Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Agreed.
Yeah, I should've left that one out. I'd say that group is more uneducated than unreasonable. The rest of my examples, though, are all hotly debated by reasonable people, but not by scientists.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
There are two kinds of people: those who think people can be grouped into two neat little packages, and those who don't.
I'm not sure I agree with the author on these groupings, either. He focuses a lot on climate change in the latter part of the article. However, I think the broader point still has some validity. Do people tend to accept ideas that fit with their preconceived beliefs, and reject those that are different? I think yes. How else do we explain, to take another example, the majority of what I hope are "reasonable" people who are potentially running for President in 2016 rejecting a basic scientific theory?
Of course everyone uses their beliefs and experience to shape how they see things. Walker is trying to avoid answering a question he knows some in his base would take issue with, that is how politicians work. Just like Obama when asked about gay marriage when first running for president. Interesting thing about the climate debate on those 'rejecting' science, they actually have a better understanding of scientific facts than the believers.
even within the scientific community. I go to these "parties" with my wife on occasion and they are always talking about how more 
is spent on debunking current assertions than anything else. I have always taken them at their word. No idea if it's true or not.
That's true, and that's a good reason for being skeptical about scientific "facts." 100% of actual scientists share that skepticism, which is why scientific ideas are constantly subject to questioning and revision.
Isn't that the article quoted by the author in my original OP?
Politicized science is a major reason why you'll find otherwise reasonable people "rejecting" science. This linked article is a great example of that.
I think the term science in that respect refers more to politics. Real science is always evolving. It will continue to accept new evidence and new possibilities. Nothing is proven 100%. We can merely come to a consensus based on the evidence of the time.
The first two that come to mind from way back in the day were the universe revolving around the
I think most people prefer not to think about it. When questions are asked about evolution in a way which does not seem to conflict with religion, there is a much higher acceptance of the facts. When it is worded in a way which might conflict with their belief that God created humans in their current form, then the support for evolution theory decreases. It is really just a much easier question to ignore the differences than work to try to reconcile a possible middle ground where science and religion can be in harmony. Most people are busy and are just happy thinking about their day to day life and not worry about such nuances.
The Sun revolves around the Earth was once the general opinion of the mass "scientists" despite the vocal opposition providing evidence to the contrary. Earth is flat was also a general consensus in the "civilized world" until someone challenged the notion. Then there was the sun is the center of the universe.
Science is always wrong in that there will always be so many unknowns. First it is the earth is the center of the universe. Then it is the sun is the center of the universe and we circle around the sun. Then it is discovered there are many other solar systems and other even other galaxies. Then it is our orbit is not a circle, but more elliptic. Science will never be right, it will just keep inching closer to being right as our understanding of things improve.
Science is not the conclusion, but rather the process to reach a conclusion. The ability to think critically is what separates reasonable people from the average facebook user.
We may get Pluto back in 2016. :crosses fingers:
You make a good point. The vaccine issue appears to be fairly bipartisan, but yes, it's not like the left doesn't have its own share of science deniers.
How much of these previous misconceptions (Sun around the Earth, flat Earth, circle vs elliptical orbit, etc.) were based on evidence that was misinterpreted vs. simply incorrect assumptions?
I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Assumptions are based on the available evidence and current interpretations of them. I don't see those as two separate things.
This is a question based on the benefit of hindsight....not sure it's very fruitful given the initial question posed. At the time, based on what they knew, that was their assumption.
Ptolemy, whose chart of the sky was the abiding version for 1500 years, actually practiced some very rigorous science - imposing ellipses upon orbits and such to reinforce earth as center of the universe - which advanced the cause of both astronomy and mathematics greatly. What he didn't do was create the intellectual space to explore heliocentric theory, which is the usual first fault of bad science.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than have an answer that can't be questioned"The virtual certainty that it's almost always at least partially wrong.
Ironically, that's what I love about it
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
