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]

But you were just telling us that dogs produce foxes.

No, I didn't. I said canines produce canines.

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?

I never maintained that humans are apes. That is your thing, not mines.

As you know, even honest creationists have admitted that the large number of transitional forms are evidence that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.

As you know, I already stated that I have beef with the concept of theistic evolution.

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?

That is a game for 3 yr olds.

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

If answers in Genesis does NOT believe that foxes, wolves, and dogs share a common ancestor with a canine, then they are WRONG.

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

Canines produce canines...that is, even by my estimation, all you've ever seen.

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."

My original reply to this stands.

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

AIG does not believe in evolution.

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

Plenty of differences...and I am not in to playing the "identify the differences" game...that is for 3 yr olds.

If you believe that birds are reptiles, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement of how this stuff works.

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.

?

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

That is a challenge you should be posing for the author(s) of the wiki article, not me. Don't kill the messenger.

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

You have this idea that humans are animals. I do not share those sentiments.

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 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.

Seems clear to me. Oh well.

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.

All creationists aren't created equal.

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.

Spare me.

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?

How you define biological evolution is independent of...

Canines produce canines, felines produce felines.

So, as long as your definition lines up with that observation, we should be fine.

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

And neither those lions or cheetas will ever produce a non-feline....and those chimpanzees will never produce a non-ape.

Yet, if you go back far enough in history, both the felines and the apes will owe their existence to non felines and non apes.

Laughable.

Where does it say that humans are animals?

Oh, so humans aren't animals, according to evolution?

The Bible also says that bats are birds, so their taxonomy is by function, not biology.

Yeah, and you already saw the wiki definition of genus, which states that there is no universal standard for how you classify certain organisms...so some classifications my differ, depending on the authority.

Well, according to the Bible...bats are birds.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #81]

Yet, if you go back far enough in history, both the felines and the apes will owe their existence to non felines and non apes.
Laughable.

This is precisely why you get responses suggesting that you don't understand how evolution works. This is exactly how evolution works. You may not agree with it, but that is what the theory says. And it has been observed via the fossil record that amphibians evolved from fish, reptiles evolved from amphibians, mammals evolved from reptiles, and humans evolved from earlier mammals that weren't primates. The Californian newt has some fish features (like gills), but some amphibian features (4 legs), and no gills. What "kind" is it?

Humans evolved a very complex and capable brain, but are nothing but very smart apes. There's no evidence that suggests humans were "created" as special creatures, independent of an evolutionary path like every other living thing on Earth. That secnario only exists in ancient holy books, not in the real world.

[The Barbarian]

But you were just telling us that dogs produce foxes.

No, I didn't. I said canines produce canines.

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?

I never maintained that humans are apes.

You said that "kind" referred to families. And chimps and humans are in the same subfamily. You see, when you draw the lines, you end up putting things into the same kind that you might not want to do. Rock and a hard place.

That is your thing, not mines.

You drew the line. Not my problem if it bites you.

As you know, even honest creationists have admitted that the large number of transitional forms are evidence that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.

As you know, I already stated that I have beef with the concept of theistic evolution.

They are YE creationists. They don't believe that birds did evolve from dinosaurs. They are just honest enough to admit that the large number of transitional forms are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

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?

That is a game for 3 yr olds.

We'll just note that you dodged the question. For reasons we all understand.

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

Canines produce canines...that is, even by my estimation, all you've ever seen.

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

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

AIG does not believe in evolution.

They say new species, genera, and maybe families develop from other taxa. They just don't call it "evolution."

(asked to show differences between birds and other dinosaurs)
You didn't call it. Because you can't find any such differences. That should be a wake-up call for you.

Plenty of differences...

But you can't name even one. We get it.

and I am not in to playing the "identify the differences" game..

Not surprising; most creationists can't tell the difference between the two. You're not unique. You could look it up, you know.

If you believe that birds are reptiles, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement of how this stuff works.

Well, then, feel free to support your belief with some evidence. How do you think birds differ from other dinosaurs? C'mon. At least make an attempt.

(why it's sometimes difficult to separate taxa)
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.

?

Separately created species would have nice, neat divisions. But as you see, they don't. It's another way creationism fails.

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

That is a challenge you should be posing for the author(s) of the wiki article, not me.

If you bring it here, you have ownership of the idea. If you can't support it and just think Wikipedia is infallible, we'll note that and go on.

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

You have this idea that humans are animals. I do not share those sentiments.

That's a testable belief. Humans fit the essential characteristics of animals. Specifically, mammals, primates, and hominoids.

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.

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.

All creationists aren't created equal.

Some are honest and knowledgeable. Dr. Wood is one of those.

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.

Spare me.

You make the assertion, you're going to be asked to support it. If you can't we'll just note that you failed to support your claims again.
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?

How you define biological evolution is independent of..

You could look it up, you know. Why keep dodging the questions? You realize how this makes your argument look, right?

Lions and cheetahs are more different than humans and chimpanzees. You sure you want to leave it that way?
(dodges that question, too)

Oh, so humans aren't animals, according to evolution?

The point is that the Bible doesn't say one way or the other.

The Bible also says that bats are birds, so their taxonomy is by function, not biology.

Well, according to the Bible...bats are birds.

Yep. So it's clear that you can't use the Bible for taxonomy. If you ever figure out how birds are different from other dinosaurs, be sure to come back and tell us, hear?

[We_Are_VENOM]

This is precisely why you get responses suggesting that you don't understand how evolution works. This is exactly how evolution works. You may not agree with it, but that is what the theory says.

The theory can say whatever evolutionists want it to say...when the theory matches up with the observational evidence, then you will have a viable theory...and not a moment sooner.

Until then, I can only go by what I observe in nature, which is that canines produce canines, felines produce felines, and so on and so forth.

I have no reasons to believe that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.

Point blank, period.

And it has been observed via the fossil record that amphibians evolved from fish, reptiles evolved from amphibians, mammals evolved from reptiles, and humans evolved from earlier mammals that weren't primates.

The only thing the fossil record shows, is that the animals of the distant past have been dead for a long time.

Using your imagination, you can imagine whatever you want after that.

The Californian newt has some fish features (like gills), but some amphibian features (4 legs), and no gills. What "kind" is it?

I don't know. Modern day cars have radio systems but the Model T automobile by Ford in the early 1900's didn't.

Catch my drift?

Humans evolved a very complex and capable brain, but are nothing but very smart apes.

That is your theory, thanks for sharing. I will share mines with you...

Humans were created in God's image, just as the Bible says. And apes were created on day 5 of the Genesis creation account.

Glad we can come together and share theories with one another.

There's no evidence that suggests humans were "created" as special creatures, independent of an evolutionary path like every other living thing on Earth. That secnario only exists in ancient holy books, not in the real world.

There's no evidence that hundreds of millions of years ago, when no one was around to witness it, that animals were engaged in these large scale, macrolevel evolutionary processes.

That scenario only exists in science books, not in the real world where observation is occurring and saying otherwise.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #83]

You can have the last word. I've said all I needed to say on the matter.

[brunumb]

Modern day cars have radio systems but the Model T automobile by Ford in the early 1900's didn't.

Yep. Small changes over time. Evolution at work.

[brunumb]

I have no reasons to believe that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.

They didn't necessarily do anything different. In every generation they reproduced exactly like you suggest, dogs produce dogs etc. But tiny differences in offspring that got passed on over countless generations meant that way down the line the animals reproducing may have been significantly different from their ancient ancestors. So much so that if one compared the two directly one would conclude that they were different animals altogether.

Place a document on a photocopier and you should get what looks like an exact copy of the original. But there can be tiny imperceptible differences. Take the copy and use it to make another copy. Again, not much noticeable difference. Use the latest copy to make another. Continue that for thousand of generations of copies. What happens is that the tiny imperfections at every generation affect the next one. Any two adjacent copies in the chain look indistinguishable and seem to be perfect copies of each other. But eventually we reach a stage where the image can no longer be recognised as copy of the original.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Modern day cars have radio systems but the Model T automobile by Ford in the early 1900's didn't.

Yep. Small changes over time. Evolution at work.

I agree. Small, micro level changes over time. You, however, believe that those small changes lead to big changes (reptile to bird).

I, however, believe that those small changes remain at the micro level (wolf to dog).

There lies the contention.

[We_Are_VENOM]

They didn't necessarily do anything different. In every generation they reproduced exactly like you suggest, dogs produce dogs etc. But tiny differences in offspring that got passed on over countless generations meant that way down the line the animals reproducing may have been significantly different from their ancient ancestors.

When you started the sentence "but tiny differences in offspring...", that is where you've left science and ran into the imagination and religious portal.

Because that isn't what the science is telling you...that is what your presupposition is telling you.

So much so that if one compared the two directly one would conclude that they were different animals altogether.

I agree...they were different animals altogether....because they started out different from the very moment God created their own "kind".

Place a document on a photocopier and you should get what looks like an exact copy of the original. But there can be tiny imperceptible differences. Take the copy and use it to make another copy. Again, not much noticeable difference. Use the latest copy to make another. Continue that for thousand of generations of copies. What happens is that the tiny imperfections at every generation affect the next one. Any two adjacent copies in the chain look indistinguishable and seem to be perfect copies of each other. But eventually we reach a stage where the image can no longer be recognised as copy of the original.

To use an analogy to explain a theory that hasn't been proved to be true is putting the cart before the horse.

Prove the theory true, first...and THEN use an analogy to explain how it works.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #89]

Prove the theory true, first...and THEN use an analogy to explain how it works.

The hypothesis (evolution) has been "proven" as far as proof goes in science (ie. sufficiently supported by enough observations over enough time with enough darts deflected ... over a century and a half now in the case of evolution) that it has become a formal scientific theory. This is a fact ... evolution is an accepted, formal scientific theory.

You may not like it, or believe it is correct, but you are solidly in a minority and will never change the consensus acceptance of evolution with arguments based solely on an old religious book (which is all you've been able to offer so far). Come up with some evidence that actually disproves evolution and you'll get a lot of people's attention ... maybe a Nobel prize for your efforts. Quoting 2000+ year old holy book stories just doesn't get the job done. There's far too much evidence that the theory of evolution is correct ... it completely overwhelms claims to the contrary.