Evidence And The "worldview Backfire Effect"

[TheSkepticChristian]

Then there is the fact that so much published research is fudged and false, simply to obtain grant money or to obtain a Nobel Prize.  Scientists are all too human.

 

and are you in a position to say that? What is the evidence? Please don't point to the piltdown man hoax. 

 

Scientists don't need grant money, private organizations and companies can fund them too. 

Edited August 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[sunstoned]

 

The only reason why many here don't like scientific consensus is because it contradicts their worldview.  

They often point to Galileo, but Galileo was the scientific consensus of the 17th century. 

QFT

[Calm]

and are you in a position to say that? What is the evidence? Please don't point to the piltdown man hoax.

Scientists don't need grant money, private organizations and companies can fund them too.

Not sure what you are asking, but for examples of fraud, wiki has a list here you can start with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

There are a lot of scientists out there asking for money and limited resources. And companies and private organizations can have a problem with fraud as well for a variety of reasons, see wiki article for basic discussion.

Edited August 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

Not sure what you are asking, but for examples of fraud, wiki has a list here you can start with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

There are a lot of scientists out there asking for money and limited resources. And companies and private organizations can have a problem with fraud as well for a variety of reasons, see wiki article for basic discussion.

 

I agree some scientists are corrupt,  but it doesn't mean the entire scientific community is a fraud. 

 

Do the editors and reviewers of the Nature and Science Journals commit fraud? Evidence please 

 

and do you have a better answer for Tim-maC's question?

Edited August 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

It is nearly always other scientists that expose the fraudsters. The lay community not so much.

[Robert F. Smith]

So, do you have a better answer for Tim-maC's question? 

I agree, but it is still the best known explanation, I didn't say it is always the right answer. 

Today, there is rarely a consensus on something that has little evidence. 

 

Today who is more likely be right, the consensus or one scientist?

We rarely find single individuals, but rather schools of thought.  In archeology, for example, we find minimalists, maximalists, and middle of the roaders.  A consensus may be absent from the scene on many issues, and opinions remain in flux for an extended period.  It is impossible to gauge likelihood under such cricumstances.

 

and there was no reason for non-physicists to take Einstein seriously because a maverick's position is often wrong. How could none-physicists test his theories? 

When a maverick position is proven, the scientist becomes very famous.

I was thinking of his fellow physicists, not non-scientists -- who were not in the picture.

 

The only reason why many here don't like scientific consensus is because it contradicts their worldview.  

They often point to Galileo, but Galileo was the scientific consensus of the 17th century.

The question of the OP was what do we make of the Worldview Backfire Effect?  Which has nothing to do with consensus, but rather with strongly held views, which are even strengthened by presenting opposing evidence.

 

As for Galileo, he did not represent the consensus.  When he was silenced, the consensus was fully Ptolemaic geocentrism as represented by the scientific establishment (the Jesuits)..  The Copernican revolution was about to change that and to establish a new consensus, but not in Galileo's lifetime.

[TheSkepticChristian]

We rarely find single individuals, but rather schools of thought.  In archeology, for example, we find minimalists, maximalists, and middle of the roaders.  A consensus may be absent from the scene on many issues, and opinions remain in flux for an extended period.  It is impossible to gauge likelihood under such cricumstances.

 

Sure, I agree, sometimes there is no consensus. Today, when there is a scientific consensus it is usually because there is a lot of evidence. 

There is rarely a consensus on something that has no evidence. 

 

 

I was thinking of his fellow physicists, not non-scientists -- who were not in the picture.

 

His fellow physicists were skeptical, as they should be. It is never good to jump to conclusions too quickly. 

 

 

As for Galileo, he did not represent the consensus.  When he was silenced, the consensus was fully Ptolemaic geocentrism as represented by the scientific establishment (the Jesuits)..  The Copernican revolution was about to change that and to establish a new consensus, but not in Galileo's lifetime.

 

 

Galileo was the scientific consensus because no one else was doing science at that time. 

 

 

The question of the OP was what do we make of the Worldview Backfire Effect?  Which has nothing to do with consensus, but rather with strongly held views, which are even strengthened by presenting opposing evidence.

 

The consensus and  evidence cause the worldview backfire effect. For example, the LDS scholarly consensus convinces rod meldrum more about his own position, because the consensus contradicts his worldview. 

Edited August 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

I find it interesting that we are told that Satan himself was happiest when there was "none to molest or make afraid".

 

Satan worried about being molested and being afraid?  What's that all about?

 

I have always found that quote absolutely fascinating.  I have no clue what it all means, but it is fascinating to think about.  Apparently, he doesn't like challenges to his world view

 

So are we being told that being afraid of challenges is "Satan's way"?  Certainly being locked into one world view limits one's agency, so maybe that's the way it fits in?

Edited August 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Another way of seeing this is that we have come here to earth to construct our own world- our own worldview as I see it.

 

When someone challenges one's construction, the natural evolutionary thing to do is to adapt the construction to the new environment while retaining the construction one has created. 

 

There is a famous example of natural selection, which tells of the gypsy moth originally being light in color because the trunks of the trees it lived in were light in color.  In England during the industrial revolution, the tree bark became darker because of all the soot from coal fires being spewed into the atmosphere, and in turn the lighter colored gypsy moths lost their camouflage, and were eaten by birds, naturally selecting those which were darker, and over a period of time, changing the coloration of the species.

 

When the tree bark got darker, the gypsy moth did not go extinct, but changed only one aspect of it's appearance to survive.

 

So perhaps we are seeing the same effect here- when evidence threatens one's world view which has taken a lifetime to construct, one creates another explanation for the evidence, and adapts the world view only slightly so that one can retain the world view and rationalize a way to fit the evidence into the existing world view.

 

It's really just the evolution of one's ideas, as I see it, and is a perfectly natural way that humans think, nothing insidious or irrational about it.

 

Just as science evolves over time, adjusting paradigms to fit new data, that is what we do on an individual basis all the time.

 

This article is not news- it is as old as argumentation itself.  The way you preserve your world view is to draw a distinction when challenged, and show how that the "data" does not fit THIS particular iteration of the problem.

 

This is from Aristotle- the father of argumentation!
 

 

Moreover, just as in rhetorical discourses, so also in those aimed at refutation, you should examine the discrepancies of the answerer's position either with his own statements, or with those of persons whom he admits to say and do aright, moreover with those of people who are generally supposed to bear that kind of character, or who are like them, or with those of the majority or of all men. Also just as answerers, too, often, when they are in process of being confuted, draw a distinction, if their confutation is just about to take place, so questioners also should resort to this from time to time to counter objectors, pointing out, supposing that against one sense of the words the objection holds, but not against the other, that they have taken it in the latter sense, as e.g. Cleophon does in the Mandrobulus

 

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.2.2.html

 

That's all that's happening here. 

 

The more one objects to any position, the position becomes refined to account for the objection.  It works in evolution and it works in philosophy. 

 

Those presenting the majority position are no different from those in the minority positions in the way positions evolve, they just happen to be in the majority at the time.

 

There is no "backlash"- there is just a refinement of the opposing argument.   And calling it "backlash" is just an ad hominem argument against those in a minority position.

 

It's just ignorance of philosophy at work again, as usual.

[mfbukowski]

Sure, I agree, sometimes there is no consensus. Today, when there is a scientific consensus it is usually because there is a lot of evidence. 

 

which is all interpretation because scientists agree with scientists.

 

What happens when you challenge the scientific world view today?

 

Clearly one is ignorant, and the scientists immediately dismiss your world view and hang on tenaciously to theirs.  That is really what is happening here.  In that case they are the ones who have the "backlash" and their opinions become stronger.  Every time one challenges Darwin, the scientists opinions grow stronger.  Challenge them on the existence of God, and clearly it is you who are ignorant.

 

Of course I am not "anti-science" nor am I "anti- religious" obviously nor am I pro global warming, anti global warming or in favor or not in favor of saving the whales.

 

Of course I have opinions on all those issues- but that is not the point here. 

 

The point is that the idea of a "worldview backlash" is just plain human growth in ideas.  It's like calling breathing an "air addiction" and wringing one's hands about all mankind being addicted to air.

 

It's just silly.

Edited August 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

which is all interpretation because scientists agree with scientists.

 

Your interpretations philosophy may be true, but it doesn't help scientific and medical progress. 

 

What happens when you challenge the scientific world view today?

 

Clearly one is ignorant, and the scientists immediately dismiss your world view and hang on tenaciously to theirs

 

because scientists like real challenges, not pseudoscience. Read the scientific literature, it is full of new challenges. You can find many phrases like 

"than previously though" "used to think"

 

Stephen Hawking challenged the black hole consensus. New theories challenge the singularity theory.

Scientists like valid criticisms.

 

 

 Every time one challenges Darwin, the scientists opinions grow stronger. 

 

but at least many scientists train their brains against confirmation bias.

 

 

The point is that the idea of a "worldview backlash" is just plain human growth in ideas.  It's like calling breathing an "air addiction" and wringing one's hands about all mankind being addicted to air.

 

The "worldview Backfire Effect" happens because the human brain looks for explanations and patterns that don't exist 

 

.  

Edited August 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

Your interpretations philosophy may be true, but it doesn't help scientific and medical progress. 

 

 

because scientists like real challenges, not pseudoscience. Read the scientific literature, it is full of new challenges. You can find many phrases like 

"than previously though" "used to think"

 

Stephen Hawking challenged the black hole consensus. New theories challenge the singularity theory.

Scientists like valid criticisms.

 

 

 

but at least many scientists train their brains against confirmation bias.

 

 

 

The "worldview Backfire Effect" happens because the human brain looks for explanations and patterns that don't exist 

 

.  

My, my!  That's quite a backlash! 

[mfbukowski]

The "worldview Backfire Effect" happens because the human brain looks for explanations and patterns that don't exist 

 

. 

So I guess scientific "patterns don't exist", or do scientists not have brains?   Hmmmm.  That's a toughie...

 

In fact creating patterns is what we call "organizing matter unorganized".  Indeed what you have pointed out is a godly activity and is what science is all about.

 

When you can explain how "patterns exist" independent of a mind seeing them, maybe I will examine my own paradigm without a backlash myself

Edited August 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

So I guess scientific "patterns don't exist", or do scientists not have brains?   Hmmmm.  That's a toughie...

 

I said (post 86) that many scientists train their brains against confirmation bias. 

 

 

When you can explain how "patterns exist" independent of a mind seeing them, maybe I will examine my own paradigm without a backlash myself

 

There are real patterns (SETI is looking for them) and patterns  like 

 

 

That are not real 

 

But under your interpretations philosophy anything can be real. You philosophy - "What is anything?" "What is the word what?"

[mfbukowski]

I said (post 86) that many scientists train their brains against confirmation bias. 

 

 

 

There are real patterns (SETI is looking for them) and patterns  like 

 

 

That are not real 

 

But under your interpretations philosophy anything can be real. You philosophy - "What is anything?" "What is the word what?"

Well I would suggest you examine your own assumptions here and answer the objections most philosophers today would make to your arguments, but until then, I will backlash my way and you will obviously backlash your way.  If you gave me something to adjust my position around I might consider it, but so far no cigar.

 

After all we all like to be in the majority and see ourselves as reasonable, don't we?

 

Have a good one

[ERayR]

I said (post 86) that many scientists train their brains against confirmation bias. 

 

 

 

There are real patterns (SETI is looking for them) and patterns  like 

 

 

That are not real 

 

But under your interpretations philosophy anything can be real. You philosophy - "What is anything?" "What is the word what?"

 

NASA photos not real?  Some of the interpretations may not be real but those photos.  Well I guess you have a severe case of world-view-backlash.

[Robert F. Smith]

As for Galileo, he did not represent the consensus.  When he was silenced, the consensus was fully Ptolemaic geocentrism as represented by the scientific establishment (the Jesuits)..  The Copernican revolution was about to change that and to establish a new consensus, but not in Galileo's lifetime.

...........................................................

 

Galileo was the scientific consensus because no one else was doing science at that time. 

 

...............................................................

False.  You ignore Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Zupi, and many others, who were predecessors of or contemporary with Galileo, and you ignore thousands of years of science from Aristarchus (the heliocentrist who influenced Copernicus) through the long period of Aristotelian physics -- only replaced by Newtonian physics about a century after Galileo.  We were still studying classical Euclidean Geometry when I went to school.

 

You might want to have a look at the multivolume Lynn Thorndike, The History of Magic and Experimental Science.  You don't know science.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[TheSkepticChristian]

False.  You ignore Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Zupi, and many others, who were predecessors of or contemporary with Galileo, and you ignore thousands of years of science from Aristarchus (the heliocentrist who influenced Copernicus) through the long period of Aristotelian physics -- only replaced by Newtonian physics about a century after Galileo.  We were still studying classical Euclidean Geometry when I went to school.

 

You might want to have a look at the multivolume Lynn Thorndike, The History of Magic and Experimental Science.  You don't know science.

 

Galileo was the only one doing scientific research about the planets in the early 17th century, no one else did scientific research about the universe in that time. 

 

 

NASA photos not real? 

 

but under your philosophy it is just an interpretation. 

 

 

After all we all like to be in the majority and see ourselves as reasonable, don't we?

 

I don't like popular opinion. I like scientific consensus, but not popular opinion. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Your interpretations philosophy may be true, but it doesn't help scientific and medical progress.

Rigorous logic and accurate math are fundamental to critical thinking, without which science is not possible.  That is what philosophy does.

 

 

because scientists like real challenges, not pseudoscience. ............................................................ 

..................................................................................

Isaac Newton, considered by many to have been the greatest scientist, was also the last great sorcerer (see Michael White, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer).  You just don't know science.

[ERayR]

but under your philosophy it is just an interpretation. 

 

 

 

I don't like popular opinion. I like scientific consensus, but not popular opinion. 

 

Any explanation is interpretation. 

 

What do you think consensus is?  It is the opinion popular with the most people.  Didn't your grandmother ever ask you: "If everybody else was jumping off a cliff would you do it too"? 

[ERayR]

Rigorous logic and accurate math are fundamental to critical thinking, without which science is not possible.  That is what philosophy does.

 

 

Isaac Newton, considered by many to have been the greatest scientist, was also the last great sorcerer (see Michael White, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer).  You just don't know science.

 

Gee that probably wasn't in the WIKI piece.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Rigorous logic and accurate math are fundamental to critical thinking, without which science is not possible.  That is what philosophy does.

 

but ERaR and mfbukowski are saying that everything is just an interpretation, even "symptoms are evident" are just an interpretation. 

 

Isaac Newton, considered by many to have been the greatest scientist, was also the last great sorcerer (see Michael White, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer).  You just don't know science.

 

I am talking about modern scientists, or most of them. 

 

 

Any explanation is interpretation. 

 

Sure, scientists look for the best interpretation. 

Edited August 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

but ERaR and mfbukowski are saying that everything is just an interpretation, even "symptoms are evident" are just an interpretation. 

 

 

I am talking about modern scientists, or most of them. 

 

 

 

Sure, scientists look for the best interpretation. 

 

According to who?

[TheSkepticChristian]

What do you think consensus is?  

 

an agreement of the best explanation based on the available evidence, it is not a gut feeling. 

They agree not because they like each other, scientists agree because the results of their own scientific research agree. 

 

 

Didn't your grandmother ever ask you: "If everybody else was jumping off a cliff would you do it too"? 

 

According to you gravity (an explanation) is just an interpretation, so I guess it really doesn't matter. 

 

 

According to who?

 

Read the scientific literature 

Edited August 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

an agreement of the best explanation based on the available evidence, it is not a gut feeling. 

They agree not because they like each other, they agree because they find the same data in their own scientific research. 

 

 

 

According to you gravity (an explanation) is just an interpretation, so I guess it really doesn't matter. 

 

 

 

Read the scientific literature 

 

I have never suggest one should throw reason and critical thinking out the window.

 

Go ahead try it but you better have a good parachute.  See reply to first item.

 

Okay then I throw my reasoning and critical thinking skills over the cliff without a parachute. 

 

The geocentric model was the consensus for some time.  Do you still think the earth is the center of the universe?