Why fake understanding or knowledge?

[Zzyzx]

.
In many of these threads people pretend to know about nature but then demonstrate near total ignorance. How can one, in good conscience, act as though they know about extremely complex natural processes that take years or decades to master – and to dismiss legitimate scholarship, extensive research, years of study with a wave of their (arrogant) hand?

Case in point: After studying Earth science since the 1960s and teaching at university level, I have some command of the subject (but do not claim expert status). Even knowing that, people who have not studied the subject at all set out in debate to teach me about Earth science.

Many discuss evolution without even understanding what the term means, let alone the factors involved. Most mistakenly assume that evolution means the same as origin of life – totally different topics. An advanced geneticist need not have any concern about origin of life. However, many who read scripture or listen to sermons assume that they know all that is necessary to critique and criticize the conclusions of legitimate researchers.

Does it reflect on one's credibility when they pretend to have knowledge that they do not have?

Why would one do such a thing?

[cnorman18]

One of the dangers of ignorance is that one does not even know enough to know that one is ignorant.

Or, as Will Rogers famously said: "It's not the stuff that people don't know that causes problems. It's the stuff that people know that ain't so."

If one is holding forth among people as ignorant as oneself, one might get away with some howlers without the fakery being called out. This forum is, shall we say, a risky place to attempt that.

[Jax Agnesson]

Perhaps the tendency of political and ethical academic studies to call themselves 'sciences' has contributed to this tendency to confuse knowledge and opinion.
Hard science is not a matter of opinion; current best theories either are sound or they are not. Life-time experts can be wrong, but they can (in principle) be shown to be wrong.
'Political science' (sociology, for example, or economics) may sometimes appear to be a matter of matching selected facts to preferred ethical or political opinions.

It is fine to have an opinion, (even a relatively uneducated opinion), about political and social issues. Although there are people who have made a lifetime's study of economics, the question of what the Central Bank ought to do about interest rates is to some degree a matter of political opinion.
Similar things can be said about crime and public order, and many other such 'social-science' subjects.
OTOH, an uninformed opinion about the rate at which the Universe is expanding, or the rate at which successful mutations can appear, is very unlikely to be valid.

When religious evangelists find hard science contradicting their beliefs, they sometimes forget this distinction. But it is an important one.

[ElCodeMonkey]

The Invisible Gorilla talks a lot about how it's the less-skilled that are often more confident. And having authoritative Christian Scientists say, "you're wrong" is all the Christians need to be assured that they ARE right even if they don't know why. Mix those two things and you've got your unskilled confident fool. (not speaking of anyone in particular, of course). Then the unskilled ones all talk confidently with each other breeding all the more confidence in lack of knowledge. I used to take part in all that .

[Zzyzx]

If one is holding forth among people as ignorant as oneself, one might get away with some howlers without the fakery being called out. This forum is, shall we say, a risky place to attempt that.

Well said, Cnorman. It appears as though some who debate here are not accustomed to addressing people who think critically, evaluate the merits of what is said, and challenge statements that appear to be questionable -- so fakery may get by in their peer group.

In my opinion, our school system, churches, and political systems promote "following the rules" and accepting what one is told rather than thinking, exploring, questioning, learning.

[WinePusher]

Perhaps the tendency of political and ethical academic studies to call themselves 'sciences' has contributed to this tendency to confuse knowledge and opinion.

Science is a broad term used to describe any discipline that derives knowledge through observation, experimentation and prediction. Using this definition, politics (along with other disciplines such as economics and sociology) can be appropriately considered sciences because the knowledge acquired within these disciplines is based upon those three factors outlined above.

Hard science is not a matter of opinion; current best theories either are sound or they are not. Life-time experts can be wrong, but they can (in principle) be shown to be wrong.

Jax, the entire history of science is full of examples where a new scientific theory comes along and renders the previous theory useless. Ptolemy posited that Earth was at the center of our solar system, and nearly 1000 years later he was proven wrong by Copernicus. Similarly, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate with the inception of Einstein's general theory of relativity. There are many more examples of how the natural sciences were totally and completely wrong. So for you to say that 'hard' science is not a matter of opinion seems rather dubious because the scientific fields are dominated by opinions and dissent. A more appropriate description to make about science is that some aspects of the scientific disciplines are questioned and criticized by those with dissenting opinions while other aspects of science are pretty solid and are therefore immune from criticism and dissent.

'Political science' (sociology, for example, or economics) may sometimes appear to be a matter of matching selected facts to preferred ethical or political opinions.

Yes, this happens in nearly all disciplines because all academic fields are dominated by human beings who are themselves imperfect and fallible. Haeckel's embryological drawings turned at to be fake, and much of the research that has gone into promoting so called climate change is fraudulent. The problem of manipulating data and selective research is a problem for all academic fields, including the natural sciences.

Although there are people who have made a lifetime's study of economics, the question of what the Central Bank ought to do about interest rates is to some degree a matter of political opinion.

Monetary economics tells us precisely what will happen if a central banks lowers interest rates. Interest rates will fall, the supply of money will increase due the money multiplier effect and all spending in the economy that is particularly sensitive to interest rates will increase. This is the economic description of how central banks use the interest rate to affect the money supply. It is a matter of fact, not opinions. Now, opinions and politics do play a role in determining whether or not the central bank should change interest rates in order to increase or decrease the money supply, and as you said this is indeed a political question. Some will say that it should while others (like myself) will say that it shouldn't.

OTOH, an uninformed opinion about the rate at which the Universe is expanding, or the rate at which successful mutations can appear, is very unlikely to be valid.

An uninformed opinion isn't necessarily wrong, and in general it is almost impossible for an opinion to be wrong. I am pro life while you are probably pro choice. These are both opinions that we hold, and neither of us is right or wrong. However, when we talk about facts it is very possible for people to either be willing fully ignorant or misinformed and undereducated. I remember 'debating' three nonbelievers on this website and they all were calling into question a fact about linguistics (the study of language). They were dead wrong, and they failed to admit that they were wrong and kept making up lame excuses for their failures. Now, I wouldn't say that these three users merely had a difference of opinion on this particular issue. They were just unfamiliar with the facts and were trying to talk about a subject they knew nothing about. As the thread says, they were had a fake understanding and knowledge about the topic. They were just pretending to understand when, in reality, they didn't understand at all.

[Joab]

Jax, the entire history of science is full of examples where a new scientific theory comes along and renders the previous theory useless. Ptolemy posited that Earth was at the center of our solar system, and nearly 1000 years later he was proven wrong by Copernicus. Similarly, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate with the inception of Einstein's general theory of relativity. There are many more examples of how the natural sciences were totally and completely wrong. So for you to say that 'hard' science is not a matter of opinion seems rather dubious because the scientific fields are dominated by opinions and dissent. A more appropriate description to make about science is that some aspects of the scientific disciplines are questioned and criticized by those with dissenting opinions while other aspects of science are pretty solid and are therefore immune from criticism and dissent.

Without quote mining, do you contend that the BLUE is a summary of those two sentences?

Because that is how it reads to me.

[WinePusher]

Jax, the entire history of science is full of examples where a new scientific theory comes along and renders the previous theory useless. Ptolemy posited that Earth was at the center of our solar system, and nearly 1000 years later he was proven wrong by Copernicus. Similarly, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate with the inception of Einstein's general theory of relativity. There are many more examples of how the natural sciences were totally and completely wrong. So for you to say that 'hard' science is not a matter of opinion seems rather dubious because the scientific fields are dominated by opinions and dissent. A more appropriate description to make about science is that some aspects of the scientific disciplines are questioned and criticized by those with dissenting opinions while other aspects of science are pretty solid and are therefore immune from criticism and dissent.

Without quote mining, do you contend that the BLUE is a summary of those two sentences?

What you did isn't called quote mining, it's called misrepresenting a person's position. Anybody who knows how to read should realize that I didn't say that Newtonian physics was totally and completely wrong, I said it was inadequate in light of general relativity.

Because that is how it reads to me.

Yikes, well that does reveal a lot about your reading comprehension skills doesn't it? As you can see, I separated both of those thoughts with a period. They are two completely separate sentences. Now that that's cleared up, did you have anything substantive to say about I wrote? I believe the moderators have warned you several times that one liners are not allowed on this forum, so if you can try to write a little more next time.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 8 by WinePusher]

I agree with Joab. You said there are "many more" examples (indicating Newton was one such example) where natural sciences were totally and completely wrong.

And this is not anywhere near correct. Newton's theories were right for the realm that he was in. Enough right that people still use it today. It only becomes "wrong" when you get into a huge macro scale into space. But really, it's just not precise. So he wasn't replaced, he simply wasn't as precise. For example, his equation might conclude 3.1415 while something more precise comes up with 3.14159265. Depending on the application the less precise is still correct and useful. (note, I may be misrepresenting the concept of precision in this case, but the point is still valid)

As for your other sciences, simply believing the earth to be the center of the universe is not science. It's not testable. It's a statement within "a science", sure, but it's not a scientific fact. It was just a belief. The scientific method is very specific in what's a fact, what's a theory, what's a belief, what's conclusive, what's correlation, what's causation, etc. If it's not, it's not actually science. So while politics might be considered "a science", it's not utilizing the scientific method. Thus "a science" can be completely confused with actually DOING science. Opinion versus knowledge.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Why fake an appeal to authority fallacy instead of just debate?

This is a debate site, not a science class. When I need to pass a degree in science I will tell them what they want to hear.