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
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!?”.
Good science works hard to prove itself wrong. Good scientists get excited by this. There are bad eggs in all areas of expertise.
My advice is that if you question anything, physics, math, engineering, hell… even an algorithm, and someone lashes out in disbelief… disassociate yourself with that person. They’re not going to help you solve anything.
Good science works hard to prove itself wrong. Good scientists get excited by this. There are bad eggs in all areas of expertise.
My advice is that if you question anything, physics, math, engineering, hell… even an algorithm, and someone lashes out in disbelief… disassociate yourself with that person. They’re not going to help you solve anything.
Good science works hard to prove itself wrong. Good scientists get excited by this. There are bad eggs in all areas of expertise.
My advice is that if you question anything, physics, math, engineering, hell… even an algorithm, and someone lashes out in disbelief… disassociate yourself with that person. They’re not going to help you solve anything.
The greater the distance of the scientific discipline from physics, the more controversial the science. Because as complexity and abstraction increases, so does doubt. But also the closer it gets to human affairs.
If you’re talking about reasoned debate between actual experts, absolutely, controversy is an acceptable part of how science works. Scientists do disagree with each other all the time on many aspects of their craft, from the details to the fundamentals. There are times when this can get rather heated, as one can imagine, but it’s not out of line with the norms of the community. There are also areas that are surrounded in legitimate uncertainty, where it is hard to know what is true and what is not, and scientists frequently not only disagree about the details here, but even the right way to go about thinking about the subject at hand.
What people tend to react poorly to are a) people arguing with science because of what are perceived to be “non-scientific” reasons (like religious beliefs), b) campaigns that are essentially designed to undermine the authority of science (in the name of various causes, including but not limited to religion, industrial deregulation, conspiracy theories, politics, etc.), and c) people who are not experts and who are not trained in the norms or content of science who take it upon themselves to undermine science for whatever reason.
None of the above are considered to be part of the “norms of science” generally speaking. Indeed, they are perceived as being anti-science — they are designed to undermine scientific authority and prestige. There are many reasons why people might engage in the above behaviors. There are even reasons in which some experts may engage in the above behaviors (for example, there were scientists paid by the tobacco industry to produce results that said cigarettes were not harmful). But this kind of “controversy” is not seen as advancing efforts towards finding the truth; it is about muddying the waters, often for political purposes.
The greater the distance of the scientific discipline from physics, the more controversial the science. Because as complexity and abstraction increases, so does doubt. But also the closer it gets to human affairs.
If you’re talking about reasoned debate between actual experts, absolutely, controversy is an acceptable part of how science works. Scientists do disagree with each other all the time on many aspects of their craft, from the details to the fundamentals. There are times when this can get rather heated, as one can imagine, but it’s not out of line with the norms of the community. There are also areas that are surrounded in legitimate uncertainty, where it is hard to know what is true and what is not, and scientists frequently not only disagree about the details here, but even the right way to go about thinking about the subject at hand.
What people tend to react poorly to are a) people arguing with science because of what are perceived to be “non-scientific” reasons (like religious beliefs), b) campaigns that are essentially designed to undermine the authority of science (in the name of various causes, including but not limited to religion, industrial deregulation, conspiracy theories, politics, etc.), and c) people who are not experts and who are not trained in the norms or content of science who take it upon themselves to undermine science for whatever reason.
None of the above are considered to be part of the “norms of science” generally speaking. Indeed, they are perceived as being anti-science — they are designed to undermine scientific authority and prestige. There are many reasons why people might engage in the above behaviors. There are even reasons in which some experts may engage in the above behaviors (for example, there were scientists paid by the tobacco industry to produce results that said cigarettes were not harmful). But this kind of “controversy” is not seen as advancing efforts towards finding the truth; it is about muddying the waters, often for political purposes.
If you’re talking about reasoned debate between actual experts, absolutely, controversy is an acceptable part of how science works. Scientists do disagree with each other all the time on many aspects of their craft, from the details to the fundamentals. There are times when this can get rather heated, as one can imagine, but it’s not out of line with the norms of the community. There are also areas that are surrounded in legitimate uncertainty, where it is hard to know what is true and what is not, and scientists frequently not only disagree about the details here, but even the right way to go about thinking about the subject at hand.
What people tend to react poorly to are a) people arguing with science because of what are perceived to be “non-scientific” reasons (like religious beliefs), b) campaigns that are essentially designed to undermine the authority of science (in the name of various causes, including but not limited to religion, industrial deregulation, conspiracy theories, politics, etc.), and c) people who are not experts and who are not trained in the norms or content of science who take it upon themselves to undermine science for whatever reason.
None of the above are considered to be part of the “norms of science” generally speaking. Indeed, they are perceived as being anti-science — they are designed to undermine scientific authority and prestige. There are many reasons why people might engage in the above behaviors. There are even reasons in which some experts may engage in the above behaviors (for example, there were scientists paid by the tobacco industry to produce results that said cigarettes were not harmful). But this kind of “controversy” is not seen as advancing efforts towards finding the truth; it is about muddying the waters, often for political purposes.
The greater the distance of the scientific discipline from physics, the more controversial the science. Because as complexity and abstraction increases, so does doubt. But also the closer it gets to human affairs.
Latest Answers