't spend more than you make. Most important, tell it like it is, Government mismanaged the money and now they want more. Don't lie and claim it is to clean up the environment.

I am not in disagreement with any of this, and it in fact strengthens my point that the problem is not science or scientists.

 

[petros]

I am not in disagreement with any of this, and it in fact strengthens my point that the problem is not science or scientists.

People don't trust people.

 

[mentalfloss]

People don't trust people.

Who is disagreeing with you?

 

[taxslave]

I am not in disagreement with any of this, and it in fact strengthens my point that the problem is not science or scientists.

Like it or not most science is done for profit. Even in the universities. They are always looking for patentable products.

 

[Cannuck]

Fluoridated water can also cause dental fluorosis, especially in formula fed babies.

The Mayo clinic recommends using bottled water to make baby formula to avoid dental fluorosis.

So, in answer to the question posed by the OP, science is doubted because it is not perfect, it makes mistakes, and we are SUPPOSED to doubt scientific results. That is the basis of scientific learning......... dumba$$.

You should stick to topics you know something about.

 

[EagleSmack]

The title of the OP reeks of a contemporary version of the Salem Witch Hunts

You interpret it that way.

It is actually about giving an empathetic explanation for why there is a gap between the science and common knowledge.

Like lets say... Spectral Evidence?