Science and the general public

micromass

Not necessarily. "Setting her straight" could also mean to teach her about arguments for claims and to show that the evidence (that she or other people provide) is not sufficient.

One can NEVER prove that ghost don't exist. But we can take a look at the arguments and the evidence and make conclusions about it.

If I say that I'm going to "set someone straight" about beliefs, that doesn't mean I'm going to prove that it's false, but it means I'm going to debunk the evidence that people have for it.

chiro

It is up to both if both want to prove it. If someone makes a claim but doesn't want to prove it, then at a minimum they have to accept that it is potentially wrong. If someone states it as a fact where there is no potential instance that it is ever wrong, then they would have to prove it.

If both people think that there is no potential falsification in their claim, they both have to prove it.

I don't know if Ivan's sister or even Ivan have the stance that there is no potential for any kind of falsification for their claims (remember potential falsity refers to any instance of it being wrong: not necessarily disproving something entirely. Having zero potential falsification corresponds to an absolute truth).

If they both do, they both need to show proof. If one does and the other accepts the possibility that they might be wrong in one way or another (potential falsification), the first must prove. If both admit the potential for falsification, then both just get on with their lives.

micromass

That's not how it works. It is for people making the existence claim to prove it. We should not (and cannot) disprove an existence claim.

It's the same thing in a court of law. The defendant should not prove that he is not guilty. It is the other site who should prove that he IS guilty. And it is up to the defendant to debunk the evidence a charge.

Evo

No. Please read the link I provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso..._of_the_burden

chiro

I see what you are saying, but ultimately people in the end engage in this process to move towards proving their own point.

I mean you can say "debunk" the evidence, but all you are doing is trying to re-inforce your own perspective over someone elses. It is always the initial intention of a debunker or challenger to do that.

The other thing though is that a lot of people do not admit that their conclusions are under uncertainty and this is such a critical thing.

When people think they 'debunk' something, they think that their arguments are conclusive. This means that the implication is that the debunker not only has all the information about the argument specifically, but all the information about everything complementary to that of the context of the argument.

To put it simply, the arguments that are presented to 'debunk' are always going to be in a very fixed context that miss a tonne of things. One reason for this is that in order to analyze anything effectively, we have to simplify and constrain things and I understand that.

The problem is that people forget they are even doing this and then assume that they didn't do this: they think they covered all bases when they made the argument and the so called 'debunking', when they didn't do that at all.

Again, the point I am making is that when people set someone straight, they have the explicit intent of trying to change someones perspective to their own and this predisposition ends up having the characteristics mentioned above.

Evo

You probably missed this, so i'll repeat it.

No. Please read the link I provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso..._of_the_burden

dipole

Whoa, what bar do you go to where people talk about science?

zoobyshoe

The authentic physicists here can confirm or deny this but my understanding is that most research funding comes from the government and big industry. I don't think voters are involved in deciding what gets funded.

OmCheeto

I come from a large family: 4 brothers and 2 sisters. We run the gamut from evangelical christian to evangelical atheist, and everything in between. So far, I've noticed no difference in their interest in science. My mother claimed to talk to angels, yet there were at least 4 encyclopedias in our house when I was growing up. I think she bought them a volume at a time at the grocery store. (We were dirt poor, and I had to resort to dismantling our B&W TV when I was 10 to get her to buy a color set. It worked!)

One anecdote though that I should point out, is that people can be way smarter than you think. Part of the clan went to Mexico a few years back, and no one knew how to convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit to cook some lasagna in the oven. Being the brilliant scientist that I am, I decided to work out the point slope intercept, knowing the boiling and freezing points of water in both scales. Working through the problem on paper, I noticed that my sister was doing the same thing, as she knew the scales from her porch thermometer. So I stopped and watched her solve the problem. She'd never struck me as being a mathematical type person, but she figured it out.

She also posts scientific discoveries on my facebook page, that she thinks might interest me. She actually beat PF one day. I was impressed.

chiro

But you are assuming a debate: comments can be made without the implication of something being a debate. A debate will be a causal effect of some discussion involving ideas being communicated, but it doesn't actually become a debate until people decide that they need to change others beliefs or convince some audience greater than themselves of some particular conclusion.

Not everything is a debate. Many people say things to other people and not everyone has the need or desire to challenge what they say and thus create a scenario for debate and this is a critical thing that needs to be understood.

Scientists are a different bunch because it is their livelihood and nature to find a measure of certainty and engage in debate when there are conflicts between their own views and another.

With your example of the court, again two parties can do things but things don't always end up in court. However if one party wishes to take it to court, then things change.

Think of examples of owing money especially between friends. In some situations it becomes a problem that goes to court or some kind of arbitrater and then the defendant has the right to be innocent until proven guilty. But the matter doesn't have to go to court and if it doesn't then the context is completely different.

Realize that not everyone is out to prove everything all the time and be 'right' all the time.

zoobyshoe

You can find people to discuss science with at just about any coffee shop. If nothing else, there are science students taking advantage of the free Wi-Fi. I met a working aerospace engineer a couple months back. Met a neurologist once. Tons of science students.

Evo

No, I am taking it to not be a debate. His sister has stated a belief and he's not going to try to debate it. And that is correct on his part.

OmCheeto

hmmm...

Clinton looks like he might make a good member of PF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...xVS6-s#t=3260s

Its nice to see an old lawyer who can keep up with science.

"In another galaxy, in the milky way.."

almost...

hmmm.... might be the "poly-sci" part of his brain that automatically inserts too many words to describe something.

ZapperZ

Humm.... I think only two members who participated in this thread answered my question on how many here have made an effort to communicate science to the public beyond participation on PF.

Are we all talk but effort?

Zz.

AnTiFreeze3

I'm in high school, and am in the science club at our school. I'm sure there would be something that I could try to do, but I'm not entirely sure where to start.

So as of now, I'm all talk no effort.

KiwiKid

I don't know if you would consider this a serious effort, considering that I've barely started college and only did a few things in high school, but I tried a few times to give some sort of presentation about the scientific method to first- and second-years in high school (I was a fifth year at the time - I'm not sure what you'd call that in the USA). I *think* most were pretty interested and I *think* I was able to explain it all quite well, but of course it would be a rather hard for me to judge my own performance.

AnTiFreeze3

If 5th year is the last year of secondary school in the UK, then that would be equivalent to a Senior in high school in America.

For future reference, in the U.S, we go through four years of high school. First year is Freshman, second year is Sophomore, third year is Junior, and fourth year is Senior.

Anyways, I'm sure that was helpful. Usually when giving speeches, if people look like they're paying attention, they are. Whenever I present something, I can't stand to go up there and not know the material, so I go hardcore with it and know the subject as well as I possibly can. This results in me being more confident with my presentations, and I've invariably gotten both excellent grades from my teachers, and excellent responses from my classmates.

What I'm getting at is, when I knew the material and seemed interested in what I was presenting, people looked like they were paying attention. When, say, I was giving a presentation in a kind of blow-off elective class that held no interest to me whatsoever, my presentations suffered, and I was able to see that in the way my classmates responded.