The Einstein effect: People trust nonsense more if they think a scientist said it

[taniwha]

Consider why ready defined constructs like  'Appeals to Authority' and 'Comfirmation Bias' were left out from the above article?

So why even try reinvent the wheel to be a bigger wheel than necessary, when the previous wheel would have been far more efficient and easier understood?

The article reads like New Age Generation  B******t itself.

Or have they simply tried to push home their point by writing with 'purposeful irony.'.. ? if such a thing exists lol

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, joc said:

but know things.  Knowledge has nothing to do with belief.

Where do you acquire that knowledge, though?  I understand that you speak of facts in evidence that you feel you can trust as accurate but I believe we've reached such a level of tribalism and willingness to ignore most things which challenge our "knowledge", that we might as well have no source for truth.  IMO, that's the major virus infecting our modern world.  We see it here all the time.  Claims are made, one group tends to set itself as the ultimate arbiters of what is "accurate" based on nothing more than their beliefs as echoed by so called fact-checkers.  Even when those fact-checkers are proven to be biased.  No admissions of inaccuracy are forthcoming.  Usually, you just hear mockery from those who rebuke your sources.  I can respect ANYONE stating their opinion AS an opinion.  Those who smugly look down the nose at anyone who disagrees with them, for them I have no respect at all.  

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, and then said:

Where do you acquire that knowledge, though?  I understand that you speak of facts in evidence that you feel you can trust as accurate but I believe we've reached such a level of tribalism and willingness to ignore most things which challenge our "knowledge", that we might as well have no source for truth.  IMO, that's the major virus infecting our modern world.  We see it here all the time.  Claims are made, one group tends to set itself as the ultimate arbiters of what is "accurate" based on nothing more than their beliefs as echoed by so called fact-checkers.  Even when those fact-checkers are proven to be biased.  No admissions of inaccuracy are forthcoming.  Usually, you just hear mockery from those who rebuke your sources.  I can respect ANYONE stating their opinion AS an opinion.  Those who smugly look down the nose at anyone who disagrees with them, for them I have no respect at all.  

It is Truly amazing how well you described yourself in your comments above, and apparently you don’t think they apply to you at all because you would not have spoken them if you realized at all!

Edited February 14, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"Luckily, scientists and science in general encourage a good dose of skepticism when grand claims are made."

I certainly agree with you, and I believe this is because the scientific community works in theories! When your dealing with a theory it must be look at with a good dose of Skepticism, until it can be proven. However, today it amazes me that so many people will only believe in things that agree with their preconceived notions, and dismiss anything else out of hand. I don’t know why this is the case, especially with the internet because anyone can gather research on any subject and use critical thinking to form informed personal opinions!

Instead people just except information they agree with without any skepticism at all, then repeat it / share it without any knowledge if it is accurate or not! These same people will also continue to use the same the sources of information over and over again even though that source is highly bias and known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. It’s a very sad state of affairs when people will give their own freedom of thought to quacks and to leaders of their political affiliation or their religious affiliation.

I don’t know how to correct this, I don’t even know if it’s possible to correct it. However, at this point I believe we can only hope people wake up and start thinking for themselves again!

Be well!

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its the lack of knowledge about a topic, combined with the status of people talking about a topic.

Two many people dont question and criticise what they hear, and lack the information to do that too.

Like I said, that is nothing knew.  We as a human race have created fancy gadgets over time, but we are still be same creatures we have always been.  It's so easy to criticize...those other people who don't question and criticize what they hear without appropriate information.  What is appropriate information?  We know what we know and what we don't we believe.  What about you...what do you believe?

[+Hammerclaw]

People have always put more trust in authority figures, than in the common man--until they wise up.

[Tatetopa]

10 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

So with General Relativity who thinks its correct?

If you look at the equations then the closer two objects get the stronger the gravity. So at a finitely small distance apart gravity is finitely strong. Yet when we drop a ball onto the ground it doesnt explode itself and the Earth during the collision. Yet even pointing out an obvious flaw like that will attract people who claim its correct.

Just watch.

If I remember my high school physics correctly, the surface of the earth is 4,000 miles from the earth's center of mass.

[psyche101]

New Age BS rarely offers a name 

Usually 'scientists' or ' leading scientists' are referenced. 

New Age crackpots hate science unless someone claiming to be a scientist says what they want to hear. Then it's mainstream science that cops the brunt. And the person claiming to be scientist hardly ever is, and when they are, its usually a qualification in some obscure field. Nothing to do with the subject at hand 

Each claim stands alone. Predictability, observation and supporting evidences are science. Not opinions of nameless 'scientists''.

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If I remember my high school physics correctly, the surface of the earth is 4,000 miles from the earth's center of mass.

Yes and two atoms an infinitely short distance apart experience an infinite strength of gravity according to GR.

Something every object dropped on the floor at some point reaches. The problem with GR is it lacks a minimum and maximum strength of gravity which arises from the fact it doesnt quantify gravity into discrete units which cannot be divided any further. This is one of the reasons why GR is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.

And Quantum Mechanics is currently stuck because that indivisible unit (the graviton particle) has never been detected so they don`t know what that unit is.

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Yes and two atoms an infinitely short distance apart experience an infinite strength of gravity according to GR.

Something every object dropped on the floor at some point reaches. The problem with GR is it lacks a minimum and maximum strength of gravity which arises from the fact it doesnt quantify gravity into discrete units which cannot be divided any further. This is one of the reasons why GR is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics.

And Quantum Mechanics is currently stuck because that indivisible unit (the graviton particle) has never been detected so they don`t know what that unit is.

 

You are aware that science recognises the incompatibility and regards both theories as incomplete don't you?

You do understand that is why the search for a grand unifying theory has been the holy grail for decades now? 

GR works on a big scale. QM works on a tiny scale. They don't mesh. This has been the case for as long as we have been aware of QM. That's a basic of science. Nobody as far as I know has described either as complete.

It's not really a secret. There aren't QM factions fighting GR factions. They are all on the same page. 

Not sure what your point is.

[Tatetopa]

25 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Yes and two atoms an infinitely short distance apart experience an infinite strength of gravity according to GR.

Two atoms cannot get an infinitely short distance apart,  gravity is a weak force compared to the other three fundamental forces; electromagnetic force, strong force and weak force are all stronger than gravity.

Equations have limits too in math beyond which they do not make any sense.  0 and infinity are beyond the limits of GR  in th e real world.  Only in math

[Duke Wellington]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

You are aware that science recognises the incompatibility and regards both theories as incomplete don't you?

You do understand that is why the search for a grand unifying theory has been the holy grail for decades now? 

GR works on a big scale. QM works on a tiny scale. They don't mesh. This has been the case for as long as we have been aware of QM. That's a basic of science. Nobody as far as I know has described either as complete.

It's not really a secret. There aren't QM factions fighting GR factions. They are all on the same page. 

Not sure what your point is.

My point was to the poster claiming that my assertion of how GR has problems was new age mumbo jumbo.

GR also doesnt explain the galactic scale, and dark matter is impossible due to a number of reasons.

[Duke Wellington]

10 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Two atoms cannot get an infinitely short distance apart,  gravity is a weak force compared to the other three fundamental forces; electromagnetic force, strong force and weak force are all stronger than gravity.

Equations have limits too in math beyond which they do not make any sense.  0 and infinity are beyond the limits of GR  in th e real world.  Only in math

Precisely, and GR equations can have finitely short distances between two atoms.

So its tosh.

[Tatetopa]

40 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

So its tosh.

If you want to believe the day comes only when you open your eyes, feel free.  It will not change what is, and it is relatively unimportant to me.

[Timothy]

People are stupid if they don’t think.

[eight bits]

@Still Waters

There actually is a word for that specific kind of bull sign that makes it through the filters asterisk-free. "Deepity."

The word is being popularized by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett (one of the "horsemen" of the new atheism), but he credits a neighbor for having come up with it.

As to Einstein specifically, it is true that few people were interested in his personal philosophical views until he became a rock star of physics. Then, suddenly, he was cited as an authority on religion, and claimed as a champion by both the religious (e.g. the hero of a totally bogus story about shaming one of his atheist high school teachers) and the irreligious (e.g. the three million dollar letter where he supposedly called the Old Testament stories "childish").

Actually, he really was a pioneer of what we now call "spiritual but not religious," but that didn't exist as a "category" in his lifetime. Also, there is an irony. In some alternate universe, there is an Einstein who is a failed physicist, but who is remembered as a leading philosopher, particularly expert on the works of Baruch Spinoza.

Nobody cared about his Spinoza scholarship before his physics succeeded well enough to displace Newton's. Nevertheless, when Einstein spoke on the philosophy of religion, he actually was an exceptionally well qualified expert.

While there is a fair amount of BS falsely attributed to him, there's very little authentic Einstein that traffics in deepities.

[Only_]

Swap the word 'scientist' for 'priest'.

People need figures of authority. They need a shepherd to lead them and give them a sense of certainty and meaning.

Some people have replaced religion with science.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Only_

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, Only_ said:

Some people have replaced religion with science.

Thank God!

The main difference is that science has a method for ascertaining evidenced answers instead of saying, "Just have faith."

[+Sherapy]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:42 PM, Manwon Lender said:

I certainly agree with you, and I believe this is because the scientific community works in theories! When your dealing with a theory it must be look at with a good dose of Skepticism, until it can be proven. However, today it amazes me that so many people will only believe in things that agree with their preconceived notions, and dismiss anything else out of hand. I don’t know why this is the case, especially with the internet because anyone can gather research on any subject and use critical thinking to form informed personal opinions!

Instead people just except information they agree with without any skepticism at all, then repeat it / share it without any knowledge if it is accurate or not! These same people will also continue to use the same the sources of information over and over again even though that source is highly bias and known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. It’s a very sad state of affairs when people will give their own freedom of thought to quacks and to leaders of their political affiliation or their religious affiliation.

I don’t know how to correct this, I don’t even know if it’s possible to correct it. However, at this point I believe we can only hope people wake up and start thinking for themselves again!

Be well!

Exceptional post. 

[Only_]

7 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

The main difference is that science has a method for ascertaining evidenced answers instead of saying, "Just have faith."

I distinguish 'science' as a method from 'mainstream science', which pretty much act like an organized religion, with it's own set of beliefs and dogmas.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-scientific-orthodoxy-resembles-religious-dogma/

 

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

@Still Waters

There actually is a word for that specific kind of bull sign that makes it through the filters asterisk-free. "Deepity."

The word is being popularized by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett (one of the "horsemen" of the new atheism), but he credits a neighbor for having come up with it.

As to Einstein specifically, it is true that few people were interested in his personal philosophical views until he became a rock star of physics. Then, suddenly, he was cited as an authority on religion, and claimed as a champion by both the religious (e.g. the hero of a totally bogus story about shaming one of his atheist high school teachers) and the irreligious (e.g. the three million dollar letter where he supposedly called the Old Testament stories "childish").

Actually, he really was a pioneer of what we now call "spiritual but not religious," but that didn't exist as a "category" in his lifetime. Also, there is an irony. In some alternate universe, there is an Einstein who is a failed physicist, but who is remembered as a leading philosopher, particularly expert on the works of Baruch Spinoza.

Nobody cared about his Spinoza scholarship before his physics succeeded well enough to displace Newton's. Nevertheless, when Einstein spoke on the philosophy of religion, he actually was an exceptionally well qualified expert.

While there is a fair amount of BS falsely attributed to him, there's very little authentic Einstein that traffics in deepities.

Great add to. Thank you, I enjoy your post immensely. 

[+and-then]

31 minutes ago, Only_ said:

Some people have replaced religion with science.

I agree.  The main difference between those two groups is that one is usually honest enough to admit that they worship.

[psyche101]

On 2/15/2022 at 3:06 AM, Cookie Monster said:

My point was to the poster claiming that my assertion of how GR has problems was new age mumbo jumbo.

Think Tate was stating that the distance between the surface of the earth and centre of mass is a finite number. 

On 2/15/2022 at 3:06 AM, Cookie Monster said:

GR also doesnt explain the galactic scale, and dark matter is impossible due to a number of reasons.

Your just looking to argue with a fundamental GR proponent.

Good luck with that. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Only_ said:

Swap the word 'scientist' for 'priest'.

People need figures of authority. They need a shepherd to lead them and give them a sense of certainty and meaning.

Some people have replaced religion with science.

Ridiculous.

You could have condensed both your posts into one simple sentence stating that you do not understand science.

Incredible how when some find something beyond them that they still hold a cross up to it. 

You don't know squat about science only. You should deal with that before commenting. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Exceptional post. 

Thanks, but I suspect there are many who would disagree!

Sheri, take care!