People think in terms of "frames," which encompass complete concepts including moral and ethical overtones. Research into framing by Dr. George Lakoff (c.f., "Don't Think of an Elephant") has demonstrated that when confronted with facts that contradict an individual's frames, an individual will literally reject the facts.
Sunk cost fallacy also comes into play. One of the great things about scientists is that they are open to changing their mind if given good enough evidence to do so. Mental flexibility and humility are 2 useful personality traits of good investigators
There is no controversy concerning evolution and creationism in advanced nations. In a country where reportedly over 40% of the population believe in “young earth creationism” Ms Scott and science have an upward battle.
It's definitely disconcerting when you interact with someone who completely dismisses or even gets angry when presented with evidence that runs counter to their model of reality but I think it's not as bad as it seems. These people ARE being reasonable at least to the extent that they recognize that two contradictory things can't be true at the same time.
About the backfire effect:. I think people's positions are not based on a single point. Giving an article most likely won't change a person believe on a matter unless all his concerns are responded and he really trust the source.
Boa tarde!!! Estava verificando no site, uctv.tv/cable-retrans.aspx, uma informação referente a retransmitir canais ao vivo por meio da UCTV. Como posso proceder? Há algum custo ou apenas preencher o formulário é suficiente?
@ 11:24 Pew Survey combined with an AAAS survey Speaker claims it is a comparison between the public and scientists. AAAS membership isn't limited to scientists. It is a comparison is between a self-selected group of science activists to the general public. From AAAS website AAAS membership is open to all - whether you’re a career scientist, engineer, student, or passionate champion for science, you belong here.
This is the fairy tale liberals tell themselves but the truth is Americans hate ELITES. They hate smug delusional power-tripping jackholes who have no tether to reality citing themselves as authorities to crush them. They do not hate the scientific method.
1. What people THINK about an issue is not science. 2. The study of human behavior is not science. Therefore..........what has her lecture to do with ...............SCIENCE ?
Nothing makes sense except in the light of slide @25mts ;) Thanks for the talk Ms. Scott, kind of scary that things got worse than even back in 2005 when the trial happened...
Science is based on the scientifical method, it's actually more strict that logic. With logic, you can argue that unicorns are real. With the scientifical method, you need to discover a unicorn in order to claim they're real.
@@M310GL Science is more strict than logic in one sense (the one you describe) but less strict in another: in logic there are very rigid rules for deriving one proposition from another; science has no such rules. Both of these properties are interrelated: relying on what has been observed, it is impossible to infer with certainty anything about what hasn't been observed (this is the Problem of Induction). Science mostly relies on informal abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) than on formal inductive or deductive reasoning.
IRL, Exactly. Science is wrong. That's the truth. Anyone who believes science can't be wrong is both historically ignorant and has no idea about what science is. Science is a successive approximation toward truth. It isn't the truth and should never pretend it is. It's not that science is often wrong. It's that science is ALWAYS wrong to some degree. Nevertheless, it's also true that no other epistemology comes close to the successes in science.
@@andrewzcolvin, I was long-winded? A mere 77 words? Yet your response to me was longer than mine, so I can dismiss that criticism on two levels. You assert there are certain ideas in science that won’t change. Science is about theories, not ideas. So name one theory that's safe from change. Name one theory that you know to be ultimate truth. The rest of your criticism is a straw man. You didn't even understand what I said. I don't claim science doesn't work well. It works great. Yes we can land space probes on an asteroid. We do so using Newtonian physics which we know is not perfectly true. But it's true enough to do that job. So yes, Newtonian physics is an approximation. As is Relativity. As are all theories.
Hierarchical communitarians are the fascists. I'd distress the chart, since I accept the science of climate change and the need to reverse what's happening and value gun ownership.
So essentially, people are overly locked into their world views to see things in an objective manner... so those that can see beyond their cultural perspective need to coddle those that can not.
Which group ignores the evidence that a 10 week old fetus is a human being? It’s condescending topics like this that increases my skepticism on all other topics. Look in the mirror busybody!
This didn't age well. People who were skeptical of corporate pharma were right. I don't understand why the self-described skeptics and liberals drank so much kool-aide during the last 4 years, except out of tribalism.
Oops, in 2024 it turns out that the "science deniers" were right. Actually, they weren't so much deniers but rather questioners of the authorities who spoke ex cathedra. Sometimes being open minded and following the science means you have to overcome your progressive biases.
I'd be curious to hear of an example of a society that has used a set of ethics not derived from or spread via religion? I'm aware that you CAN derive ethics with logic but where has this been put into practice on a large scale?
I don't believe it's possible to derive ethics with nothing but logic. David Hume makes an excellent argument to this effect. Can you point me to a reading explaining the counterargument?
@@Dorian_sapiens Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty is pretty good. Alternatively, if you define ethics as those rules that can be applied to everyone simultaneously then, for example, virtually everyone can agree that a world where everyone refrains from murder would be superior to one where everyone attempts to murder constantly therefore murder is "wrong". You can get to "don't steal" and a few other things that way as well. The book Universally Preferable Behavior takes this approach.
@@sonictech1000 Systems that derive "murder or theft is bad" in the way you describe are starting with a preference not to be murdered or stolen from. In logical terms, this is smuggling the conclusion in with the premises. Presumably Rothbard's "liberty is good" system does the same thing. Depending on how you want to look at it, that's either cheating (because it's circular reasoning) or a pointless exercise (because all ethics are already based on preferences). I'm going to have to stick with Hume on this, unless I can somehow bring myself to read Murray Rothbard (and if his talent for philosophy is anything like Rand's, I'm unlikely to be convinced). Oh, jesus fucking christ. You like Project Veritas. OK, we're done here.
Don't lose your time watching this video. She's as biased as the people she talks about. She deliberately associates "Republicans" with "negative" influence, "Democrats" with "positive" influence, never mentions the advocates of abortion that in order to fit their ideology insist on denying the scientific fact that babies in utero are alive and human, accuses evolution deniers of being influenced by ideology while never taking into account that its advocates are frequently influenced by ideology and not science too (e.g. when atheists claim Evolution of the Species is right and Bible is wrong while never having read much about neither), and finally never mentions the science that denies global warming (it's a minority but it exists). In my personal opinion, scientists that deny global warming are just using the name of science to fit their interests, but it's so obvious that the lady in the video is just like them, using the name of science to fit her politics.
plini probably doesn't realize the the Origin of Species is not a Bible, and that evolutionary theory has... evolved (see modern synthesis of evolution)
Yeah for a tower to collapse straight into itself THREE TIMES IN THE SAME DAY AND LOCATION. One (building 7) from just some burning paper and corn board. Weird.
Here's a fairly good critical review of what science supports and does not support with regards to the 9/11 event. theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-i/ theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-ii/ theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-iii/ theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-iv/
@@jjo5917 Why do people keep telling that lie about bldg. 7? There is video showing that a whole side of the building was caved in and the fire was intense.
This lady should know, and never once said, that depending on who you ask and depending on how you word the question, will depend on what kind of results you get. So where she wants to take all these mainstream conspiracy theories and lump them in as people who hate science, she is definitely taking a narrow View and trying to apply it in a general sense. This lady is definitely working on an agenda otherwise, she would use things to show more relative examples across the board
I think she actually did a pretty good job of making it clear that this bias against data that doesn't support our pre-existing beliefs ISN'T just one group but rather something that is common to all of us.
Wasnt thorough enough and a little misleading. There are many views and many theories that can still be argued. Eh, just my opinion. I think this is a touchy subject these days anyway and to take it on.....well, we still have a long ways to go.
@@mylucidlife495 views are opinions and theories (in the scientific standard) are empiracally validated with data and research through rigorous scrutiny and peer-review... the problem in America is the politication of science that pushes back against our worldview... this is due to a few reasons. willful ignorance (pearl clutching, cognitive dissonance, Dunning Kruger Effect) poor education, idealogical bias, idenitity politics. religious indoctrination.. moderate skepticism is healthy, extreme skepticism and/or highly selective skepticism just means your a dumbass and most likely a danger yourself when it comes to trusting empirical evidence and science... Covid-19 was the perfect example of this... As a software engineer, I thought it was pretty interesting seeing people that could not finish high school argue with me over vaccine peer-reviewed studies, mortality rates and other empirical forms of evidence
@@DRSHMISHMORSHIN being a software engineer does not qualify you any more than someone that hasn't finished high school to argue something that is taught neither in high school or that degree field of study. That is irrelevant. With the vast amount of information, a person can learn to be a software engineer with no high school, or college, degree. Getting a job in that field due to lack of degrees or certifications is another issue. But degrees don't equal intelligence. Degrees mean you had the means to pass a program. And....science is not always agreed upon. Without a lengthy, in-depth discussion about the disagreements and issues with dissenting opinions and data, the ones that "tow the line" are the theories that get funded and pushed to the public. It has nothing to do with evidence at the end of the day. It has to do with the "evidence" that is able to advance a narrative. It has to do with enough people pushing a theory it decides on that makes many believe the theory is actually a fact. That isn't proof at all. It just means one theory is more accepted as "fact" than others. And that leads me to my point. It very much depends on what is and not being questioned and how it is being answered as to the results that one will conclude. But the problem in America is you have too many people relying on the ones that are in charge for answers. The ones in charge control what is accepted. It doesn't matter the actual facts because all they have to do is get enough "evidence" to influence enough people to believe it as fact. But it is all very much controllable and able to be manipulated as the leqdership sees fit. And people are too lazy, and ignorant to question or research any of the data themselves. And many do not even have access to the data to even look. They have to accept whatever worldview is pushed otherwise face whatever ridicule and ostracizing comes with having a different view, or even questioning the accepted view. I stand by what I say.
Science is very useful within limits and purposes, but there are so many specific naturalistic scientific theories because none of them can accommodate all the evidence. The Vedas provide a theory of everything, which earned high praise by several pioneers of quantum theory. It describes the universe as one of Viṣṇu's (God's) dreams, which would contradict evolutionary theory despite accommodating its evidence easily.
"Humans evolved, but God was not involved with this issue" How is that a poll question? What does it even mean? 10% believe this? Look, if 10% report believing a non sequitur is true, then it's a lousy poll question and shouldn't be featured in you talk. Something is wrong with the question. Find another example.
How is the question hard to understand? It's asking if you believe that evolution happens, and gods are not involved in the process. Some people (the correct ones) believe that to be true, and some people (idiots) think that a god or gods are in control of evolution.
The question I quoted didn't even have the words in you comment, specifically "gods" and "process". What question or you commenting on? Seriously. Did you post your comment on the wrong video or soomething?
Are you aware that 10% of the population are atheists? While coincidence is not proof of causality, there does appear to be a strong correlation. An atheist would not believe that god is involved at all because atheists believe god, any god, doesn't exist.
People think in terms of "frames," which encompass complete concepts including moral and ethical overtones. Research into framing by Dr. George Lakoff (c.f., "Don't Think of an Elephant") has demonstrated that when confronted with facts that contradict an individual's frames, an individual will literally reject the facts.
Sunk cost fallacy also comes into play. One of the great things about scientists is that they are open to changing their mind if given good enough evidence to do so. Mental flexibility and humility are 2 useful personality traits of good investigators
There is no controversy concerning evolution and creationism in advanced nations. In a country where reportedly over 40% of the population believe in “young earth creationism” Ms Scott and science have an upward battle.
What scares me is that Nazis rounded up intellectuals before Jews to face less resistance. And
It's definitely disconcerting when you interact with someone who completely dismisses or even gets angry when presented with evidence that runs counter to their model of reality but I think it's not as bad as it seems. These people ARE being reasonable at least to the extent that they recognize that two contradictory things can't be true at the same time.
We're mostly creatures with emotions and belief and creatures of logic and rationality secondarily.
Not all of us. Some of us are able to go beyond our emotions and preset beliefs and notions.
About the backfire effect:.
I think people's positions are not based on a single point. Giving an article most likely won't change a person believe on a matter unless all his concerns are responded and he really trust the source.
I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination.
@Jolly Green You watch Epoch Times ??!!?!?! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Jolly Green I don’t know whether to laugh or pity creationists and all the other conspiracy nutters.
Sadly, when someone who is treated as a member of the tribe on most things reveals a contrary belief, the tribe swarms in and ostracizes the heretic.
Boa tarde!!! Estava verificando no site, uctv.tv/cable-retrans.aspx, uma informação referente a retransmitir canais ao vivo por meio da UCTV. Como posso proceder? Há algum custo ou apenas preencher o formulário é suficiente?
@ 11:24 Pew Survey combined with an AAAS survey
Speaker claims it is a comparison between the public and scientists.
AAAS membership isn't limited to scientists.
It is a comparison is between a self-selected group of science activists to the general public.
From AAAS website
AAAS membership is open to all - whether you’re a career scientist, engineer, student, or passionate champion for science, you belong here.
Americans like the goodies that science provides, but in far too many cases, my fellow citizens reject the thinking that makes the science.
This is the fairy tale liberals tell themselves but the truth is Americans hate ELITES. They hate smug delusional power-tripping jackholes who have no tether to reality citing themselves as authorities to crush them. They do not hate the scientific method.
1:02:02 "We do drive-by science"
I found this out-of-context quote very funny
If you are too short you can wear high heeled shoes, if you are bald get a wig, but you can't fix stupid.
It dumbfounds me that Michael Shermer is a Libertarian.
So is Teller.
Nobody's perfect lol
1. What people THINK about an issue is not science.
2. The study of human behavior is not science.
Therefore..........what has her lecture to do with ...............SCIENCE ?
This woman is my hero
Nothing makes sense except in the light of slide @25mts ;) Thanks for the talk Ms. Scott, kind of scary that things got worse than even back in 2005 when the trial happened...
Science should be based on logic and reason!
Science is based on the scientifical method, it's actually more strict that logic. With logic, you can argue that unicorns are real. With the scientifical method, you need to discover a unicorn in order to claim they're real.
Dyslexic, That's easier said than done.
@@M310GL Science is more strict than logic in one sense (the one you describe) but less strict in another: in logic there are very rigid rules for deriving one proposition from another; science has no such rules. Both of these properties are interrelated: relying on what has been observed, it is impossible to infer with certainty anything about what hasn't been observed (this is the Problem of Induction). Science mostly relies on informal abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) than on formal inductive or deductive reasoning.
Real science doesn't call sceptics "deniers".
Science deniers aren't real skeptics.
Why do academics reject other academics' work but expect lay-people to accept it because they themselves call it 'good' work?
Because academics are just people. And subject to the same biases. That's why the opinion of lay people cant just be completely disregarded.
IRL, Exactly. Science is wrong. That's the truth. Anyone who believes science can't be wrong is both historically ignorant and has no idea about what science is. Science is a successive approximation toward truth. It isn't the truth and should never pretend it is. It's not that science is often wrong. It's that science is ALWAYS wrong to some degree. Nevertheless, it's also true that no other epistemology comes close to the successes in science.
Because of qualifications and competence.
@@andrewzcolvin, I was long-winded? A mere 77 words? Yet your response to me was longer than mine, so I can dismiss that criticism on two levels.
You assert there are certain ideas in science that won’t change. Science is about theories, not ideas. So name one theory that's safe from change. Name one theory that you know to be ultimate truth. The rest of your criticism is a straw man. You didn't even understand what I said. I don't claim science doesn't work well. It works great. Yes we can land space probes on an asteroid. We do so using Newtonian physics which we know is not perfectly true. But it's true enough to do that job. So yes, Newtonian physics is an approximation. As is Relativity. As are all theories.
There is no one more a hysterical tribalist than an academic.
It doesn't help when corporations fund science in such a way as to get desired results.
Indeed ! She is not getting anywhere near the reason for generalized skepticism. She entitled her thing "good science"... Only. **Biased!!!!!**
Hierarchical communitarians are the fascists.
I'd distress the chart, since I accept the science of climate change and the need to reverse what's happening and value gun ownership.
Good point, but you forgot to include the other totalitarians, the progressives and communists.
So essentially, people are overly locked into their world views to see things in an objective manner... so those that can see beyond their cultural perspective need to coddle those that can not.
Why is it more than 5 minutes is wasted on a man with nothing to say on the subject
Which group ignores the evidence that a 10 week old fetus is a human being?
It’s condescending topics like this that increases my skepticism on all other topics. Look in the mirror busybody!
Who's here in 2020 when all Republicans have become science deniers.
December 2021, still that way
This didn't age well.
People who were skeptical of corporate pharma were right.
I don't understand why the self-described skeptics and liberals drank so much kool-aide during the last 4 years, except out of tribalism.
Oops, in 2024 it turns out that the "science deniers" were right. Actually, they weren't so much deniers but rather questioners of the authorities who spoke ex cathedra. Sometimes being open minded and following the science means you have to overcome your progressive biases.
Man if I was Christian or conservative my feelings would be hurt after watching this lecture lol. Also good lecture .
@Jolly Green 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Jolly Green Jolly Green Giant for Jesus 😂😂😂😂😂
@Jolly Green * you watch The Epoch Times ? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Why do you need to fear supernatural punishment to be moral? Is a good deed not its own reward?
I'd be curious to hear of an example of a society that has used a set of ethics not derived from or spread via religion? I'm aware that you CAN derive ethics with logic but where has this been put into practice on a large scale?
I don't believe it's possible to derive ethics with nothing but logic. David Hume makes an excellent argument to this effect. Can you point me to a reading explaining the counterargument?
@@Dorian_sapiens Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty is pretty good. Alternatively, if you define ethics as those rules that can be applied to everyone simultaneously then, for example, virtually everyone can agree that a world where everyone refrains from murder would be superior to one where everyone attempts to murder constantly therefore murder is "wrong". You can get to "don't steal" and a few other things that way as well. The book Universally Preferable Behavior takes this approach.
@@sonictech1000 Systems that derive "murder or theft is bad" in the way you describe are starting with a preference not to be murdered or stolen from. In logical terms, this is smuggling the conclusion in with the premises. Presumably Rothbard's "liberty is good" system does the same thing. Depending on how you want to look at it, that's either cheating (because it's circular reasoning) or a pointless exercise (because all ethics are already based on preferences). I'm going to have to stick with Hume on this, unless I can somehow bring myself to read Murray Rothbard (and if his talent for philosophy is anything like Rand's, I'm unlikely to be convinced).
Oh, jesus fucking christ. You like Project Veritas. OK, we're done here.
@@Dorian_sapiens Read Hans Hoppe.
@@Seaileanu Is he the one who finally managed to defeat Hume's Law, or are you just recommending ancaps because you like ancaps?
Great talk!
just contact me if needing any legit plug online to ship
How is 911 truther bad science?
It's not, it is just conspiracy thinking- and that is strongly linked to science denial
Don't lose your time watching this video. She's as biased as the people she talks about. She deliberately associates "Republicans" with "negative" influence, "Democrats" with "positive" influence, never mentions the advocates of abortion that in order to fit their ideology insist on denying the scientific fact that babies in utero are alive and human, accuses evolution deniers of being influenced by ideology while never taking into account that its advocates are frequently influenced by ideology and not science too (e.g. when atheists claim Evolution of the Species is right and Bible is wrong while never having read much about neither), and finally never mentions the science that denies global warming (it's a minority but it exists). In my personal opinion, scientists that deny global warming are just using the name of science to fit their interests, but it's so obvious that the lady in the video is just like them, using the name of science to fit her politics.
In my personal opinion, you're full of it.
plini probably doesn't realize the the Origin of Species is not a Bible, and that evolutionary theory has... evolved (see modern synthesis of evolution)
She's good and can teach any offspring of mine!
Is there "good science" demonstrating that 19 idiots took down three towers on their own?
Yes.
Does it involve melting steel beams? What does it say about building 7?
Yeah for a tower to collapse straight into itself THREE TIMES IN THE SAME DAY AND LOCATION. One (building 7) from just some burning paper and corn board. Weird.
Here's a fairly good critical review of what science supports and does not support with regards to the 9/11 event.
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-i/
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-ii/
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-iii/
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/911-conspiracy-debate-part-iv/
@@jjo5917
Why do people keep telling that lie about bldg. 7? There is video showing that a whole side of the building was caved in and the fire was intense.
This lady should know, and never once said, that depending on who you ask and depending on how you word the question, will depend on what kind of results you get. So where she wants to take all these mainstream conspiracy theories and lump them in as people who hate science, she is definitely taking a narrow View and trying to apply it in a general sense. This lady is definitely working on an agenda otherwise, she would use things to show more relative examples across the board
The whole reason people follow said theories, is generally a lack or disdain of mainstream scientific thought. She's only half wrong.
I think she actually did a pretty good job of making it clear that this bias against data that doesn't support our pre-existing beliefs ISN'T just one group but rather something that is common to all of us.
Wasnt thorough enough and a little misleading. There are many views and many theories that can still be argued. Eh, just my opinion. I think this is a touchy subject these days anyway and to take it on.....well, we still have a long ways to go.
@@mylucidlife495 views are opinions and theories (in the scientific standard) are empiracally validated with data and research through rigorous scrutiny and peer-review... the problem in America is the politication of science that pushes back against our worldview... this is due to a few reasons. willful ignorance (pearl clutching, cognitive dissonance, Dunning Kruger Effect) poor education, idealogical bias, idenitity politics. religious indoctrination..
moderate skepticism is healthy, extreme skepticism and/or highly selective skepticism just means your a dumbass and most likely a danger yourself when it comes to trusting empirical evidence and science... Covid-19 was the perfect example of this... As a software engineer, I thought it was pretty interesting seeing people that could not finish high school argue with me over vaccine peer-reviewed studies, mortality rates and other empirical forms of evidence
@@DRSHMISHMORSHIN being a software engineer does not qualify you any more than someone that hasn't finished high school to argue something that is taught neither in high school or that degree field of study. That is irrelevant. With the vast amount of information, a person can learn to be a software engineer with no high school, or college, degree. Getting a job in that field due to lack of degrees or certifications is another issue. But degrees don't equal intelligence. Degrees mean you had the means to pass a program.
And....science is not always agreed upon. Without a lengthy, in-depth discussion about the disagreements and issues with dissenting opinions and data, the ones that "tow the line" are the theories that get funded and pushed to the public. It has nothing to do with evidence at the end of the day. It has to do with the "evidence" that is able to advance a narrative. It has to do with enough people pushing a theory it decides on that makes many believe the theory is actually a fact. That isn't proof at all. It just means one theory is more accepted as "fact" than others.
And that leads me to my point. It very much depends on what is and not being questioned and how it is being answered as to the results that one will conclude.
But the problem in America is you have too many people relying on the ones that are in charge for answers. The ones in charge control what is accepted. It doesn't matter the actual facts because all they have to do is get enough "evidence" to influence enough people to believe it as fact. But it is all very much controllable and able to be manipulated as the leqdership sees fit. And people are too lazy, and ignorant to question or research any of the data themselves. And many do not even have access to the data to even look. They have to accept whatever worldview is pushed otherwise face whatever ridicule and ostracizing comes with having a different view, or even questioning the accepted view. I stand by what I say.
Science is very useful within limits and purposes, but there are so many specific naturalistic scientific theories because none of them can accommodate all the evidence. The Vedas provide a theory of everything, which earned high praise by several pioneers of quantum theory. It describes the universe as one of Viṣṇu's (God's) dreams, which would contradict evolutionary theory despite accommodating its evidence easily.
"Humans evolved, but God was not involved with this issue" How is that a poll question? What does it even mean? 10% believe this? Look, if 10% report believing a non sequitur is true, then it's a lousy poll question and shouldn't be featured in you talk. Something is wrong with the question. Find another example.
How is the question hard to understand? It's asking if you believe that evolution happens, and gods are not involved in the process. Some people (the correct ones) believe that to be true, and some people (idiots) think that a god or gods are in control of evolution.
The question I quoted didn't even have the words in you comment, specifically "gods" and "process". What question or you commenting on? Seriously. Did you post your comment on the wrong video or soomething?
Are you aware that 10% of the population are atheists? While coincidence is not proof of causality, there does appear to be a strong correlation. An atheist would not believe that god is involved at all because atheists believe god, any god, doesn't exist.