Check yer sources, fool!

[bumab]

Last night I finally saw "What the bleep do we know?" It's about quantum physics and philosophy, although if you've seen it, you'll understand why this is not in the physics forum. The science is.... somewhat sketchy, at best.

Regardless, most (95%) in the room of 150 people did not have any science background at all. I was the only one with a science degree, so I was in charge of fielding the science questions during the discussion time at the end. Everybody watched the movie make outragous claims about quantum physics and it's bearing on our decision making abilities (they moved from "nothing is certain in the sub-atomic realm" to "there is no such thing as right and wrong" in 80 minutes).

When the movie ended, about 100-110 just left, without watching the credits or seeing where these "scientists" were from. They presumably assumed that since they were scientists, they were speaking the truth, and all conclusions were valid (from the discussions I overheard). When watching the credits, where each authority was introduced and they talked about where they were from, you found out all but one were supporters of the Ramantha (sp?) School of Enlightenment (RSE), an "interesting" place, to say the least. Google it for more info if you haven't heard about it.

Why don't people ever bother to check their sources? Has science been presented as so authoritative that anybody in a lab coat automatically can do no wrong? How can we change how science is taught to better reflect the falibility of the scientists and their conclusions, without totally degrading and destroying the value of the scientific method and creating a super-cynical generation of kids?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by bumab

...Has science been presented as so authoritative that anybody in a lab coat automatically can do no wrong? How can we change how science is taught to better reflect the falibility of the scientists and their conclusions, without totally degrading and destroying the value of the scientific method and creating a super-cynical generation of kids?

Really interesting question. I find it is challenging to get most folks to really think about their positions. It does not really matter whether the discussion at hand is politics, religion, morality, carreers, money, child-raising, etc. Folks just have an opinion, and generally defend it, not critique it.

I have a reasonably educated set of friends, spread across most academic, religious and political spectra. I think most have graduate degrees in something. It is even hard to get them in a discussion that requires interactive, self-questioning thought. Unless folks are in that mode, I think most clarification/validation/explication is pretty useless. I would expect, of course, that the rank-and-file citizen is even less engaged than my somewhat more academic set of peers.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I have a reasonably educated set of friends, spread across most academic, religious and political spectra. I think most have graduate degrees in something. It is even hard to get them in a discussion that requires interactive, self-questioning thought.

I wonder how much acedemics actually hurts the drive towards intellegent, self-critical thinking. This was a showing at a university, and most of the attendees were undergrads. I've an MS, and some of the other facilitators did as well. I'm not sure that even in my graduate school courses critical thinking was encouraged. In lecture style classes especially (more under-grad) students are simply told what is right by an authority figure. High school is the same way- I'm teaching now, and try as I might to get the kids to question what they think, they often fall back on the "just tell me the right answer" excuse. I wonder if education hurts critical thinking skills?!

Grad school got definitly better then undergrad, and I'm sure a doctorate program is even more freeing (hopefully be there soon, after my bloody debt get's paid off). However, I wonder if undergrad college especially presents the "man in the white coat knows everything" mentality.

[Fishteacher73]

IMO there are two factors that lead to this end. First is that many simply do not question what they are told. "He's a scientist" or "He's a whatever" many peaple just concede and do not put forth the effort to be critical.

The other is the state of education today. With the standardization of education and multiple choice tests the trend has been to teach to pass the test, not to develop crittical thinking skills. I have students that cannot even answer a "What do you think" questions. This to me is absurd. They have not developed extrapolation skills.

These two factors I feel have built the situation we now find ourselves tangled into.

[Turtle]

___Ahh the authority of the lab coat! Add a clipboard & you have Stanley Milgram's study "Response to Authority" (Buffy & I have been talking about him a bit in another thread as well).
___As to Bumabs question, " Has science been presented as so authoritative that anybody in a lab coat automatically can do no wrong?", the short answer is yes. Same for priests, police, politicians, teachers, & literally anyone perceived as authoritive.
___I note that Milgram's results so disturbed him that he refused to publish them for a number of years after the experiments, & then only under the persuasion of others. Milgrams actual book is a source well worthy of checking out for yourselves.

[bumab]

That is interesting, Turtle. I've heard of him, but not really much beyond that.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Turtle

___I note that Milgram's results so disturbed him that he refused to publish them for a number of years after the experiments, & then only under the persuasion of others. Milgrams actual book is a source well worthy of checking out for yourselves.

Really interesting, Turtle. What is the name of the book?

[Turtle]

___The book is "Obedience to Authority", not "Response to Authority" as I earlier wrote.
Here is an introductory link:
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
___No end of discussion & misrepresentation of the experiments abound so I heartily recommend reading the book itself. (Kinda' like the thread title!) Sobering stuff, & in no small measure terrifying for those inclined to paranoia.

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by bumab

Has science been presented as so authoritative that anybody in a lab coat automatically can do no wrong?

The answer is yes and no. The establishment, that common agreeded upon authoritive group out there that judges all the articles submitted to peer review, that group who runs the lab and also the campus tends at times to come across that way. But not everyone in the establishment actually thinks that way anymore than all students think that way. Putting on a lab coat does not translate to everything they do are say being 100% any more than the words spoken from some pulpit being always correct.

[Turtle]

___Paul said, "Putting on a lab coat does not translate to everything they do are say being 100% ...". Milgram's work says otherwise Pau; this is why it's so disturbing. That you say yes & no is no small reflection that at once the science is firm, & the results unbelievable. The recorded screams were only added to the experiment after virtually everyone in the first run of experiments gladly flipped the highest switch marked DANGER.
___Have you read "Obedience to Authority"?