Causes of Rejecting Scientific Consensus

[Jose Fly]

In another thread I expressed that I don't really understand many of the behaviors I frequently see from creationists. One of those behaviors is how they seem to not only think themselves experts in a wide variety of scientific fields, they seem to believe that their knowledge and expertise is superior to the actual professionals in those fields. Thus, we often see them attempt to debate against the work of professionals by mere assertion (IOW, "because I say so").

In that earlier thread, several folks (correctly) noted that such behavior can be explained by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. While I agree that it explains what they're doing, it still doesn't really explain why they do it or how they are seemingly oblivious to it.

The other day I came across this article....

Overconfidence and Opposition to Scientific Consensus

The recent study – Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues, by Nicholas Light et al, is not surprising but is reassuringly solid in its outcome. The researchers compared peoples objective knowledge about various controversial topics (their knowledge of objective facts), with their subjective knowledge (assessment of their own knowledge) and opposition to consensus views. They found a robust effect in which opposition increased as the gap between objective and subjective knowledge increased (see graphs above the fold).

This may remind you of Dunning Kruger – the less people know the more they overestimate their knowledge (although subjective knowledge still decreases, just not as fast as objective knowledge). This is more of a super DK, those who know the least think they know the most. This has been found previously with specific topics – safety of GM food, genetic manipulation, and vaccines and autism. In addition to the super DK effect, this study shows that is correlates well with opposition to scientific consensus.

This study does not fully establish what causes such opposition, just correlates it with a dramatic lack of humility, lack of knowledge, and overestimation of one’s knowledge. There are studies and speculation trying to discern the ultimate causes of this pattern, and they are likely different for different issues. The classic explanation is the knowledge deficit model, that this pattern emerges as a result of lack of objective knowledge. But his model is mostly not true for most topics, although knowledge is still important and can even be dominant with some issues, like GM food. There is also the “cultural cognition” model, which posits that people hold beliefs in line with their culture (including political, social, and religious subcultures). This also is highly relevant for some issues more than others, like rejection of evolutionary science.

Other factors that have been implicated include cognitive style, with intuitive thinkers being more likely to fall into this opposition pattern than analytical thinkers. Intuitive thinking also correlates with another variable, conspiracy thinking, that also correlates with the rejection of consensus. Conspiracy thinking seems to occur in two flavors. There is opportunistic conspiracy thinking in which it seems to be not the driver of the false belief but a reinforcer. But there are also dedicated conspiracy theorists, who will accept any conspiracy, for which conspiracy thinking appears to be the driver.

So to put this in context of my question (why do some exhibit the D-K Effect), the research described in this article indicates that it's due to a combination of factors: lack of humility, one's cultural environment, intuitive-type thinking, conspiracy thinking

The topic for debate: Do you agree with that? Do you see this "super D-K" applying to some of the discussions/debates in this forum? Do you think there are other factors the researchers may have missed?

For me, these explanations line up quite well with the behaviors I commonly notice among creationists, most notably the lack of humility. IMO, that explains why creationists are so prone to argue via empty assertion. They think so highly of themselves, they figure "because I say so" is a valid form of argumentation and don't seem to really understand why the rest of us don't.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The hypothesis was "Evolution is false".

You're ignoring what he clearly said. He didn't start with that as a hypothesis, he started with that as a conclusion.

So again, what exactly is your point here? You're a fan of creationists. So?

Either way, regardless of what you call it, he got to the same place.

"Evolution is false".

[Jose Fly]

The hypothesis was "Evolution is false".

You're ignoring what he clearly said. He didn't start with that as a hypothesis, he started with that as a conclusion.

So again, what exactly is your point here? You're a fan of creationists. So?

Either way, regardless of what you call it, he got to the same place.

"Evolution is false".

So a Moonie goes to college with the express intent of "destroying Darwinism", gets his degree, and......doesn't "destroy Darwinism".

So what? Is there a point to any of this?

[We_Are_VENOM]

In the nearly 60 years I've been studying biology, it's always been a scientific term.

Oh, ok. I've heard on more than one occasion that it isn't. However...gotcha

Yeah, I'm surprised that you didn't know the scientific definition.

I did/do know.

See above. It's not that hard to figure out.

I will tell you what isn't hard to figure out...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is what isn't that hard to figure out.

Take a visit to a local farm or zoo and you will see exactly how easy it is to figure out.

Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.

I don't have a problem with speciation, just as long as it is within the same genus.

"Kind" is an informal term that has no meaning in taxonomy.

It does, though. If you say X animal is a different genus than Y animal...then what you are essentially saying is that "X is a different kind of animal than Y".

It is the same thing.

It is not that hard to figure out.

So you think a kid can tell the difference between kinds of canid and an animal of an entirely different class? Me too.

I don't know. If you believe that reptile evolves into birds, apparently you cannot tell the difference and are unable to grasp the fact that an animal will only produce what it is, not what it isn't.

Foxes are a different genus from dogs. Dogs are in the genus Canis. Foxes are in the genus Vulpes.

But dogs are foxes are part of the same family, which is of higher order....which is canine...which means that it is the same kind of animal.

Nothing about animals bringing forth according to their kinds.

So, the only game left in town is animals bringing forth according to different kinds...but that is not what scripture says...and that is not what thousands of years of human observation of animal reproduction says.

That^, followed by the fact that evolution says that reptiles evolved into birds, but scripture says that birds were created before reptiles.

The birds were created full-bodied, according to their kinds...nothing about a hundred million year evolutionary process in scripture, nor in observation.

Well, that's a testable belief. Tell me if Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile, and explain how you decided. What do you have?

I repeat, "Looks like a prehistoric bird to me".

Nope. It has more theropod dinosaur traits than avian ones.

Subjective. It has more bird traits than otherwise. Bio-babble aside.

And it led you astray.

Answers in Genesis says that new genera are produced by existing ones. Perhaps you need to learn more about creationism as well.

And what does AiG say about evolution?

Nope. For example, they suppose a "dog kind", comprising several genera. Or a "cat kind" again, several genera. You've been misled about what they say.

They have their opinions about it just like your beloved scientists have theirs.

Ken Ham has never figured out what biological evolution is. He thinks evolution of new species and genera isn't "real evolution." What do you think the scientific definition is?

What he probably means is; the evolution of a new species within the "kind" isn't an example of macroevolution...and I agree with him, it isn't.

Perhaps you need to learn more about Ken Ham and what his ministry is and what they teach. As you learned just now, they do accept the evolution of new genera. They just want to avoid calling it "evolution."

Perhaps you need to learn more about animal reproduction...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Have you ever observed anything in nature to the contrary? No, you haven't.

Dr. Wood does not believe in evolution. He is just honest enough to admit the fact that there is a great deal of evidence for it.

Then, get Dr. Woods and Jonathan Wells in a room together and have them duke it out...and lets see who prevails.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The hypothesis was "Evolution is false".

You're ignoring what he clearly said. He didn't start with that as a hypothesis, he started with that as a conclusion.

So again, what exactly is your point here? You're a fan of creationists. So?

Either way, regardless of what you call it, he got to the same place.

"Evolution is false".

So a Moonie goes to college with the express intent of "destroying Darwinism", gets his degree, and......doesn't "destroy Darwinism".

So what? Is there a point to any of this?

You can have the last word. It is like talking to a brick wall at this point.

Moving on..

[Jose Fly]

The hypothesis was "Evolution is false".

You're ignoring what he clearly said. He didn't start with that as a hypothesis, he started with that as a conclusion.

So again, what exactly is your point here? You're a fan of creationists. So?

Either way, regardless of what you call it, he got to the same place.

"Evolution is false".

So a Moonie goes to college with the express intent of "destroying Darwinism", gets his degree, and......doesn't "destroy Darwinism".

So what? Is there a point to any of this?

You can have the last word. It is like talking to a brick wall at this point.

Moving on..

So you have no point. Noted.

[The Barbarian]

In the nearly 60 years I've been studying biology, it's (macroevolution) always been a scientific term.

Oh, ok. I've heard on more than one occasion that it isn't. However...gotcha

Yeah, I'm surprised that you didn't know the scientific definition.

I did/do know.

I will tell you what isn't hard to figure out...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is what isn't that hard to figure out.

So you're telling me that Answers in Genesis is wrong about foxes, wolves, and dogs having a common ancestor?


Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.

I don't have a problem with speciation, just as long as it is within the same genus.

Most YE creationists now admit that new genera and sometimes families come from other taxa. They just don't want to call it "evolution."

"Kind" is an informal term that has no meaning in taxonomy.

It does, though.

Nope. If you say X animal is a different genus than Y animal...then AIG is saying that X is the same kind of animal as Y".

So you think a kid can tell the difference between kinds of canid and an animal of an entirely different class? Me too.

I don't know. If you believe that reptile evolves into birds, apparently you cannot tell the difference and are unable to grasp the fact that an animal will only produce what it is, not what it isn't.

Well, you were just unable to tell the difference between a bird and a theropod dinosaur, so there is that.

(claim that all canids are one "kind.")

Foxes are a different genus from dogs. Dogs are in the genus Canis. Foxes are in the genus Vulpes.

But dogs are foxes are part of the same family, which is of higher order....which is canine...which means that it is the same kind of animal.

So now "kind" means "family", not genus?

Nothing about animals bringing forth according to their kinds.

As you learned, even honest creationists admit that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. Would you like to see some more?

The birds were created full-bodied, according to their kinds...

You just don't approve of the way God did it. And how would you expect a "half-bodied" animal?

nothing about a hundred million year evolutionary process in scripture, nor in observation.

You were misled there. Fossil evidence, genetics, anatomical homologies, and a host of other evidence. Which is why your fellow YE creationist admits that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution.

Well, that's a testable belief. Tell me if Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile, and explain how you decided. What do you have?

I repeat, "Looks like a prehistoric bird to me".

Nope. It has more theropod dinosaur traits than avian ones.

Subjective.

Nope. Want a list? Let's test your assumption. You give me a list of Archaeopteryx characteristics found only on birds, and I'll give you a list of characteristics only found on other dinosaurs. You're on.

It has more bird traits than otherwise.

Here's your chance to put some substance behind your babble. What have you got?

Answers in Genesis says that new genera are produced by existing ones. Perhaps you need to learn more about creationism as well.

And what does AiG say about evolution?

It says that new genera coming from old genera is "not real evolution." But as you know, they don't know what biological evolution is. Can you tell us what it is?

For example, they suppose a "dog kind", comprising several genera. Or a "cat kind" again, several genera. You've been misled about what they say.

They have their opinions about it

Doesn't matter. Even if they really, really want "kind" to be a scientific term, it isn't.

]
Ken Ham has never figured out what biological evolution is. He thinks evolution of new species and genera isn't "real evolution." What do you think the scientific definition is?

[quoteWhat he probably means is; the evolution of a new species within the "kind" isn't an example of macroevolution...and I agree with him, it isn't. [/quote]

No, that's wrong. I just showed you the scientific definition. It's speciation. Maybe you need to invent your own term instead of misusing scientific ones.

Perhaps you need to learn more about Ken Ham and what his ministry is and what they teach. As you learned just now, they do accept the evolution of new genera. They just want to avoid calling it "evolution."

Perhaps you need to learn more about animal reproduction...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

And you just put humans and chimps in the same "kind." Hominoids produce hominoids. Creationists are found of "O.K. new species and genera (and maybe families) come from other species, but that's as far as it can go." They are saying a man can walk a mile because they've seen a man do it, but a man can't walk a thousand miles because they've never seen that. Everyone knows what they're trying to do with that dodge.

Dr. Wood does not believe in evolution. He is just honest enough to admit the fact that there is a great deal of evidence for it.

Then, get Dr. Woods and Jonathan Wells in a room together and have them duke it out...and lets see who prevails.

You think the Moonies are right and a Christian evangelical has it wrong? If so, your stance makes more sense, now.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yeah, I'm surprised that you didn't know the scientific definition.

Hmm. We went from having a little disagreement about whether the term is scientific, to now I am being accused of not knowing the definition altogether.

Here is what I do know....dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Here is what I do not know, nor have never seen....any reptile-to-bird transformation in nature.

So you're telling me that Answers in Genesis is wrong about foxes, wolves, and dogs having a common ancestor?

No, I am agreeing with Answers in Genesis; that foxes, wolves, and dogs have a common ancestor.

Do you know what that common answer was?? A canine.

We do not believe that canines originated from non-canines...and we do not care if your favorite scientists/evolutionists says otherwise.

Because we have our scientists, too.

Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.

I disagree with the idea that speciation occurs within any large scale (macroevolutionary) process.

Most YE creationists now admit that new genera and sometimes families come from other taxa. They just don't want to call it "evolution."

Do they?

Nope. If you say X animal is a different genus than Y animal...then AIG is saying that X is the same kind of animal as Y".

That may/may not be true.

It would depend on what kind of animal X and Y is...wouldn't it?

Well, you were just unable to tell the difference between a bird and a theropod dinosaur, so there is that.

I call it how I see it.

So now "kind" means "family", not genus?

That depends.

First...lets see what good ole wiki has to say about "genus"..

"The composition of a genus is determined by taxonomists. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

So, there are some authorities that may very well put foxes in the same category as dogs. I do, and I am not an authority.

But the family is of higher order, which includes all canines.

So again, it all depends.

But even without all of the bio-babble, it is clear that foxes and dogs are the same kind of animal.

What we have here is a failed "gotcha" moment. Epic failure.

You just don't approve of the way God did it.

If God did it that way, then so be it. I just don't see proof that he did it that way.

And how would you expect a "half-bodied" animal?

Funny.

Genesis 1:21-22

21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

There is no hundred million year process in there. I just don't see it. And it is an insult to, not just my intelligence, but to intelligence in GENERAL, to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say.

You were misled there. Fossil evidence, genetics, anatomical homologies, and a host of other evidence.

And all of that alleged evidence either..

1. Doesn't mean what you think it means..

2. Can be looked at as evidence of a common designer, and opposed to common ancestry.

Which is why your fellow YE creationist admits that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution.

I have beef with theistic evolutionists.

Matter of fact, tell them to stop by my office.

Nope. Want a list? Let's test your assumption. You give me a list of Archaeopteryx characteristics found only on birds, and I'll give you a list of characteristics only found on other dinosaurs. You're on.

Not sure what that would prove.

It says that new genera coming from old genera is "not real evolution." But as you know, they don't know what biological evolution is. Can you tell us what it is?

Never fails. I've pointed this out every single time a conversation on evolution arises.

Whenever someone expresses disbelief in evolution, they get accused of being ignorant.

Never, ever fails.

For example, they suppose a "dog kind", comprising several genera. Or a "cat kind" again, several genera. You've been misled about what they say.

LOL. My point exactly.

No, that's wrong. I just showed you the scientific definition. It's speciation. Maybe you need to invent your own term instead of misusing scientific ones.

Speciation are limited to the "kind", and can take place within the kind.

A cheetah and a lion are classified as difference species...but they are clearly the same KIND of animal.

Again, get a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and iguana.

Ask your 7 year old niece, point to the one that is different than the others...and she will, using her 7 year old brain, be smart enough point to the iguana...thus recognizing the difference in the "kind".

If this is something a 7 year old can do, because a 7 year old doesn't have a false agenda to push. But adults with false agendas to push tend to make things more difficult, more technical.

How about just letting nature speak for itself...instead of speaking for nature?

And you just put humans and chimps in the same "kind." Hominoids produce hominoids.

I tend to go with the Biblical view. Humans are not animals...and animals are not human.

Creationists are found of "O.K. new species and genera (and maybe families) come from other species, but that's as far as it can go." They are saying a man can walk a mile because they've seen a man do it, but a man can't walk a thousand miles because they've never seen that. Everyone knows what they're trying to do with that dodge.

Show me a man that can fly by flapping his own two arms. Then you will have my attention.

Dr. Wood does not believe in evolution. He is just honest enough to admit the fact that there is a great deal of evidence for it.

And Jonathan Wells thinks otherwise...and they are looking at the same "evidence". Hmm.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #77]

A cheetah and an iguana are classified as difference species...but they are clearly the same KIND of animal.

Get a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, iguana and chicken.

Ask your 7 year old niece, point to the one that is different than the others...and she will, using her 7 year old brain, be smart enough point to the chicken... thus recognizing the lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard and iguana as the same "kind".

If this is something a 7 year old can do, because a 7 year old doesn't have a false agenda to push. But adults with false agendas to push tend to make things more difficult, more technical.

How about just letting nature speak for itself...instead of speaking for nature?

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, I'm surprised that you didn't know the scientific definition. (of macroevolution)

Hmm. We went from having a little disagreement about whether the term is scientific, to now I am being accused of not knowing the definition altogether.

Here is what I do know....dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

But you were just telling us that dogs produce foxes. Two different genera. And apes produce apes. Which means humans and chimps are the same "kind" by your reckoning. Are you sure you have it straight?

Here is what I do not know, nor have never seen....any reptile-to-bird transformation in nature.

As you know, even honest creationists have admitted that the large number of transitional forms are evidence that birds evolved from other dinosaurs. You were unable to show even one characteristic of Archaeopteryx that was not also found in dinosaurs. I'll make it easier for you; find me one characteristic of modern birds that is not found in other dinosaurs. What do you have?

So you're telling me that Answers in Genesis is wrong about foxes, wolves, and dogs having a common ancestor?

No, I am agreeing with Answers in Genesis; that foxes, wolves, and dogs have a common ancestor.

Two different genera. So even by your estimation, macroevolution.

Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words.

I disagree with the idea that speciation occurs within any large scale (macroevolutionary) process.

Doesn't matter. That's how speciation works. By definition.

Most YE creationists now admit that new genera and sometimes families come from other taxa. They just don't want to call it "evolution."

Do they?

Yep. AIG, for example. Institute for Creation Research for another.

If you say X animal is a different genus than Y animal...then AIG is saying that X is the same kind of animal as Y".

Well, you were just unable to tell the difference between a bird and a theropod dinosaur, so there is that.

I call it how I see it.

You didn't call it. Because you can't find any such differences. That should be a wake-up call for you.

So now "kind" means "family", not genus?

That depends.

First...lets see what good ole wiki has to say about "genus"..

"The composition of a genus is determined by taxonomists. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

In many cases, it's very hard to make such distinctions. As Darwin pointed out, if common descent is a fact, then such cases should be common and they are. If creationism were true, there would be no such cases. You've found another way to debunk creationism.

So, there are some authorities that may very well put foxes in the same category as dogs.

Show us one. No one who knows anything about canids would say so.

I do, and I am not an authority.

My point.

But even without all of the bio-babble, it is clear that foxes and dogs are the same kind of animal.

So now it's family, and you've put humans and chimps in the same kind. Well done.

What we have here is a failed "gotcha" moment. Epic failure.

I suppose if you think humans and chimps are the same kind, you got it right.

You just don't approve of the way God did it.

There is no hundred million year process in there. I just don't see it. And it is an insult to, not just my intelligence, but to intelligence in GENERAL, to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say.

You just inserted your own ideas into the text to make it a literal history. But the text itself makes it clear that it is not a literal history.

You were misled there. Fossil evidence, genetics, anatomical homologies, and a host of other evidence.

And all of that alleged evidence either..

1. Doesn't mean what you think it means..

2. Can be looked at as evidence of a common designer, and opposed to common ancestry.

Sorry, that dodge won't work. Even honest creationists admit that it is evidence for evolution. Would you like me to show you more of that?
Which is why your fellow YE creationist admits that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution.

I have beef with theistic evolutionists.

These are young Earth creationists. They are just honest about the facts.

Nope. Want a list? Let's test your assumption. You give me a list of Archaeopteryx characteristics found only on birds, and I'll give you a list of characteristics only found on other dinosaurs. You're on.

Not sure what that would prove.

Your failure to do so proved something to everyone here.

It says that new genera coming from old genera is "not real evolution." But as you know, they don't know what biological evolution is. Can you tell us what it is?

Never fails. I've pointed this out every single time a conversation on evolution arises.
Whenever someone expresses disbelief in evolution, they get accused of being ignorant.
Never, ever fails.

Easy shot. As you demonstrate, most creationists have no idea what biological evolution is. Why not just look it up and tell us? You could probably find it somewhere.

(regarding macroevolution)
No, that's wrong. I just showed you the scientific definition. It's speciation. Maybe you need to invent your own term instead of misusing scientific ones.

Speciation are limited to the "kind", and can take place within the kind.

So far, you've told us that chimpanzees and humans are in the same kind. (same subfamily)

A cheetah and a lion are classified as difference species...but they are clearly the same KIND of animal.

Lions and cheetahs are more different than humans and chimpanzees. You sure you want to leave it that way?

Again, get a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and iguana.

Ask your 7 year old niece, point to the one that is different than the others...and she will, using her 7 year old brain, be smart enough point to the iguana...thus recognizing the difference in the "kind".

Since you were unable to show us a difference between birds and other dinosaurs, that's kind of a problem for you.

And you just put humans and chimps in the same "kind." Hominoids produce hominoids.

I tend to go with the Biblical view. Humans are not animals...and animals are not human.

Where does it say that humans are animals? The Bible also says that bats are birds, so their taxonomy is by function, not biology.

Creationists are found of "O.K. new species and genera (and maybe families) come from other species, but that's as far as it can go." They are saying a man can walk a mile because they've seen a man do it, but a man can't walk a thousand miles because they've never seen that. Everyone knows what they're trying to do with that dodge. They like to argue since a dog never gives birth to a cat, or some other weird idea about evolution.

Show me a man that can fly by flapping his own two arms. Then you will have my attention.

Yeah, like that.

Dr. Wood does not believe in evolution. He is just honest enough to admit the fact that there is a great deal of evidence for it.

And Jonathan Wells thinks otherwise...and they are looking at the same "evidence".

Wells is a Moonie, with a stated mission to "Destroy Darwinism." Dr. Wood is an evangelical Christian. So there's a good reason for the difference.

Hmm.

Indeed.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #77]

A cheetah and an iguana are classified as difference species...but they are clearly the same KIND of animal.

Get a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, iguana and chicken.

Ask your 7 year old niece, point to the one that is different than the others...and she will, using her 7 year old brain, be smart enough point to the chicken... thus recognizing the lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard and iguana as the same "kind".

Maybe your niece, not mines.