# Naivety of the layman



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Many of you have had some degree of formal and informal education in science.
What is the most common/annoying incorrect thing you notice layman think and say relevant to fields of science that you've studied?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

That the human species is intelligent and that I'm _not_ crazy.:crazy:


(/subscribed :kitteh:, should be interesting thread)


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

That science has something to say about things that are untestable or of which we can gather no data. Science has no opinion on philosophy, morality, the existence or nonexistence of god, and so forth. _Scientists_ can have opinions on such things, but it is not the same thing. 

That what is commonly accepted scientific knowledge today is the capital T Truth, rather than the best explanation we have at the moment. The ability to question beliefs and change opinions when confronted by evidence is essential for scientific progress.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Jesus fucking christ I can answer this in a heartbeat.

"The link between quantum physics and consciousness".

It makes... NO... _SENSE_!


----------



## Misaki (Feb 1, 2015)

Too many specific things to list, but one thing that has stood out to me has to do with the reach of science. Apparently I'm surrounded by people who don't value the scope of the scientific method.

For instance, something that came up at the dinner table a month ago or so was whether parents should punish children by hitting / spanking them - something that remains pretty common practice. One individual offered no justification for this besides a single (unhelpful) anecdote. Another, my younger sister, who actually studies this kind of social science stuff in part, didn't even argue her case, and basically disregarded any attempts made to bring data into the conversation.

I'm not read up on the relevant literature to have a firm scientific basis for my opposition, but have read a few studies casually which suggested that this sort of discipline is anywhere from useless in the long-term to harmful, particularly with regards to development (aggression, moral perception, etc.). But regardless of what we can or cannot conclude at this point, is there any doubt that science has _something_ to say about this, at least in principle?

I guess this isn't the place to talk about science and morality, but my point is that evidence is relevant to so many areas of our lives - more than many seem to acknowledge. It makes no sense to me when people suggest that science cannot guide us in investigations like these. It's as if once science is taken out of the lab, its utility is diminished. If it collides with popular social convention, for example, the latter often wins.


----------



## Bitlost (Jan 27, 2016)

Science is a religion.

I hear that often and people emitting thought from their brain(?) are often quite passionate about their claim being absolutely true. 

No, they are not confusing science to Scientology. 

Another is argument how science is useless, so called facts supporting this claim are usually that two studies disagrees of something or in case of common layman's, it is more like two tabloid headlines, about misinterpret study, disagrees. 
Sadly not many actually read studies, if they did, they would found out that even same thing is studied, studies might approach from different angles with different goals, where for layman they contradict, for some others two studies widens perspective of what is going on. 

But that, for layman, gives valid reason to neglect whatever scientist or science tells them.

I don't know if anyone else has found that to be rather annoying at times, but for me it is sometimes quite frustrating, I mean what is the point of attempting to help persons when they don't even try to understand? Or maybe it is just my limited output unit.


----------



## s2theizay (Nov 12, 2014)

I had someone tell me that obviously black holes aren't real. If they were, wouldn't everything just keep falling in?


----------



## Ashvin (Aug 21, 2012)

Roland Khan said:


> That the human species is intelligent_._


Hahaha, indeed! What a riot, humans classified as an "_intelligent_" species!


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Bitlost said:


> Science is a religion.


Science is in the same category as religion, but it is a useful religion. I think that's where you're missing it. A religion might be worthless or produce something of value. Science is of the later.

And so because it produces results, people forgot that it was an ideology based upon a philosophy.

They fall for the fallacy that just because a religion produced substantial usefulness, that does not mean it left the category of religion.

We shouldn't forget where science began... it began with concepts like Ether. This was what Tesla believed, and he was a scientist in his era.

General relativity won out. But Ether is essentially a notion of magic, or perhaps not, depending upon the framework we view it.

Science never really left religion, but people got big-headed about some accomplishments and decided science became its own category of thought... but if it couldn't escape philosophy, I don't see how it changed at all.

It is a non-theistic religion. 

But I also generally consider religion and philosophy interchangeable, because if you gut into the bowels of both religion and philosophy, we find the same things underpinning both.

Religion is just advanced philosophy that left the philosophers in the dust. This notion applies to science, and with both science and sound religion, we require a metric of evaluation to prove whether it yields anything (usefulness)... and perhaps even things like being the truth.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Razare said:


> Science is in the same category as religion, but it is a useful religion. I think that's where you're missing it. A religion might be worthless or produce something of value. Science is of the later.
> 
> And so because it produces results, people forgot that it was an ideology based upon a philosophy.
> 
> ...



^


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I get irritated when people accuse me of making them sick when they got sick hours after the time they were in contact with me--while I'm assuming they're accusing me of giving them rhinovirus, which in reality, is a post nasal drip to which I am prone to, having several allergies. First of all, sinus issues based on allergies are not contagious, and second of all, rhinovirus has an incubation period of 3 to 4 days. You're not going to start showing symptoms right after you shook hands with me. Chill.

Also this "We found a new thing that 'causes' Autism!" thing has to stop, like, yesterday. Genes cause Autism. Scientists have found these genes, so expectant moms: Vaccinating, using antidepressants, sniffing glue or whatever the heck "experts" are saying cause Autism don't make your kid have Autism. You probably had a relative with it. 

Also--Cold weather causes pneumonia. "You'll catch a cold if you go outside without a coat and a scarf"
"I'll be more likely to catch something if I stay inside with my germ infested family reunion that flies in every year, especially with the family kids that have been spending about 40 hours a week in that petri dish of snot wiping, touch everything, after going to the toilet without washing hands of human germ mobilizers called 'School'!"


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

s2theizay said:


> I had someone tell me that obviously black holes aren't real. If they were, wouldn't everything just keep falling in?


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

When people label every statistical study as science, no matter how sound or unsound, and take the leap from there to believe it is undeniable truth. I just squirm when I read "articles" titled "Science proofs X" and they refer to a statistical study with a questionable sample or they equate correlation with causation. :dry:


----------



## Flow Ozzy (Nov 7, 2015)

When people out rightly deny the theory of evolution, natural selection etc [ without even reading anything about it ] just because they know it can mess up with their religious ideas :frustrating:


----------



## Misaki (Feb 1, 2015)

subzhero said:


> When people out rightly deny the theory of evolution, natural selection etc [ without even reading anything about it ] just because they know it can mess up with their religious ideas :frustrating:


I frequently find myself caught off guard by how common this still is. Strikes me as close to unanimous at university (though I'm in biology, so go figure) but then somebody like my mother turns out to be a denier and it's just like, "What."

I like this quote. Seen it circulated around before, but believe it's just attributed to a reddit user or something:

"Years ago I stopped asking people if they believe in evolution and asked instead if they understood it."


----------



## Flow Ozzy (Nov 7, 2015)

Carnivore said:


> I like this quote. Seen it circulated around before, but believe it's just attributed to a reddit user or something:
> 
> "Years ago I stopped asking people if they believe in evolution and asked instead if they understood it."


That's it, the "believe" part, a lot of people think that science is just like religion, that you have to believe in it. It's the total opposite of it, whether you believed it or not 'science' remains there, you got some problems with a theory, a concept read about it, understand and then try to criticize it [ in general people don't know that's what scientists actually do, you have to give it time ].
If you stop believing in supernovas, dinosaurs, micro-organisms they just won't stop existing at all. 

When some stupid people tell me that I 'believe' too much in science, I always reply them ' I fucking don't believe anything, I just try to understand it [ at least some of it ], science works whether you freaking believe in it or not '


----------



## losing_the_game (Jan 25, 2015)

That bumblebee flight somehow breaks physics. People used to tell me as a kid that the bees shouldn't be able to fly and I couldn't understand their reasoning. "Yeah, but look, it's ACTUALLY FLYING."
Oh, and that a computer only "understands" ones and zeros. The one and zero thing is to help YOU understand. I guess it didn't work.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

the arrogance-as well as ignorance- is strong in this thread.


----------



## Flow Ozzy (Nov 7, 2015)

Fumetsu said:


> the arrogance-as well as ignorance- is strong in this thread.


how so ? can you please elaborate


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

The belief that only the laymen are naive...


----------

