Anti Science friends and trying to enlighten them. (possibly funny)

[Darkynx]

Anti Science "friends" and trying to enlighten them. (possibly funny)

I know its pointless to even argue with people like this (even more pointless when its on Facebook), but do you guys ever give in and try to school people like this? Sadly a few of my friends decided to stop their education after high school (and it shows), anyone else ever have friend that post stuff like this?



" big bang THEORY is unworthy of even being called (unknown) Its true that new heavier atoms form only after supernova explosions but to assume that there was some "time" when there wasn't some kind of atom is silly. Particles aren't the basic fabric of reality as you think Ynx, its consciousness."



"Quantum Physics will go on and on and on about particles.
The Large Hadron Collider will also claim to discover new particles. They fail to realize that counting subatomic "quantum particles" is like trying to count all the stars in the universe. They're never going to do it and they're on an endless hopeless journey. Counting "quantum particles" is counting to infinity.Chasing effect after effect will never lead them in understanding the One Cause."

""In physics we have what we call The Standard Model but the Standard Model is not a complete model of the universe - it does not account for gravity or how particles that have no mass can have a mass when they come into physical manifestation in the 3rd Dimension"

It's 2012 and Quantum Physics still can't figure out gravity.

ROFLMAO
The Light is the equilibrium of zero where all knowledge, all presence and all power lays.
There.

I just explained in one paragraph what quantum physics could not explain in centuries of convoluted mathematical theoretical equations.

Occam Razor that.
The truth should never be complicated.

The truth of all things is always simple and will always be in all things.
The truth can be understood by two little children playing on a see saw.

Anyone else have friends that fell to the evils of anti science? Is there is like some kind of anti science and education movement?

 

[WannabeNewton]

You should try and help those who are ignorant by environment, circumstance, and lack of exposure but it is very hard to help those who are ignorant by will. I personally don't have friends like that nor family members but I have ran into people with such mindsets. I'm not sure when the whole "anti - science" thing became big, in the US at least, but if I watch sensationalist media then I can at least get a hint of the impetus.

 

[Mentalist]

How? Always ask how? If a person makes a concrete, universal statement as your friends, then they must explain their reasoning concretely and by facts of reality that supports their viewpoint. Otherwise you have to disregard them as a dying breed.

 

[Borek]

If a person makes a concrete, universal statement as your friends, then they must explain their reasoning concretely and by facts of reality that supports their viewpoint. Otherwise you have to disregard them as a dying breed.

Bolding mine.

Optimist.

 

[Zarqon]

There's a quote that has aided me on many occasions when I realize I'm debating one of these people, and that is:

"Don't argue with idiots, because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

If you nevertheless feel the need to at least make a counter statement, then I like pointing out that the reason we know science is correct is because we've proved it by comparing our thoughts to the real world and they fit. Simple evidence of this is all technology around us, which would be impossible without correct knowledge. Remember, scientist/engineers invented our current advanced technology, priests did not...

I would recommend leaving it at making general remarks like that and not going into any details of what has and has not been said and done, because you really can't win this.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I like pointing out that the reason we know science is correct is because we've proved it ...

It's a tough battle.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's difficult because you're not just dealing with ignorance but misinformation that they seem to arrogantly cling onto. I'd start really basic, don't try o wad in by trying to explain why their specific point is wrong but instead start by explaining what the scientific method is and work up from there.

 

[phosgene]

Friend of mine has some wacky ideas. Very wacky ideas. Horrifically uninformed ones too. Won't go into details as he's a fellow physics student and may be among us! Long story short, he's studying at uni specifically in order to somehow gain the ability to prove his pet theories. Dealing with people can never be an exact science. I rib his ideas, but he ribs me on being an atheist/being weird. Neither of us take offense. But some people hold their crazy ideas very close to their hearts and it's best to steer well clear.

 

[Kholdstare]

It's difficult because you're not just dealing with ignorance but misinformation that they seem to arrogantly cling onto. I'd start really basic, don't try o wad in by trying to explain why their specific point is wrong but instead start by explaining what the scientific method is and work up from there.

That's not a good idea since the people you're trying to explain won't have the patience to hear it all and get proper demonstration to understand it. I would say it will take days just to make them understand scientific method. Now, if you really have the tenacity to nag them for days, they won't take it easily and be angry upon you. They won't like it neither would you. So best thing is ignore them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's not a good idea since the people you're trying to explain won't have the patience to hear it all and get proper demonstration to understand it. I would say it will take days just to make them understand scientific method. Now, if you really have the tenacity to nag them for days, they won't take it easily and be angry upon you. They won't like it neither would you. So best thing is ignore them.

He did stress they were his friends and you're over exaggerating how long it would take. I've had similar discussions over the course of hours that have been quite productive. Even if it can't be done in one sitting if the OP is regularly interacting with these people their understanding can build up over time.

Ultimately it's down to personal choice as to whether or not its worth the effort but if the OP is keen to do something and not just ignore it then I stand by taking it back to basics as a means to address the huge gulf of understanding. The major advantage is that if some of it gets across and be crazy idea can be explained because of it then there's a much easier job explaining the next one. It's much easier to debunk perpetual motion after homeopathy if first you explain the method by which we know the to be wrong rather than going "ok so that covered some chemistry and biology, let's go on to thermodynamics"

 

[jim mcnamara]

Even with Ryan's approach it is a tough fight with limited returns. With the anti-science folks in my cohort it is virtually impossible. Not that they cannot learn, they just do not want to spend the cpu time on it. Which is probably the way they were 50 years ago. And - why they now believe all kinds of improbable stuff.

Their sound bite approach to learning sucks, IMO.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Oh. Does anyone recall the thread we had on why a scientists' use of words like 'theory' and 'believe' cause miscommunication with non-science types?

i.e., in common usage 'I have a theory' means: 'I just came up with a lame, half-baked explanation'. As opposed to the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Kholdstare]

Oh. Does anyone recall the thread we had on why a scientists' use of words like 'theory' and 'believe' cause miscommunication with non-science types?

i.e., in common usage 'I have a theory' means: 'I just came up with a lame, half-baked explanation'. As opposed to the Theory of Evolution.

They should call it hypothesis, predictions for which proof had not been obtained yet.

 

[Borg]

I usually focus on how the person is processing their information. Not everyone has taken a logic course and I often find that they are drawing conclusions that aren't very logical.

I have seen people reach this conclusion more times than I can count.

If A then B
If B then C
therefore If C then A

 

[Ibix]

You could point out the flaws in the thinking behind 'scientists overcomplicate things'. Somebody on another forum I used to frequent pointed out the flaw in the "my own theory is better" type thinking with an analogy. All these mixed-martial-artists and their hours and years of training. It's such bull****. All they're doing is reinforcing their preconceptions of how to fight. My lack of training means I'm not stuck with all their dogma - I'll beat them all easily. All I got to do is kick 'em between the legs.

Not going to happen, is it? So why would you believe it when you substitute science terms for unarmed combat ones? Do you really think no-one has tried the simple ideas? We abandoned them for a reason.

Someone here posted a YouTube link to Feynman talking about scientific method. He says the same thing with a safe-cracking analogy. People write to him saying 'have you tried 10-20-30?' Feynman says that he always has, except when he knows it's a five-digit combination.

 

[NemoReally]

There's a quote that has aided me on many occasions when I realize I'm debating one of these people, and that is:

"Don't argue with idiots, because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

If you nevertheless feel the need to at least make a counter statement, then I like pointing out that the reason we know science is correct is because we've proved it by comparing our thoughts to the real world and they fit. Simple evidence of this is all technology around us, which would be impossible without correct knowledge. Remember, scientist/engineers invented our current advanced technology, priests did not...

I would recommend leaving it at making general remarks like that and not going into any details of what has and has not been said and done, because you really can't win this.

I wouldn't recommend those kind of general remarks because you stand a good chance of getting your metaphorical feet whipped out from under you.

We don't know that "science is correct", we believe that we have a set of reasonably consistent models, grouped under the not entirely clear heading of "science", that provide us with a good-enough-for-many-purposes predictive and explanatory explanation of the universe we observe around us. A brief examination of the history of "science", however, will show that these models have, at times, been subject to quite marked changes in paradigm. It is important to remember that these prior hypotheses were often based on observational evidence coupled to the collection of philosophical thought that existed at the time; for example, the earth-centric, circular planetary orbit models were good enough up to the point where observation and model parted company, then epicyclic models were introduced, then sun-centric circular orbits, then sun-centric elliptical orbits and the transition into Newtonian gravity and General Relativity - all very significant changes in terms of their predictive and philosophical impact. Given this history of change (and the fact that there are still many unanswered questions about the nature of gravity and other aspects of the universe), saying "science is correct" is a step beyond that which is warranted by the evidence.

Another thing you might like to note is that despite claims to the contrary there are still a number of scientists (practicing or former) who are religious and a subset of those who are priests - the vicar of my local church is an ex-research physicist, the young vicar designate of another local church has a PhD in astrophysics and one of my air force friends is a Presbyterian lay clergyman and has a PhD in physics. Furthermore, you will find a very large cohort of non-religious people who are also quite ignorant about science and mathematics; I've seen some anti-religious arguments propounded by individuals that make Creationist magazines look like peer-reviewed CERN publications (talking of Creationism, according to Wikipedia one prominent Australian creationist, John Harnett, is a Research Professor at the University of Western Australia, works on the development of ultra-stable cryocooled sapphire oscillators and participates on a Sapphire Clock Ensemble project (Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space Mission) run by European Space Agency.)

Personally, I'd recommend being honest about what science does and does not give adequate explanations for and why. Eg, the Big Bang Theory is not an assumption as Lyx's friend claims - it is a model that is supported by observational evidence and seems to provide the best consensus fit to that evidence from amongst the other models "we" have considered - I say consensus because some scientists do work on other models (eg quasi steady state). You'd have a harder time countering "Particles aren't the basic fabric of reality" - some might claim that fields are more basic to the thing we call reality. In arguing about consciousness, however, you might also have to concede that there is NO existing physical theory of what consciousness is. Lots of hand-waving, but nothing that stands up to even basic scrutiny (I'd be delighted to be proven wrong about the 'nothing' bit).

 

[Mentalist]

I usually focus on how the person is processing their information. Not everyone has taken a logic course and I often find that they are drawing conclusions that aren't very logical.

I have seen people reach this conclusion more times than I can count.

If A then B
If B then C
therefore If C then A

So people aren't really logical, or we only reason to a certain extent? Are we more illogical than logical (generalization)?

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Analyze each person individually, and find what will get through to them. It's different for most people, and if you find a way to get into their very core, their very essence of how they view and interact with the world, you can hopefully endlessly exploit it until they no longer have some of the most decadent, pitiful mindsets that could possibly exist.

Good luck.

 

[Borg]

So people aren't really logical, or we only reason to a certain extent? Are we more illogical than logical (generalization)?

That wouldn't be my conclusion.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

That wouldn't be my conclusion.

I would agree. Logic is very hard to argue with; that would be one of the primary tools in my hand-bag of idiocy-removal.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would agree. Logic is very hard to argue with; that would be one of the primary tools in my hand-bag of idiocy-removal.

Logic is hard to argue with, applying it to reality is hard.

 

[dlgoff]

Logic is hard to argue with, applying it to reality is hard.

You got that right. What's harder for me is just dealing with those that have no mechanical "vision" and attempt to fix but make matters worse. :grumpy:

 

[Number Nine]

They should call it hypothesis, predictions for which proof had not been obtained yet.

Theories and hypotheses are qualitatively different. A theory is a framework that explains a phenomenon; if someone comes up with a poorly thought out, half-baked explanation for why something is true, then they have a poorly thought out, half-baked theory. A hypothesis is a prediction generated by said theory.

 

[Whovian]

A few replies if you run into these people again:

Particles aren't the basic fabric of reality as you think Ynx, its consciousness.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about physics, not philosophy.

They fail to realize that counting subatomic "quantum particles" is like trying to count all the stars in the universe. They're never going to do it and they're on an endless hopeless journey.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Counting "quantum particles" is counting to infinity.Chasing effect after effect will never lead them in understanding the One Cause.

Nor will science in any way, that's for philosophers.

In physics we have what we call The Standard Model but the Standard Model is not a complete model of the universe - it does not account for gravity

your point being?

or how particles that have no mass can have a mass when they come into physical manifestation in the 3rd Dimension

They have no rest mass. They do have mass when traveling at the speed of light. Do study special relativity to see why these two can simultaneously coexist.

It's 2012 and Quantum Physics still can't figure out gravity.

Well, yes. Everyone knows this, we hope for it to eventually do so.

ROFLMAO
Look bro, this entire physical universe in motion is the electric thinking mind of God which is also God's body. God's thinking concentrates and decentrates. From that concentration and decentration is born compression and expansion. From compression and expansion is born gravity and radiation.

This eternally creating universe is the result of God's eternally continuous meditation.

The Light at the end of the tunnel is the Light of God's Knowing Mind.

The Light is the equilibrium of zero where all knowledge, all presence and all power lays.
There.

I just explained in one paragraph what quantum physics could not explain in centuries of convoluted mathematical theoretical equations.

"In motion." Have you verified the principle of relativity?

If you explained anything physics has in one paragraph, can you predict the half-life of the J/Psi particle?

Centuries? Do you know anything about the history of QM?

Occam Razor that ****.
The truth should never be complicated.

The truth of all things is always simple and will always be in all things.
The truth can be understood by two little children playing on a see saw.

**** all these quantum physicists trying to **** with people's minds making them think that the answer is complicated and incomprehensible."

Who ever said modern physics was complicated?

This thread was a late christmas present for me, coming up with clever solutions to math problems and arguing with people like this are the two things I live for!

 

[Borg]

Logic is hard to argue with, applying it to reality is hard.

Fortunately, I haven't had to apply it for others as often as the Mentors. You guys have dealt with more noobs than a retiring kindergarten teacher. :tongue:

 

[ImaLooser]

Anyone else have friends that fell to the evils of anti science? Is there is like some kind of anti science and education movement?

Yes, there is an anti science and education movement. Millions believe that it's all a huge conspiracy to control the public. Once people fall into that mindframe there is not much you can do. If they want to believe that, they can.

 

[Zarqon]

I wouldn't recommend those kind of general remarks because you stand a good chance of getting your metaphorical feet whipped out from under you.

We don't know that "science is correct", we believe that we have a set of reasonably consistent models, grouped under the not entirely clear heading of "science", that provide us with a good-enough-for-many-purposes predictive and explanatory explanation of the universe we observe around us. A brief examination of the history of "science", however, will show that these models have, at times, been subject to quite marked changes in paradigm. It is important to remember that these prior hypotheses were often based on observational evidence coupled to the collection of philosophical thought that existed at the time; for example, the earth-centric, circular planetary orbit models were good enough up to the point where observation and model parted company, then epicyclic models were introduced, then sun-centric circular orbits, then sun-centric elliptical orbits and the transition into Newtonian gravity and General Relativity - all very significant changes in terms of their predictive and philosophical impact. Given this history of change (and the fact that there are still many unanswered questions about the nature of gravity and other aspects of the universe), saying "science is correct" is a step beyond that which is warranted by the evidence.

It's kind of funny actually, because I typically use the example of gravity as an example of proof FOR my claim. Take the Newtonian gravity model for example, it is not describing the full story, since we've found cases which it can't explain, where we need something better, like the relativity theory. However, incomplete is not the same as wrong. I would not claim that Newton was wrong, just because it doesn't describe everything. In fact, the same experiements that Newton did to prove his theory can be done today with the same results, that the Newtonian model is indeed a good description. similarly, any physical models we have today, although they may be incomplete, will never be proven wrong, because in the setting they were measured today, they will always yield correct results, hence they are correct in some meaning of the word.

Another thing you might like to note is that despite claims to the contrary there are still a number of scientists (practicing or former) who are religious and a subset of those who are priests.

Being religious is not the same thing as believing in a very particular religious text. I agree that some (many) people just have a need to believe, and this is not necessarily correlated with their profession, scientists or not, and is totally fine because no one has disproven all religious experiences. However, some specific religious text are just wrong, provably wrong, and that should not be put on the same footing as models that can be experimentally verified.

 

[jedishrfu]

I would agree. Logic is very hard to argue with; that would be one of the primary tools in my hand-bag of idiocy-removal.

My friend used to combat logic with illogic. It was a more potent sophistry than any other method and he was an MAA math champion in the 1970's. He could always state that rule of logic no longer apply when dealing with an illogic proposition.

 

[Darkynx]

Whovian: You made my day. Check out this golden nugget (if you can actually watch all of it) of completely not understanding physics. Pretty damn ignorant to call Dark Energy and Matter a bad theory.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...