The New Cancer of Pop-Science Pseudo-Intellectualism
If you have been long enough around the internets you would notice debates about common subjects. Organic vs GMO, Climate Realism vs Climate Denialism, Atheism vs Religion, Science vs Religion, Flat Earth vs Round Earth are just some of the popular subjects.
In almost all of the debates one side accuses the other for luck of scientific understanding. The tragic part is that rarely we an analysis that follows proper scientific enquiry. As a result, we get skin-deep analysis that resembles dialogues from popular tv shows like "The Big bang Theory" or "Through the Wormhole". In other words "science, fuck yeah" arguments with zero substance.
We can conclude that over the last few years "science" (word and concept) has effectively become a meme. There is nothing wrong with this other than the fact that those who come to defend a view do not know enough about the subject matter. They rather parrot arguments that they have borrowed from popular youtube channels, tv-shows or articles around the web. This is why most of the times we see false dichotomies such as "science=progress" and "anything else=dark ages".
The universe is amazing, stars are dazzling, space exploration is cool, trees are awesome, evolution is spectacular but emotions have nothing to do with science. When we see people debate flat earthers for example we rather see mockery rather than proper argumentation. In most case that I have witnessed, flat earthers have by far superior arguments (even if they are wrong) and the opposing side chooses to mock them rather than answer their inquiries with simple high-school physics.
In other words we have effectively gone full retard. We have the subject of "shape of earth" and both sides argue with each other without anyone knowing how to properly argue the questions by using scientific findings and critical thinking.
Unfortunately this is the state of things when it comes to pop-culture. The amount of information around us is immense and people try to win impressions rather than properly understand things. This is also the reason why catchy pictures and memes get more likes and shares than long-ass posts and explanations.
Many people become reactionaries and follow conspiracy theories because they don't trust certain authorities. Many people became atheists and pro-science because this is what seems to be the fashion/hipster thing to do. Much the same, many people are religious or follow a cult because they chose to follow the crowd and believe a priest rather than investigate themselves. Herd mentality at its finest.
Many people prefer believing in something over the scientific methods; maybe because it is easier, maybe because we are pre-programmed that way, maybe because they can't handle the permanent insecurity of science.
The idea that real-world observations may force you to reject your theory's hypotheses and thus force you to change your theory is alien to most people; it is much easier to religiously defend your belief system and blame the real world for not complying or insert a few "No True Scotsman" arguments into the discussion.
The religious approach to models and theories is much more user-friendly when you are a science groupie rather than a scientist: it requires no reasoning of your own, just a re-hash of other people's opinions you can find ready-made on the interwebs, and a mocking of those you see as heretics.
I sometimes wonder if we are pre-wired to be religious to the point that we need replacement religions when the older god-based religions are no longer hip. Or is it just laziness or the all-consuming want to be part of a safe group of people who agree on everything?
My apologies for my digressing.
We are wired by default to carry religiosity. Look carefully enough throughout life and you will see that we are constantly performing rituals, see patterns and follow trends.
Also laziness. Thinking consumes energy and the brain by default avoids to engage.
In most part religion is just an excuse for brain to transfer a part of responsibility to some entity or higher power at the same time reducing load and emotional stress. There are also different other form to do that, but different brains have different capacities and "pain thresholds". We think of ourselves as of something very special, in a way we are, but that is highly influenced by complex biological engineering and evolution. Or devolution.
It is no good to get stuck in a frame. Think openly what is right and what is wrong. Then come to a conclusion.
As much as I enjoy Joe Rogans podcast this post reminds me of a lot of the guests he has on his show and even him himself sometimes
Oh so true.
Take flat earthers for example- they argue quite effectively! If you look at their arguments against those of the circle earthers (the intelligent arguments not the attacks) it's the flat earthers who would win the debate trophy. At least they went and researched a bit, albeit biased to gather just enough facts to support their new theory.
Agreed. The flat earth videos I have seen are quite convincing & compelling in their arguments.
Perspective, Nasa conspiracy, rocket cameras etc.
I'm not qualified nor really interested in taking a side ATM
Once I can fly to mars for a holiday I'll figure it out myself :-)
Once Apollo 11 space radiation issues are sorted ! :-)
Mars is coming! Sooner than we think!
I've always held a deep fear of space. Now my son wants to colonize Mars.
It'll make for interesting Thanksgiving family get togethers...
;)
Look like a hero also
Good post.
I think the biggest problem in modern debates is the basic ratios,
2 x ears 1 x mouth
Most won't even listen to the opposing 'facts' or 'points' of debate.
And whenever a 'reasonable' / logical point is raised the default position is to "play the man rather than the ball" ie shoot the messenger, call them names or similar.
It is disappointing to see & hear people lower themselves to this level of 'debate' rather than good argument, considered opinion, and maybe a willingness to change position, or at least contemplate it!
In some ways it reduces the "human" to an "animal-istic" level
a fight or flight situation rather than intelligent discussion.
Good point. That is the trend. It is much easier to monetize impressions that science. Look as Steemit itself, it's a good reflection most of the time. Pop culture more than often wins over a quality content. Eventually that might flip, with the discovery of a innovatory content rewards mechanism, that has to be yet discovered and implemented.
The problem then being, of course, that if this reward mechanism doesn't comply with the economic or societal belief system of the powers that be, it will never be implemented, because belief system trumps real world, especially when the belief system's implementation benefits those in power.
Yours would be a way out of this stalemate, and I hope you will be successful, but I don't feel comfortable with what a host of new tokens will bring for the future value of any of them.
But now I digress even further.
Neither theism nor atheism!
I'll stick to the 'the' 🙂
exactly the same argument can be made about this article!
I really agree with you, good post friends.