10. Accepting Scientific Facts

 

 

Many people hold beliefs that clash with science, such  as  the  efficacy  of  unproven  medical
interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, and the legitimacy of astrology and
ESP. The tenacity of these non-scientific beliefs is frustrating to many scientists, who wonder: Why do people believe these weird, unproven things?

Actually, this resistance to scientific facts has a perfectly rational basis. Scientific facts are often
themselves weird, because they (0) . that even children hold. For example, one-year-olds know that objects will fall to the ground if unsupported. It is therefore difficult for them to understand that the Earth is round; if it were, the people and things on the other side should fall off. One reason that people resist science, then, is that science is often unintuitive.

But this does not (1)  to science. After all, almost all of us eventually learn that the Earth is round, and we accept other strange scientific facts as well, like the fact that apparently solid objects are mostly empty space. So why are facts like these accepted while others, such as evolution, are not?

 

Trusting our teachers
We believe that the answer has to do with how people learn. We accept new information, even if it is unintuitive, if we trust the source. In some cases, this trust is a no-brainer – certain scientific views are taken for granted by everyone, and are not associated with any particular person or group. For example, the existence of electricity is generally assumed in day-to-day conversation and is not marked as uncertain; nobody says that they ‘believe in electricity’.

The situation gets more complicated, though, when the information is not universally accepted.
Sometimes, different sources (2) . A child might note that science teachers make surprising claims about the origin of human beings, for example, while their parents and religious leaders make different claims.

To decide which claims to believe, we don't (3) We can’t. Scientists and other authorities make all sorts of claims about the world, and nobody has the time, the interest, or the competence to evaluate all of them. Instead each of us asks: Who should I trust? The doctor or the psychic healer? The biologist or the theologian?

Trust in scientists
Not surprisingly, scientists will argue that a rational person should trust the scientist. We agree, but it’s worth noting that some skepticism toward scientific authority is clearly rational. Scientists have personal biases due to ego or ambition – just read any grant proposal. There are also political and moral biases, particularly in social science research dealing with contentious issues such as the long-term effects of being raised by gay parents or the explanation for gender differences in test scores. It would be naive to (4)   and someone who accepted all ‘scientific’ information would be a patsy.

People who disagree with what scientists have to say about social issues might reasonably
infer that it is not safe to trust their statements in general. But this rejection of science (5)  The community of scientists have a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures such as experiments and open debate that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world. All other things being equal, one is wise to (6)  rather than a priest or politician. One way to combat resistance to science, then, is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.

 

In sum, people will resist scientific claims when these claims clash with early emerging, intuitive
expectations about the way the world works, and when these claims are contested within a society
by people who are trusted.