Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From an expert walled up behind the 30-metre Oblivion Wall, we learn the causes of “science denial” …


Neurologist Steven Novella tells us,

A recent publication of a series of studies looking at the roots of science rejection is a nice cap on this research: Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection.

The researchers looked primarily at three forms of rejection of science: climate change denial, vaccine rejection, and skepticism about GM technology. They also looked at a number of possible correlating factors: political ideology, moral purity, religiosity, support for science, faith in science, and scientific literacy.

There are a lot of details here, and if you want to delve in deeply it’s best to just read the original study (it’s pretty accessible). I will give a summary of the overall findings here.

They found that climate change denial was predicted mainly by political ideology, but not by low scientific literacy. Vaccine rejection was predicted by low scientific literacy and low faith in science, and also by religiosity and moral purity. Distrust of GM food was predicted by low scientific literacy and low faith in science. Neither vaccine or GM food rejection were predicted by political ideology.

Further, there was a lot of interplay among these various measures. For example, religious orthodoxy was the main driver of low faith in science and support for science.

One lesson from all this is that belief is very complicated, and it is difficult to tease apart all the various influences. A study, for example, that only looked at political ideology and science rejection would miss a massive part of the picture. More.

Yes, it is “difficult to tease apart.” Because it is mostly bunk. There are lots of reasons why people don’t believe things. Let’s start with: Is it believable?

If, as a recent piece in Times Higher says, peer review is an “ineffective and unworthy” institution, why should people “believe” science any more than they believe a dodgy bank?

People like Novella are going to have to do better than hurl insults at the public from behind Oblivion Wall.

See also: At Times Higher: Peer review an “ineffective and unworthy” institution, some reforms proposed. The angst machine has been running on this topic for decades now. Hatton and Warr do recognize a critical aspect of the main problem: Peer review success enables a scientist to get established doing what other scientists do far more than it enables advancement of the field itself. And that is especially true when hard questions might need to be asked like, are we on the wrong track?


Blinkers Award goes to… Tom Nichols at Scientific American! On why Americans “hate science” Health science is the way most people interact with science and in many areas, it is running neck and neck with the office rumor mill for credibility.

It's funny they didn't include fluoride. Way back the "I am smart" science set wanted to put fluoride in water supplies. A lot of people expressed skepticism, even suspicion. Yes Mandrake, even suspicion. They were viciously mocked. Well, so much for the I-am-smart-bow-before-me types: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/ Just because a bunch of people with letters after their name say they are practicing science doesn't mean they are practicing science. It's not the concept of scientific methodology that is being questioned but the people who make claims about it and shout at you and call you names if you express doubts. Remember eugenics? It was based on a claim of scientific authority. Same can be said about lobotomies, anti-miscegenation laws and numerous other evils. tribune7
Biological information definition - Francis Crick (1958) http://hudsonvalleyrnaclub.org/course/rna_lecture1_pata090209.pdf "By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence of the protein." "Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein." Les
News, for cause I reject Scientism as patently absurd, where its self-referential incoherence is grounds for that absurdity. Science, is my base discipline, but I yield to no new magisterium any power to move me one inch beyond the force of the evidence and reasonable, responsible inference to the best explanation. Science and politics do not mix very well. KF kairosfocus
polistra at 1, Novella plus 1000s. And none of them seem to be listening. What say we market them as a sound barrier? Like, maybe we could make something off this. News
They found that climate change denial was predicted mainly by political ideology
So what is climate change religiosity predicted by? What is scientism predicted by? What is straight-up stupidity predicted by? Andrew asauber
#1 reason why people disbelieve science: Novella. polistra

Leave a Reply