Jump to content
Strange

Are scientists arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?

Recommended Posts

When I was evangelistic I never took that view... I accepted that some people knew more than me and were more intelligent than me... I know several people who I would class as more intelligent than me. I just assumed that they could have been deceived by a cleaver satanic lie to make it look as though there was no god. It even says in the book that the most wise people will be fooled into the thinking of the ways of the world.

 

I never understood Christians that assume stupidity for not believing, especially as the book says that the MOST cleaver people will be fooled. It is one big get out clause for their circular arguments (which used to be mine)... Can't explain it? The finest minds in the world say XYZ rather than the ABC in the book? Obviously they are wise but have been deceived by Satan and the apparent obvious is a trick and will one day be shown to be a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the issue of scientists being closed minded: the track record proves otherwise.

 

One small example: how much more fantastical is it for humans to have morphed over millennia from some other species than to simply have popped into existence. Got to be pretty open-minded to the evidence to accept that.

 

Not to say that science itself is fantastical, but it explores nature who we find to be far more bizarre than we could ever imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we have had another one of those crazy types who insist that science is a cult with arrogant high priests, etc. here is an excellently argued refutation of that sort of ignorant, closed-minded nonsense:

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/08/01/are-scientists-arrogant-close-minded-and-dismissive/

 

 

Do be careful, being closed-minded includes automatically rejecting that, that is difficult to understand or that doesn't fit with purely logical constructs, don't forget the emotional aspect of humanity.

Emotional intelligence has far more potential to rule the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article and I'm going to go out on a very tenuous limb and say...yes, they...we are. We are frequently arrogant, dismissive, and much of the rest out of an abundance of confidence in the knowledge we've gained through our years of study, research, and experience. Perhaps it's more of an expression of our impatience with nonsense but it's not intentional or personal. In answer to the article's examples of whether we'd consider plumbers or mechanics arrogant, dismissive, or etc., I'd have to say yes--mechanic, as I have particularly witnessed, can be quite condensing to female drivers. What we are isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless our expression translate as obstinacy when we know we're wrong or really don't know what we say we know.

Edited by DrmDoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ivory tower intellectual who imprisons himself symbolically with his adherence to what his books teach him, and is eventually rescued by the common sense of the headstrong protagonist is a common character in literature. Intuitive meets hidebound, hidebound is skeptical, intuitive wins out, hidebound is no longer skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny when people accuse you of being a sceptic as if that is a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is a religion, then there's some pretty miraculous shit going down right now in some tubes of bacteria and phage in my lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny when people accuse you of being a sceptic as if that is a bad thing.

 

The perpetual skeptic is a bad thing, and I think many of the same people who accuse scientists of being arrogant are perpetual skeptics. They remain skeptical even when shown evidence that should settle the basis for their skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phi for All - like all things in life, there is a limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good skeptic follows up on the parts they're skeptical of, and learns enough to accept or reject. They should never sit on their skepticism; that's what leads to hand-waving, and arguments from incredulity. And accusations of close-mindedness.


If evolution is a religion, then there's some pretty miraculous shit going down right now in some tubes of bacteria and phage in my lab.

 

You're tweeting that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phi for All - like all things in life, there is a limit.

 

Moderation in all things. Including moderation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is a religion, then there's some pretty miraculous shit going down right now in some tubes of bacteria and phage in my lab.

 

To be fair, in my lab I often do declare that it is a miracle that stuff works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article. I'm going to share it with my ignorant friends and family who always deny science on issues that negate their religious beliefs and call scientists "arrogant know-it-alls", but are fine with it any other time. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do be careful, being closed-minded includes automatically rejecting that, that is difficult to understand or that doesn't fit with purely logical constructs, don't forget the emotional aspect of humanity.

 

Emotional intelligence has far more potential to rule the world.

Scientists can do good work and then for problematic reasons, such as emotion triumphing over reason, become proponents of repugnant ideologies.

 

Here is one example. Philip Lenard migrated from being an honored physicist to being an ardent Nazi.

 

Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard (7 June 1862 20 May 1947) was a German physicist and the winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1905 for his research on cathode rays and the discovery of many of their properties....

An advisor to Adolf Hitler, Lenard became Chief of Aryan physics under the Nazis.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Lenard

Edited by Bill Angel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closed mindedness:

 

Most religion: hundreds, or thousands, of years saying "this is right" and not changing.

 

Science: thousands of years of continually changing; improving and building on previous knowledge.

 

People miss the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny when people accuse you of being a sceptic as if that is a bad thing.

I agree. I never took that as a insult. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that in the some of these incidences it is simply that the individuals in question did not know that their Ideas must/will be subjected to what amounts to be a prolonged destructive testing exercise by the forum members. They skipped the introductory threads and are completely blindsided by what appears to them as a wholesale attack. They really don't understand the process of skeptical analysis, and their responses resemble someone who just kicked a hornets nest. Just a lot of running around in circles while screaming and flailing. I wonder if a pop-up warning could be added to new members for when they post in the hard sciences at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show a fool that he's wrong, and he will attack you.

Show a wise man that he's wrong, and he will be grateful, because you have just help him learn something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show a fool that he's wrong, and he will attack you.

Show a wise man that he's wrong, and he will be grateful, because you have just help him learn something new.

That rings true in the current political climate *shudder*

 

Of course we are all mix and match in that regard to a degree,I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that in the some of these incidences it is simply that the individuals in question did not know that their Ideas must/will be subjected to what amounts to be a prolonged destructive testing exercise by the forum members. They skipped the introductory threads and are completely blindsided by what appears to them as a wholesale attack. They really don't understand the process of skeptical analysis, and their responses resemble someone who just kicked a hornets nest. Just a lot of running around in circles while screaming and flailing. I wonder if a pop-up warning could be added to new members for when they post in the hard sciences at least.

 

This happens to some extent, but I think you're leaving out that many of these individuals are secretly hoping someone with better science skills (usually maths) will take up their idea and run with it, fleshing it out into a predictive model the individual could later point to and claim, "That was MY idea originally!" They also often simply hope others will get as excited about an idea as they are, and don't understand why a few mistakes in some science fundamentals means they have to scrap or improve their idea in order to generate that excitement ("OK sure, that part of my idea violates the principles of physics and reality, I see that now, but what do you think of the rest?"). You're right, it's a misunderstanding of the process, and one that probably leads to thinking scientists are all these negative things.

 

I've witnessed a LOT of patience coming from our membership too. So many of our best minds sharing their knowledge, while simultaneously being told they're arrogant and dismissive by someone who came here looking for the best minds, and now regrets getting the rigor he asked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This happens to some extent, but I think you're leaving out that many of these individuals are secretly hoping someone with better science skills (usually maths) will take up their idea and run with it, fleshing it out into a predictive model the individual could later point to and claim, "That was MY idea originally!" They also often simply hope others will get as excited about an idea as they are, and don't understand why a few mistakes in some science fundamentals means they have to scrap or improve their idea in order to generate that excitement ("OK sure, that part of my idea violates the principles of physics and reality, I see that now, but what do you think of the rest?"). You're right, it's a misunderstanding of the process, and one that probably leads to thinking scientists are all these negative things.

 

 

The very reason I joined this forum, I've learnt a great deal since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens to some extent, but I think you're leaving out that many of these individuals are secretly hoping someone with better science skills (usually maths) will take up their idea and run with it, fleshing it out into a predictive model the individual could later point to and claim, "That was MY idea originally!" They also often simply hope others will get as excited about an idea as they are, and don't understand why a few mistakes in some science fundamentals means they have to scrap or improve their idea in order to generate that excitement ("OK sure, that part of my idea violates the principles of physics and reality, I see that now, but what do you think of the rest?"). You're right, it's a misunderstanding of the process, and one that probably leads to thinking scientists are all these negative things.

 

I've witnessed a LOT of patience coming from our membership too. So many of our best minds sharing their knowledge, while simultaneously being told they're arrogant and dismissive by someone who came here looking for the best minds, and now regrets getting the rigor he asked for.

I've been sneaky subtle and subliminally planted my idea to those I think will lead me to a Field's, Nobel and eternal glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been sneaky subtle and subliminally planted my idea to those I think will lead me to a Field's, Nobel and eternal glory.

 

Hate to break it to you String - but you are too old for a Field's Medal. I know - but for those pesky years I am sure you would be a recipient ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to break it to you String - but you are too old for a Field's Medal. I know - but for those pesky years I am sure you would be a recipient ...

Is there an age limit to the Field's? If so, I'm an wannabe 18 year old prodigy really that has lied about his age and puts up pictures of older people because I don't want the old uns to feel inferior in my presence.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.