Why people believe weird things

[skep]

Having contributed to a thread on alternative medicine in the mums and dads forum (and having been subsequently hammered by some true believers) I wanted to start a topic here about the weird any wonderful, and sometimes terrible, things that people believe (I've just read a book on the topic and it has piqued my interest).  I'm fascinated by pseudoscience and superstition and would love to hear people's views.  Topics such as alternative 'medicine', ghosthunting, UFOlogy, parazoology, vaccine denial, the controversy over organic food and the supplementary vitamin craze...

Why do people believe weird things and, more importantly, why do smart people believe weird things?

[Kubes.SG]

Skep:

You also need to add to your list really weird things that people believe in, such as:

1) Religion
2) Creationism
3) God or Gods (essentially almighty beings)
4) Man-made Global Warming caused by CO2
5) Reincarnation


To your last point, smart people do not believe in weird things such as those you and I have listed.  Only very simple and easily led people who really don't have the intellectual capacity to understand science, believe in these weird things.  I find the levels of "belief and faith" are an inverse correlation to the person's intellect (with a few exceptions). 

[skep]

Kubes to be honest I was trying to avoid going ugly early.  I do have many more things on my list including Intelligent Design (or creationism, as you said), holocaust denial and HIV denial.

The reason I became interested in these topics is because they seem to be creeping more and more into the mainstream and I find this alarming.  Are people getting stupider?  Do they entirely lack the skill of critical thinking or have they simply never been taught?  Is it laziness?  Science can be hard work to understand.

Many people of reasonable intelligence have their sacred cow and my personal experience it's usually something to do with alternative 'medicine'.

[Old Mike]

Human beings, confronted with a seemingly chaotic universe, try to work out rules that reduce the chaos to some sort of order. So, it is quite obvious that the world is flat. Just look. Rain falls from the sky, so there must be water over the earth. If you dig a deep enough hole, you find water at the bottom of it. So there must be water under the earth. It is all written down for you in Genesis, chapter 1.
It is quite obvious that dogs have puppies, not baby dragons; so all this talk of evolution must be nonsense.
Humans also believe in cause and effect. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (After that therefore because of that).
When they built a highway between the Merlion and the sea its Feng Shui was disturbed and we got SARS. When it was moved, things came right. The Singapore Flyer was turning the wrong way so we have had an economic meltdown.
When I was young, a long time ago, it was widely believed that science would solve all our problems and make us all rich and happy. That has not happened and now science is being blamed for things that are not it’s fault.
Clarke’s Third Law of Prediction States: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Almost anyone can look at a steam engine running and form some vague idea of how it works, but the operation of a PC is simple magic. Just push a couple of buttons and you can see and talk to Granny 10,000 miles away. When the PC crashes we are unreasonably annoyed, more as if we have been betrayed by a person than if a device has ceased to function. When we add to this that a career in commerce is far more lucrative than one in science or technology we have a population the vast majority of whom have no understanding of what science is all about.
We have become used to instant results. If I have a sore throat and get antibiotics it is better in a few days. If modern medicine cannot give me a pill to cure my cancer there must be some alternative therapy that will.
People believe what they see written down. Google almost any weird belief and you will find something to support it.” Results 1 - 10 of about 1,380,000 for spaghetti monster. (0.21 seconds)”
Finally, nobody knows everything. Highly intelligent people, with PhDs and scores of publications to their name can be startlingly ignorant about things outside their field of expertise. Read Dawkins on theology if you doubt this.

[skep]

Which begs the question:  Should ‘Critical Thinking’ be more prevalent in the school curriculum?

Critical thinking is not innate- it is a learned ability which must be taught.  Most individuals never learn it.  Is critical thinking something that can be reliably taught by most parents?  Probably not.  Most people are followers of authority: most do not question, are not curious, and do not challenge authority figures who claim special knowledge or insight. Most people, therefore, do not think for themselves, but rely on others to think for them. Most people indulge in wishful, hopeful, and emotional thinking, believing that what they believe is true because they wish it, hope it, or feel it to be true. Most people, therefore, do not think critically.

[Kubes.SG]

I had a disturbing experience last month at a social event at my wife's organization.  Over a few wines somehow the conversation of the group drifted onto education, and touched on religion.  I was astonished and speechless to hear a local Gen-Y woman say that she did not really know what evolution was, and that her high school only taught creation.  Now she is not some simple heartlander, but a product of Singapore's elitist education system, topped up with an international university education, and now working at one of the most elite organizations in Singapore.

Scary.

[skep]

I didn't realise that creationism was taught in Singapore schools, how interesting.  I thought this was (and still is) purely a US issue.

On the topic of scary, I was told by a pediatrician the other day that he is still frequently quizzed on MMR and autism by concerned parents.  I blame Oprah.

[Ade]

There seems to be an underlying idea here that believing in science is sensible and rational and believing in anything else is weird. But historically everything scientists have believed in have subsequently turned out to be erroneous.

Scientists have believed that the Sun goes round the Earth, that madness can be cured by leaches, that the universe is controlled by Newton’s laws, to name but a few. Wouldn’t it therefore be reasonable to believe that everything scientists believe in now is also erroneous?

For example the Big Bang theory has to be the most ludicrous theory in the history of science, yet many, otherwise, rational people believe in it.

[Kubes.SG]

Ade:  Are you serious or joking.  It is really hard to tell?

[BoardAdmin2]

Add to the list of great scientific "discoveries"

The Planet Vulcan
Civilisation on mars
Water on Venus in the form of lakes
Various 'immortality' potions
Cryogenics - "make me up when you can cure XYZ"
Newtons laws of motions - fine for predicting planets movements until Einstein came along and altered the laws again

That's why you have to take everything in life with a sceptical attitude - only problem is that those who put their faith in science believe (like all dogmatics of all faiths) that their view is the only correct one, that the answers 'science' provides are the only legitimate ones etc etc

That's why ultra-orthodox religious types and scientists get on so well you even find some who are both at the same time!

[Old Mike]

For example the Big Bang theory has to be the most ludicrous theory in the history of science, yet many, otherwise, rational people believe in it.

I think one needs to define terms here.
A scientist does not “believe” in the same way as a theist believes.
When a scientist claims to ” believe” in evolution she is saying that analysis of the facts available leads to the conclusion that the way we got the vast number of species now on earth was by evolution through natural selection.
Early observations seemed to indicate that the sun went around the earth, further observations showed that in does not.
Newtonian mechanics explain, to many decimal places, all movement on a macro scale within our galaxy. The fact that they are a special case of Einstein’s equations where relative velocities are a small fraction of the speed of light has no practical application on the design of a car or space ship.
When you say that the big bang theory is ludicrous, could you explain, with verifiable sources, how you arrive at this conclusion?

[Old Mike]

That's why ultra-orthodox religious types and scientists get on so well  you even find some who are both at the same time!

I would not call myself ultra orthodox, more middle of the road Christian, nor a scientist, more a technologist, but there is no conflict between the two in my mind.
No true scientist claims to know the ultimate truth. Indeed, the main use of any theory is that it can be disproved, and in being disproved provides shows the way to a closer approximation to the ultimate truth.

[skep]

Boardadmin2

Cryogenics is actually quite useful.  I assume you are referring to cryonics.

There is such a thing as "bad science".  Just because an "amazing scientific discovery" is reported credulously by the media does not make it part of general scientific consensus.  Almost every week there is a new story about free energy or a perpetual motion machine (or something else that violates the laws of thermodynamics)- sheer pseudoscience.

It is critical for science as an institution to be dedicated first and foremost to the principles and methodologies of science. Science is about discovering the nature of reality - what is, what happened in the past, and how stuff works. Scientific conclusions must be based upon evidence and adhere to the demands of logic. This requires that conclusion flow from evidence, that beliefs and claims are slaves to logic and evidence and can be altered as needed to accommodate new or better evidence.

It is simply not possible for legitimate science to reverse this process - to begin with a conclusion and subvert facts and logic to this belief. Institutions dedicated to a belief are not, by definition, scientific.

As for your views on ultra-orthodox religious types and scientists, I don't buy it. 

[skep]

Newtons laws of motions - fine for predicting planets movements until Einstein came along and altered the laws again

Just quickly pointing out that Einstein didn't actually 'alter' the law- that would be pretty unscientific

[BoardAdmin2]

Skep;

You don't have to buy it, i'm now Dawkins trying to convert you

So what do you call a group of people whose stated belief is that science will, in time, provide the answers for (or theories that can predict) everything?