@Desi_in_London your last paragraph poses a very valid question. Scientific progress happens when we question our knowledge - that's the basis of the scientific method. But increasingly these days, questioning the orthodoxy is becoming unacceptable. So where does the line get drawn? Is it the articulation of belief versus hypothesis? And are the majority of lay-people capable of distinguishing between the two?
For example, let's say I want to talk about the earth being flat. Most people's first reaction will be that I'm an idiot. If I simply say "yep, I believe the earth is flat, because Facebook said so", that does indeed make me an idiot because it's (nominally) a belief without evidence.
But if I say, "I pose the hypothesis that the earth is flat, and it's our perception of space and dimension that makes it appear round", I'm not an idiot. I'm about to embark on scientific enquiry to try and prove my hypothesis wrong, but perhaps, just perhsps, may result in new understanding of the human brain, or fundamental physics, or something else. It probably won't, but we just don't know.
Should the research be shut down?And, in a few months time, what happens when some newspaper prints an article about how a scientist is conducting valid research into flat earth...
" Is it the articulation of belief versus hypothesis? And are the majority of lay-people capable of distinguishing between the two?"
I don't want to comment on laypeople generally , but to me the difference is clear.
Going with your example , the formulation:
"I pose the hypothesis that the earth is flat, and it's our perception of space and dimension that makes it appear round"
might be better framed :
"I pose the hypothesis that the earth is flat, and it's our perception of space and dimension that makes it appear round and this is how I propose to test this hypothesis"
You present this to your PHD supervisor or the royal institution or whoever and in response to the expected scientific version of "hang on , we took pictures of it from space , it is geoid in shape , we take pictures of table-tops and they look flat so clearly we can tell round things from flat things what are you talking about?"
you explain what the flaws were in the empirical evidence for the original hypothesis, and depending on the outcome :
you might reformulate a hypothesis involving either brain function ( excuse my ignorance of the brain terminology I'm making up the expression )
"I pose the hypothesis that while the majority perceive space and dimension in a way that makes the earth appear round , it is possible for a subset of humans with "brain synapse beta3 variant c" to perceive it differently such that it appears flat and this is how i propose to test it "
or into some ground-breaking relativistic/quantum hypothesis which would require some elegant mathematics on your part which is certainly beyond me. I.e i think if your hypothesis ( whether brain function or physics based ) was sufficiently credible because of your reasoning and at least theoretically testable ( even if the technology to test the hypothesis did not currently exist ) it would merit investigation . In each case this pre-supposes that you are able to present and defend it to existing academics in the relevant field -- given the costs and efforts involved in testing these things you would probably need to convince a quorum of existing science and mathematical academics of the theoretical/mathematical basis of your assertion in order to get the credibility to be able to fund the investigation.
re the newspaper -- if they reported it as renowned scientist strelitzia32 believes the earth is flat -- that's poor journalism. If they reported it as renowned scientist strelitzia32 is exploring the possibility that our understanding of the shape of the earth and of the solar system more broadly may be incomplete .. followed a few months later by publishing your peer reviewed paper -- they would have gained a lifetime subscriber , but not one that will automatically believe everything else they write!
Thing is some folk don't understand what research is ... I hear people saying 'I researched it on the internet and I was right' ... and they really think they've 'conducted research'.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Why should they understand what research is? Most people just want to get on with their lives. They have issues with paying the mortgage and feeding the kids. Is the vaccine good? Is it bad? Is the earth flat?.. fall into different categories. 'Is that person telling the truth' only really matters if the value of the information is high or if your trying to assess the source for being trustworthy.
If you take the earth is flat issue, then I would guess that whether it's flat or round makes no odds - and I would also guess that it started as a scientific (a learned person) issue, not an issue that worried your average mediaeval peasant. As long as the sun comes up and goes down ,the seasons change and the crops grow. Still true today. Do I care if the earth is really flat? By changing what I believe, does it change the way I live in anyway?
The vaccine question is different as it has a material impact and a value to those who believe in Covid in the first place. Here I would guess that the vast majority of people place their faith in their particular source. Even if they wanted to research the vaccine, they wouldn't know where to start, where the reviews are held and what they said even after they read them - assuming they did stumble upon them. That is why a trustworthy source (that does the research and then presents the info in an understandable way) is so relevant to the majority of people and why it (they) are so important.
Why should they understand what research is? Most people just want to get on with their lives. .
Because they're making decisions based on the misapprehension that they've researched and understood the issues involved.
If they "just want to get on with their lives" then the simple answer is that in a democracy they should vote for individuals they trust , and empower them to fund and direct the research and make the decisions for them. Then they should abide by the decisions made by the people they've elected. That's how a democratic society works.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Thanks for the Forbes article link Lyn - very helpful. It reminds me that humility can be a powerful intellectual tool.
I try to approach disputed factual questions, say, for example on the need, safety and efficacy of vaccinations, by first pausing and asking myself: "what viewpoint do I feel emotionally attracted to - what would I like to be true?"
I'm then much more able to spot and stop my tendency to seek and believe information which supports my emotional prejudice.
...and it's the same process for choosing which experts I seek out and believe - to notice when I'm drawn to the 'plucky maverick, speaking unpopular truth' or when I'm wanting the 'official safely sanctioned voice of reason'.
...and underlying these decisions about how I form and change my opinions are issues of power and powerlessness - I'm drawn to more radical ideas when I feel the weight of oppression from mainstream organisations, and I'm drawn to mainstream ideas when I feel threatened by more radical groups or actions.
...and speaking of social media - I do like what Douglas Adams had to say about his reactions to technology:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
Posts
For example, let's say I want to talk about the earth being flat. Most people's first reaction will be that I'm an idiot. If I simply say "yep, I believe the earth is flat, because Facebook said so", that does indeed make me an idiot because it's (nominally) a belief without evidence.
But if I say, "I pose the hypothesis that the earth is flat, and it's our perception of space and dimension that makes it appear round", I'm not an idiot. I'm about to embark on scientific enquiry to try and prove my hypothesis wrong, but perhaps, just perhsps, may result in new understanding of the human brain, or fundamental physics, or something else. It probably won't, but we just don't know.
Should the research be shut down?And, in a few months time, what happens when some newspaper prints an article about how a scientist is conducting valid research into flat earth...
" Is it the articulation of belief versus hypothesis? And are the majority of lay-people capable of distinguishing between the two?"
I don't want to comment on laypeople generally , but to me the difference is clear.
Going with your example , the formulation:
"I pose the hypothesis that the earth is flat, and it's our perception of space and dimension that makes it appear round"
might be better framed :
"I pose the hypothesis that the earth is flat, and it's our perception of space and dimension that makes it appear round and this is how I propose to test this hypothesis"
You present this to your PHD supervisor or the royal institution or whoever and in response to the expected scientific version of "hang on , we took pictures of it from space , it is geoid in shape , we take pictures of table-tops and they look flat so clearly we can tell round things from flat things what are you talking about?"
you explain what the flaws were in the empirical evidence for the original hypothesis, and depending on the outcome :
you might reformulate a hypothesis involving either brain function ( excuse my ignorance of the brain terminology I'm making up the expression )
"I pose the hypothesis that while the majority perceive space and dimension in a way that makes the earth appear round , it is possible for a subset of humans with "brain synapse beta3 variant c" to perceive it differently such that it appears flat and this is how i propose to test it "
or into some ground-breaking relativistic/quantum hypothesis which would require some elegant mathematics on your part which is certainly beyond me.
I.e i think if your hypothesis ( whether brain function or physics based ) was sufficiently credible because of your reasoning and at least theoretically testable ( even if the technology to test the hypothesis did not currently exist ) it would merit investigation . In each case this pre-supposes that you are able to present and defend it to existing academics in the relevant field -- given the costs and efforts involved in testing these things you would probably need to convince a quorum of existing science and mathematical academics of the theoretical/mathematical basis of your assertion in order to get the credibility to be able to fund the investigation.
re the newspaper -- if they reported it as renowned scientist strelitzia32 believes the earth is flat -- that's poor journalism. If they reported it as renowned scientist strelitzia32 is exploring the possibility that our understanding of the shape of the earth and of the solar system more broadly may be incomplete .. followed a few months later by publishing your peer reviewed paper -- they would have gained a lifetime subscriber , but not one that will automatically believe everything else they write!
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
If they "just want to get on with their lives" then the simple answer is that in a democracy they should vote for individuals they trust , and empower them to fund and direct the research and make the decisions for them. Then they should abide by the decisions made by the people they've elected. That's how a democratic society works.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.