Thursday, April 25, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Science & Technology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Science & Technology

People will believe nonsense if they think a scientist said it, study claims

By T.K. Randall
February 13, 2022 · Comment icon 51 comments

Einstein was seen as very credible indeed. Image Credit: CC BY-SA 4.0 Carl A. Gist / Michael W. Gorth
New research has highlighted our susceptibility to believing anything that certain sources say.
In a recent experiment, an international team of researchers developed a computer algorithm that spouted absolute nonsense made to sound intelligent and believable through the excessive use of intellectual wording and scientific buzz-words.

To see just how believable the nonsense phrases actually were, they then showed examples to 10,195 people from 24 countries and told them that the phrases had come from a scientist or a spiritual guru.

The results indicated that 76% of participants had found the scientist's phrases credible, while 55% believed that the spiritual guru's phrases were credible.

The researchers believe that these findings demonstrate what is known as the "Einstein effect", where trusted sources of information such as scientists are deemed to be more believable because of the perception that they are more credible.
"From an evolutionary perspective, deference to credible authorities such as teachers, doctors, and scientists is an adaptive strategy that enables effective cultural learning and knowledge transmission," the researchers wrote.

"Indeed, if the source is considered a trusted expert, people are willing to believe claims from that source without fully understanding them."

In the case of Einstein, his work is likely to be beyond the comprehension of most people, yet the majority would likely consider just about anything he said to be credible.

"In the absence of the means to rationally evaluate a claim and reliable source information, people probably infer credibility based on beliefs about the group to which the source belongs," the researchers wrote.

"In this process, similarities between one's own worldview and that of the source's group may serve as a proxy for being a benevolent and reliable source."

Source: Science Alert | Comments (51)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #42 Posted by onlookerofmayhem 2 years ago
Thank God! The main difference is that science has a method for ascertaining evidenced answers instead of saying, "Just have faith."
Comment icon #43 Posted by Sherapy 2 years ago
Exceptional post. 
Comment icon #44 Posted by Only_ 2 years ago
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/  
Comment icon #45 Posted by Sherapy 2 years ago
Great add to. Thank you, I enjoy your post immensely. 
Comment icon #46 Posted by and then 2 years ago
I agree.  The main difference between those two groups is that one is usually honest enough to admit that they worship.
Comment icon #47 Posted by psyche101 2 years ago
Think Tate was stating that the distance between the surface of the earth and centre of mass is a finite number.  Your just looking to argue with a fundamental GR proponent. Good luck with that. 
Comment icon #48 Posted by psyche101 2 years ago
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. 
Comment icon #49 Posted by Manwon Lender 2 years ago
Thanks, but I suspect there are many who would disagree! Sheri, take care!
Comment icon #50 Posted by jmccr8 2 years ago
Hi And Then I rely on what science has to offer on a daily basis but it is not about absolutes because it is about knowns that are subject to change so it is not about worship in so much as it is a tool like my hammer or saw to create something of value. I personally never known anyone that used science like a religion.
Comment icon #51 Posted by Alchopwn 2 years ago
The deal is that when a scientist "says something" they are supposed to have had it peer reviewed.  That means multiple other scientists are supposed to have conducted the experiment themselves with a view towards disproving the findings, and discovering flaws in the methodology etc.  Now scientists can "talk out of their asses" like a religious person, it's true, but when it comes to publishing papers, there is a lot of due diligence that goes on to insure that nobody is misleading people.  The real problem sets in when the media gets hold of an anomalous result that someone has published,... [More]


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Recent news and articles