Why all the science hate?

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-10-09 08:23pm

Apparently, scientists are disliked because they are arrogant and think they know everything. There are always anecdotes of "regular joe" vs "educated scientist guy" and the uneducated hick gets healed from cancer, or the chalk breaks, or whatever. I want to know why,

I mean, scientists don't think they know everything. If they did, then they wouldn't do science. Why do people think they do (know everything, not do science)? Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-09 08:34pm

Why do stupid kids hate straight-A students? I suspect that the reasons are similar. Unfortunately, most of the population is stupid.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-09 08:39pm

Because most people like to think that they are smart and know a lot, but obviously compared with scientists they are stupid and know little. So they project their own insecurities onto scientists and call them arrogant.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-09 08:45pm

I'm doing part-time work at a pub, and seriously, stupid people really do think they're smart. When they regurgitate urban myths, or tabloid soundbytes, or advertising science, they really honestly believe that makes them 'educated' or 'knowledgable'.

Of course, doing specific impulse/delta-v calculations on my lunchbreak makes them all go crosseyed. I just surprised me that stupid uneducated people really don't know. They don't think they're uneducated. They don't understand what education is. It's like Mike says - four years of backbreaking, expensive study. They think watching TV or reading Woman's Day can give you the important parts.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-09 08:48pm

I'm paraphrasing, but was it Shakespeare who said 'The biggest fool of all is he who does not know he's a fool'?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-09 09:00pm

There's a simple litmust test for this: "if your eyes glaze over at any equation which involves variables, you're not as smart as you think you are."

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-10-09 09:01pm

The stupid see them as a threat to their stupidity. Ignorance is bliss, remember?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-10-09 09:01pm

kheegan wrote:I'm paraphrasing, but was it Shakespeare who said 'The biggest fool of all is he who does not know he's a fool'?

I actually think that was Socrates.

lance · Post by **lance** » 2006-10-09 10:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:There's a simple litmust test for this: "if your eyes glaze over at any equation which involves variables, you're not as smart as you think you are."

I normally just glaze over things, unless it's something involving chem or something that I know, but math is really not my strong suit. I kinda get lost and fall asleep. But Intellegince(sp) doesn't really matter to be fairly succesfull from my experiance unless your a complete retard or a genius. What really matters is if you do enough work were you can learn what you need to know.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-10-09 10:17pm

lance, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Either it's too late into the night for me or you're not helping whatever point you're trying to make.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-09 10:46pm

He's trying to say you can get by in life without being particularly intelligent. This is absolutely true, but the problem here is people who dispute the ability of scientists to speak authoritatively on matters that really do require intelligence and higher education.

People like that need to be reminded that they exist at a lower intellectual level than the scientists they're dismissing. Hence the mathematical litmus test.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-10-09 11:07pm

I've always thought it was a case of them resenting the fact that, in the opinion of the idiot, if the scientists is smarter, they must be a better person.

Basically an inferiority complex.

Having dealt with people like that when making software at work, I know how fustrating it is.

Almost as bad are the people that assume cause you have knowledge in an area, you have experience and knowledge of everything in that area.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2006-10-09 11:39pm

Somewhat ironically, I've known mathematicians and bright students of mathematics whose eyes glaze over when there are too many numbers and not enough variables. Someone even remarked that in his experience, liberal arts majors are better at arithmetic. I'm not so certain that's actually the case, but there are mathematicians avoid actual numbers like the plague.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-10-10 12:06am

As people have pointed out its a fear that scientists are smarter. This attitude doesn't just apply to scientists, but also against other people perceived as intellectual.

I should also note that a lot of these people also are quite happy to take the words of intellectuals if it agrees with their views, and in a fit of hypocrisy dismiss other intellectuals with opposite views purely on the ground that they are an intellectual. But then stupid people are exactly the sharpest tool int he shed so it shouldn't be surprising.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-10-10 12:59am

Kuroneko wrote:Somewhat ironically, I've known mathematicians and bright students of mathematics whose eyes glaze over when there are too many numbers and not enough variables. Someone even remarked that in his experience, liberal arts majors are better at arithmetic. I'm not so certain that's actually the case, but there are mathematicians avoid actual numbers like the plague.

Not true. Mathematicians love numbers, so long as those numbers are 0 and 1.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-10-10 01:28am

I would posit a slightly different view here. However, not being a scientist or quite a layman (usually - depending on the subject) requires this disclaimer.

I would separate the traits of "intelligent" and "knowledgable." Being intelligent simply means one picks things up more quickly, whereas being knowledgable means one is a basic (or better) authority on a subject. One doesn't necessarily imply the other. Just being able to pick things up quickly is separate than having the perseverence (regardless of actual "intelligence") to study a given subject enough to become knowledgable.

I've met rather intelligent people who don't have the drive to become knowledgable about much, and I've met people who might be considered "slow" who know their chosen fields of study very, very well.

I would only consider someone who makes the conscious choice not to learn "stupid," no matter how intelligent they might be.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-10-10 01:47am

Darth Wong wrote:There's a simple litmust test for this: "if your eyes glaze over at any equation which involves variables, you're not as smart as you think you are."

Well that's a little too broad if you ask me, there's a big difference between something like "4 + x = 5" and Durandal's sig, for example.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-10-10 02:01am

I think it's just the retarded anti-science mentality of little-minded and arrogant idiots thinking that intelligence and knowledge doesn't matter. "You're smart? Haw haw haw, not at all. I can handle all my problems without you, stupid scientist".
It's just hard for some people to cope with the fact that in terms knowledge and intelligence, not all men are equal. Some are better - spent more time learning, are more intelligent. Big fucking news. It's envy after all I guess.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2006-10-10 02:39am

Something I've determined from my experiences and talking with other physicists/physics students is that when you're at a party or other such situation where you're surrounded by educated but non-science people, if you're asked what you do, almost always the response is "Oh! I was terrible in physics at school!". How are you supposed to respond to that? "Well, I'm very smart so I've done well in it" ? They seem to be almost proud of their ignorance of science. Sour grapes, perhaps? They can't understand it so it obviously can't be worth understanding.

My boss jokes about how he wants to say he's a sex therapist next time some one asks because it'll make the conversation less awkward.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-10-10 02:54am

Superman wrote:The stupid see them as a threat to their stupidity. Ignorance is bliss, remember?

We see the stupid as a grave threat to our way of life, our freedom, and possibly our continued existence. Look to Washington D.C., the Vatican, Pyongyang, Tehran, Baghdad, Beijing, and nearly the whole of Africa for the overwhelming mountain range of evidence for why.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-10-10 05:18am

Another thing might be that intellectual work isn't 'real' work because you're not sweating and grunting. So when scientists/engineers are treated with respect, it's seen as unfounded. They just sit around all day fiddling with pens and making nonsensical statements and occasionally pulling an atom bomb out of their pants.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-10 10:12am

Spin Echo wrote:Something I've determined from my experiences and talking with other physicists/physics students is that when you're at a party or other such situation where you're surrounded by educated but non-science people, if you're asked what you do, almost always the response is "Oh! I was terrible in physics at school!". How are you supposed to respond to that? "Well, I'm very smart so I've done well in it" ? They seem to be almost proud of their ignorance of science. Sour grapes, perhaps? They can't understand it so it obviously can't be worth understanding.

Most people I meet nowadays are grad students in one way or another, and when they say things like that it's more in a self-depreciating way, so I would respond with 'Well, I don't know a thing about molecular biology/pre-Aristotelian philosophy'.

This probably means I've been holed up in an ivory tower for far too long...need to get out more.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-10-10 10:28am

OmegaGuy wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:There's a simple litmust test for this: "if your eyes glaze over at any equation which involves variables, you're not as smart as you think you are."
Well that's a little too broad if you ask me, there's a big difference between something like "4 + x = 5" and Durandal's sig, for example.

Yeah, I've been working with simple algebra since middle school, and...I just simply cannot understand Durandal's sig. I don't recognise the first symbol, and the rest is just plain beyond my understanding of calculus.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-10-10 11:47am

Molyneux wrote:
Yeah, I've been working with simple algebra since middle school, and...I just simply cannot understand Durandal's sig. I don't recognise the first symbol, and the rest is just plain beyond my understanding of calculus.

The point was not that you have to have uber-math ability to be smart, e.g. a neuro-surgeon or molecular biology isn't likely to be very good at math. But they're not going to think that they're good at math.

Joe Sixpack, on the other hand, doesn't even realise that there's such a depth of knowledge between his 'cleverness' and true knowledgability and intelligence.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-10-10 12:24pm

Kuroneko wrote:Somewhat ironically, I've known mathematicians and bright students of mathematics whose eyes glaze over when there are too many numbers and not enough variables. Someone even remarked that in his experience, liberal arts majors are better at arithmetic. I'm not so certain that's actually the case, but there are mathematicians avoid actual numbers like the plague.

One of my calculus teachers could not do basic arithmetic with any speed. Stuff like 2+4. Which is supposed to be hardwired into the brain, but oftentimes in order to speed up the lecture students would answer or correct him.

Calculus he knew, though.

Granted, he was extremely old, so it might have been a stroke or some other form of minor dementia.