Eli5: Why is there such a negative response to controversial topics in science, wasn’t the existence of “atoms” extremely controversial back in the days as well?

743 views

Shouldn’t people research and discuss topics in a calm and rational manner instead of some sort of “you vs me” type of mentality?

In: 1

30 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

People, in general, like stories and narratives. This is more or less how we learn stuff. People, in general, fear or dislike the unknown. So we tend to create stories and myths to explain the unknown (the narrative) and the unknown becomes less frightening because we now have an “explanation”. Over time people get very attached to these narratives and the traditions that come from these narratives.

Imagine being told that sprinkling water, dancing and singing around a sick person doesn’t actually cure diseases. Instead the disease are caused by microbes that cannot be seen. Well you’re now replacing a narrative (that explains and reduces fear) with a new narrative (cannot be seen and goes against tradition).

People don’t like that – we prefer things to fit within our mythology and things that go against that mythology are sometimes rejected with a lot of passion because it introduces fear of the unknown into our lives.

Anonymous 0 Comments

What do you think is a controversial topic in science? I ask because most of the topics that people might consider controversial aren’t actually controversial *in science.* Often the controversy is between the scientific consensus and those whose beliefs or interests don’t align with that consensus. The safety and efficacy of vaccines, for example, is well-established in science, but sadly controversial in the public at large.

Anonymous 0 Comments

What do you think is a controversial topic in science? I ask because most of the topics that people might consider controversial aren’t actually controversial *in science.* Often the controversy is between the scientific consensus and those whose beliefs or interests don’t align with that consensus. The safety and efficacy of vaccines, for example, is well-established in science, but sadly controversial in the public at large.

Anonymous 0 Comments

People, in general, like stories and narratives. This is more or less how we learn stuff. People, in general, fear or dislike the unknown. So we tend to create stories and myths to explain the unknown (the narrative) and the unknown becomes less frightening because we now have an “explanation”. Over time people get very attached to these narratives and the traditions that come from these narratives.

Imagine being told that sprinkling water, dancing and singing around a sick person doesn’t actually cure diseases. Instead the disease are caused by microbes that cannot be seen. Well you’re now replacing a narrative (that explains and reduces fear) with a new narrative (cannot be seen and goes against tradition).

People don’t like that – we prefer things to fit within our mythology and things that go against that mythology are sometimes rejected with a lot of passion because it introduces fear of the unknown into our lives.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I feel like you have specific instances in mind, what do you have in mind? Are the cases you mean within academia, or among laymen?

Anonymous 0 Comments

What do you think is a controversial topic in science? I ask because most of the topics that people might consider controversial aren’t actually controversial *in science.* Often the controversy is between the scientific consensus and those whose beliefs or interests don’t align with that consensus. The safety and efficacy of vaccines, for example, is well-established in science, but sadly controversial in the public at large.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I feel like you have specific instances in mind, what do you have in mind? Are the cases you mean within academia, or among laymen?

Anonymous 0 Comments

Edit: I didn’t realize OP’s premise was about it being between scientists. So ignore the entire text below.

People tend to cling to their current set of knowledge when told something that contradicts or makes them feel bad about it. And that’s not always a bad reaction, since being too open to changing your knowledge can lead you to falling for scams and lies. “Do not be so open minded your brains falls out.”

>Shouldn’t people research and discuss topics in a calm and rational manner

A lot of that research is either not easy to access or is too technical to understand by lay people. And even if easy to access and explained with easy-to-understand words, there is always an element of “just trust us when we say something is true”. We trust and accept the words of those we think know better than us, whether it be a school teacher, licensed doctor, advertiser, priest, witch doctor, fortune teller, etc.

Wait, you say. Those latter ones aren’t trustworthy! Well, to someone else the licensed doctor and school teacher are part of the government trying to manipulate them with falsehoods or are pushing their own agenda. Others distrust the advertiser’s claims based on their knowledge and experience of scams, while others trust the advertiser because they trust laws against false advertising to keep advertiser from doing too much harm, or think for the price it’s worth the risk.

As for the “you vs me” mentality, it’s related to the SIWOTI (someone is wrong on the internet) syndrome. The urge to correct someone is a strong urge that can lead to long drawn out arguing when neither side is convinced by the other’s position no matter how many seems-like-universally-rational arguments are given. Sometimes one or both sides will concede but until then the emotions run high because “They are SO VERY WRONG I must show how wrong they are before others believe them… Why are they not accepting my logical explanations!?”.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I feel like you have specific instances in mind, what do you have in mind? Are the cases you mean within academia, or among laymen?

Anonymous 0 Comments

Edit: I didn’t realize OP’s premise was about it being between scientists. So ignore the entire text below.

People tend to cling to their current set of knowledge when told something that contradicts or makes them feel bad about it. And that’s not always a bad reaction, since being too open to changing your knowledge can lead you to falling for scams and lies. “Do not be so open minded your brains falls out.”

>Shouldn’t people research and discuss topics in a calm and rational manner

A lot of that research is either not easy to access or is too technical to understand by lay people. And even if easy to access and explained with easy-to-understand words, there is always an element of “just trust us when we say something is true”. We trust and accept the words of those we think know better than us, whether it be a school teacher, licensed doctor, advertiser, priest, witch doctor, fortune teller, etc.

Wait, you say. Those latter ones aren’t trustworthy! Well, to someone else the licensed doctor and school teacher are part of the government trying to manipulate them with falsehoods or are pushing their own agenda. Others distrust the advertiser’s claims based on their knowledge and experience of scams, while others trust the advertiser because they trust laws against false advertising to keep advertiser from doing too much harm, or think for the price it’s worth the risk.

As for the “you vs me” mentality, it’s related to the SIWOTI (someone is wrong on the internet) syndrome. The urge to correct someone is a strong urge that can lead to long drawn out arguing when neither side is convinced by the other’s position no matter how many seems-like-universally-rational arguments are given. Sometimes one or both sides will concede but until then the emotions run high because “They are SO VERY WRONG I must show how wrong they are before others believe them… Why are they not accepting my logical explanations!?”.