You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Very few of us have the knowledge to personally "peer review" scientific findings, or laboratory facilities to replicate (or not) the results. Whether you're religious, or scientific-minded, we humans rely much more on a web of trust than we do actual critical thinking, unless something happens to intersect with our specific expertise and we can then effectively evaluate. In the christian world-view, they believe that they are critical thinkers, because it matches what they believe. That's confirmation bias, yes, but confirmation bias feels like critical thinking. When it comes to accepting scientific findings and theories, similarly, we rely on a web of trust that certain journals are reputable and have effective peer review etc. One difference is that if there is a new theory or empirical finding in science that appears to be accepted as potentially true, we are likely to keep that idea alive rather than reject it out of hand just because it doesn't match our previous ideas. Witness everything from the ideas (that seem ridiculous on their face) like string theory, many worlds, or even quantum physics itself that flies in the face of daily sensory experience. Even the ideas of atoms having mostly space and magnetic fields giving the illusion of materials being solid when we touch them, defy common sense, yet we embrace them out of trust in the science.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 1572886? 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Very few of us have the knowledge to personally "peer review" scientific findings, or laboratory facilities to replicate (or not) the results. Whether you're religious, or scientific-minded, we humans rely much more on a web of trust than we do actual critical thinking, unless something happens to intersect with our specific expertise and we can then effectively evaluate. In the christian world-view, they believe that they are critical thinkers, because it matches what they believe. That's confirmation bias, yes, but confirmation bias feels like critical thinking. When it comes to accepting scientific findings and theories, similarly, we rely on a web of trust that certain journals are reputable and have effective peer review etc. One difference is that if there is a new theory or empirical finding in science that appears to be accepted as potentially true, we are likely to keep that idea alive rather than reject it out of hand just because it doesn't match our previous ideas. Witness everything from the ideas (that seem ridiculous on their face) like string theory, many worlds, or even quantum physics itself that flies in the face of daily sensory experience. Even the ideas of atoms having mostly space and magnetic fields giving the illusion of materials being solid when we touch them, defy common sense, yet we embrace them out of trust in the science.