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.

[Inquirer]

One should ask the question - has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? - if the answer is "Yes" then there is a reasonable basis for being skeptical of consensus based claims, that's it, that's all that needs to be said here, it's not a particularly interesting question.

Being "skeptical" implies a level of tentativeness, where the person withholds acceptance but is still open to it, pending further data, better analyses, etc. That's not the case with some creationists. Their rejection seems to me to be sometimes rooted in how they see the conclusions of scientists as conflicting with their religious beliefs.

That's possibly why we see creationists like you interpret data differently (e.g., observed speciation, preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals, examples of gradualism, tests showing human/primate common ancestry is in my opinion a vastly superior explanation than separate origins). A true skeptic would examine that info objectively and adjust their position accordingly. A denialist simply waves it away and continues on as if it never existed.

Corrections in red above, other than that, a good effort overall. But you failed to answer the question I asked, here it is again: has an established consensus amongst some group of scientists ever turned out to be wrong? if you don't know then just say that, but ignoring the question does you no service, especially as you are openly critical of others who ignore things, as if my question "never existed" so to speak, bordering on hypocrisy even.

You know, your whole "I interpret it differently" schtick would have more credibility if it weren't for what happened earlier. I asked you how you think we should tell which of competing interpretations is more likely to be true/accurate, and you answered that we do so via scientific testing. So I showed you where researchers applied scientific tests to the data and found that human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely to be true/accurate than separate human origins, and you simply ignored it and left.

So it seems this "I interpret it differently" is just an escape mechanism you employ.

Fallacious Jose. You state "and found that human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely" as if that entails no assumptions, no extrapolations! That itself "more likely" is an interpretation, it is an opinion. I never ignored it, it is all a matter of interpretation, this is inescapable, all science is about models of reality, you'd be advised to grasp what that means, it means don't confuse models of reality as being the reality they model. If you studied physics instead of playing with jellyfish and making collections of butterflies, you'd likely grasp these profound scientific issues more.

As far as your question, of course scientific consensus has been wrong before. So?

So, you OP statement "Causes of Rejecting Scientific Consensus" has a rather obvious answer - consensus is no guarantee of correctness, it can sometimes be wrong; now is there anything else you need my help with?

[Jose Fly]

Fallacious Jose. You state "and found that human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely" as if that entails no assumptions, no extrapolations! That itself "more likely" is an interpretation. I never ignored it, it is all a matter of interpretation.

So you've gone back on your earlier statement that scientific testing is the means by which we determine which interpretation is most likely to be true/accurate.

Looks to me like you said that because it sounded good, but once you were shown how it produced results you didn't like, you dropped it like a hot rock. Such is the nature of creationism.

So, you OP statement "Causes of Rejecting Scientific Consensus" has a rather obvious answer - consensus is no guarantee of correctness, it can sometimes be wrong.

Well that makes no sense and is quite illogical. If "consensus has been wrong before" is justification for rejecting consensus, how then is "consensus has been right before" not justification for accepting consensus?

As the research in the OP found, it has nothing to do with either and is primarily the result of high levels of ignorance, extreme lack of humility, and severe overestimation of one's own knowledge.

But then, that's not the answer you want, so you reject it, just as you did with the testing between human/primate common ancestry and separate human ancestry, even though you'd previously advocated for such testing. Thus we see the fundamental mindset behind creationism at work....conclusions are rejected based on what they are, rather than how they were reached.

[Inquirer]

Fallacious Jose. You state "and found that human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely" as if that entails no assumptions, no extrapolations! That itself "more likely" is an interpretation. I never ignored it, it is all a matter of interpretation.

So you've gone back on your earlier statement that scientific testing is the means by which we determine which interpretation is most likely to be true/accurate.

Looks to me like you said that because it sounded good, but once you were shown how it produced results you didn't like, you dropped it like a hot rock. Such is the nature of creationism.

Read what I wrote, your claim (which is all it is) that "human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely" is one possible way to interpret the situation, it is not the only way to interpret observations, I stand by that and I should think any rational person would agree, it is hardly controversial, there are other ways to interpret said observations.

I'll tell you too, it is a very good exercise for rational thinking to always try and list out some alternative interpretations, don't make the mistake of always picking the one that fits your existing worldview, because then you run the risk of confirmation bias influencing that worldview, always be cognizant of other ways of seeing things, that's a hallmark of a good scientist.

Your worldview should ideally emerge from what you observe, rather than defining how you interpret what you observe.

So, you OP statement "Causes of Rejecting Scientific Consensus" has a rather obvious answer - consensus is no guarantee of correctness, it can sometimes be wrong.

Well that makes no sense and is quite illogical. If "consensus has been wrong before" is justification for rejecting consensus, how then is "consensus has been right before" not justification for accepting consensus?

Why are you confused? consensus can sometimes be right and can sometimes be wrong. It is not to be regarded as always right or always wrong though. You asked about causes, reasons, consensus is sometimes rejected and I gave you one, it can and is and will be - sometimes wrong, it is not always right.

As the research in the OP found, it has nothing to do with either and is primarily the result of high levels of ignorance, extreme lack of humility, and severe overestimation of one's own knowledge.

Yes, that is sometimes the case, but if consensus can sometimes be wrong then it cannot always be right, the fact that some claim reflects a consensus is not a guarantee of said claim's correctness.

But then, that's not the answer you want, so you reject it, just as you did with the testing between human/primate common ancestry and separate human ancestry, even though you'd previously advocated for such testing. Thus we see the fundamental mindset behind creationism at work....conclusions are rejected based on what they are, rather than how they were reached.

Yes, a conclusion that is at odds with my understanding and interpretation of the data will be treated with skepticism, I will not obediently adopt something as true on the basis of consensus because - as you've finally admitted - consensus is no guarantee of correctness.

[Jose Fly]

Read what I wrote, your claim (which is all it is) that "human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely" is one possible way to interpret the situation, it is not the only way to interpret observations, I stand by that and I should think any rational person would agree, it is hardly controversial, there are other ways to interpret said observations.

LOL...you're really scrambling here. That human/primate is much, much more likely to be true/accurate is not my interpretation, it's the result of scientific testing, which you said was the means to decide which interpretation is most likely to be true/accurate.

Again, the process you advocated produced results you didn't like, so you rejected them. That's typical among creationists.

Why are you confused? consensus can sometimes be right and can sometimes be wrong. It is not to be regarded as always right or always wrong though. You asked about causes, reasons, consensus is sometimes rejected and I gave you one, it can and is and will be - sometimes wrong, it is not always right.

That's the point. People like you don't reject consensus based on whether consensus has been right or wrong before, or based on their own knowledge of the subject matter. Instead, you do so from extreme ignorance (e.g., not knowing that bacteria are a Domain), extreme lack of humility, and overestimation of your own knowledge (e.g., your incessant trash-talking).

Now, given how unflattering that all is it's not surprising to see you deny it. However, you could use this as an opportunity for personal growth, you know.

Yes, that is sometimes the case, but if consensus can sometimes be wrong then it cannot always be right, the fact that some claim reflects a consensus is not guarantee of correctness.

No one said otherwise.

Yes, a conclusion that is at odds with my understanding and interpretation of the data will be treated with skepticism, I will not obediently adopt something as true on the basis of consensus because - as you've finally admitted - consensus is no guarantee of correctness.

You're just illustrating the conclusions of the OP. Even though you haven't identified a single error or flaw in their work, you reject their conclusions despite your fundamental ignorance of biology, evolutionary biology, and genetics.

That's creationism in spades.

[Inquirer]

Read what I wrote, your claim (which is all it is) that "human/primate ancestry was much, much more likely" is one possible way to interpret the situation, it is not the only way to interpret observations, I stand by that and I should think any rational person would agree, it is hardly controversial, there are other ways to interpret said observations.

LOL...you're really scrambling here. That human/primate is much, much more likely to be true/accurate is not my interpretation, it's the result of scientific testing, which you said was the means to decide which interpretation is most likely to be true/accurate.

Nope, it is an interpretation and it is seemingly consensus too, but as you've agreed, we can't let that latter point do our thinking for us, the fact that the majority if biology professors think its true isn't how we decide things.

Again, the process you advocated produced results you didn't like, so you rejected them. That's typical among creationists.

More interpretation! See Jose? it is everywhere, it permeates your very thinking yet you understand it not! You are making up an interpretation, interpretating my skepticism as simply "rejecting things because I don't like them", fine, interpret it that way if you wish but it says far more about you than it does me.

Why are you confused? consensus can sometimes be right and can sometimes be wrong. It is not to be regarded as always right or always wrong though. You asked about causes, reasons, consensus is sometimes rejected and I gave you one, it can and is and will be - sometimes wrong, it is not always right.

That's the point. People like you don't reject consensus based on whether consensus has been right or wrong before, or based on their own knowledge of the subject matter. Instead, you do so from extreme ignorance (e.g., not knowing that bacteria are a Domain), extreme lack of humility, and overestimation of your own knowledge (e.g., your incessant trash-talking).

Interpret, interpret, interpret, that is all you are doing here, playing psychiatrist again.

Now, given how unflattering that all is it's not surprising to see you deny it. However, you could use this as an opportunity for personal growth, you know.

Yes, that is sometimes the case, but if consensus can sometimes be wrong then it cannot always be right, the fact that some claim reflects a consensus is not guarantee of correctness.

No one said otherwise.

Your entire OP is based on it!

Yes, a conclusion that is at odds with my understanding and interpretation of the data will be treated with skepticism, I will not obediently adopt something as true on the basis of consensus because - as you've finally admitted - consensus is no guarantee of correctness.

You're just illustrating the conclusions of the OP. Even though you haven't identified a single error or flaw in their work, you reject their conclusions despite your fundamental ignorance of biology, evolutionary biology, and genetics.

That's creationism in spades.

No, its healthy skepticism, I do see flaws, I decide what I believe, if I can't decide then I leave it as "I don't know". You seem to be arguing that I should believe what consensus says, that I should believe that the interpretations underpinning that consensus are the "right" and "only" interpretations, that your - Jose's - interpretations are right and anyone who refuses to adopt them is wrong.

That's not science, that's dogma, that's telling people that your version of reality is the right one and any others are wrong - you see? there is no difference between they way you think and the way the clergy thought who imprisoned Galileo, the delusion is so good that you actually count yourself amongst the "Galileos" and not his detractors, the irony!

All dogma is a threat to truth, all dogma claims it is the only true way, all dogma strives to stamp out, attack and destroy those who question it, these are not questions of "science" or "religion" Jose, I told you this very early on when we first encountered each other, religious dogma or scientific dogma - it's all the enemy of truth.

[Jose Fly]

Nope, it is an interpretation

LOL, you're just talking yourself in circles.

I asked you how, given competing interpretations, which is most likely to be true/accurate.

You answer "by scientific testing".

So I show you scientific testing that shows human/primate common ancestry is much, much more likely to be true/accurate than separate ancestry.

You wave that away as "an interpretation".

Obviously you committed to something (use of scientific testing) that ended up producing results you didn't want, so now you're scrambling for excuses and talking yourself in circles, all to avoid simply acknowledging that the process you advocated generated very clear and solid results.

If you have nothing more than this sort of absurd and comical mental gymnastics, I'm content to leave this where it is.

More interpretation! See Jose? it is everywhere, it permeates your very thinking yet you understand it not! You are making up an interpretation, interpretating my skepticism as simply "rejecting things because I don't like them", fine, interpret it that way if you wish but it says far more about you than it does me.

Your "that's your interpretation" schtick has gotten old, and as explained earlier, has no credibility.

No, its healthy skepticism

Nope, we've been over this already.

You seem to be arguing that I should believe what consensus says, that I should believe that the interpretations underpinning that consensus are the "right" and "only" interpretations, that your - Jose's - interpretations are right and anyone who refuses to adopt them is wrong.

That's not science, that's dogma, that's telling people that your version of reality is the right one and any others are wrong - you see? there is no difference between they way you think and the way the clergy thought who imprisoned Galileo, the delusion is so good that you actually count yourself amongst the "Galileos" and not his detractors, the irony!

You'd have a point if I ever said something was true merely because I say so and demanded everyone agree. As we've been over, I showed you how the very process that you advocated for (scientific testing) showed that human/primate ancestry is much, much more likely to be true.

So your characterization of the situation is directly contrary to documented reality.

[Inquirer]

Nope, it is an interpretation

LOL, you're just talking yourself in circles.

I asked you how, given competing interpretations, which is most likely to be true/accurate.

You answer "by scientific testing".

So I show you scientific testing that shows human/primate common ancestry is much, much more likely to be true/accurate than separate ancestry.

You wave that away as "an interpretation".

Obviously you committed to something (use of scientific testing) that ended up producing results you didn't want, so now you're scrambling for excuses and talking yourself in circles, all to avoid simply acknowledging that the process you advocated generated very clear and solid results.

If you have nothing more than this sort of absurd and comical mental gymnastics, I'm content to leave this where it is.

More interpretation! See Jose? it is everywhere, it permeates your very thinking yet you understand it not! You are making up an interpretation, interpretating my skepticism as simply "rejecting things because I don't like them", fine, interpret it that way if you wish but it says far more about you than it does me.

Your "that's your interpretation" schtick has gotten old, and as explained earlier, has no credibility.

No, its healthy skepticism

Nope, we've been over this already.

You seem to be arguing that I should believe what consensus says, that I should believe that the interpretations underpinning that consensus are the "right" and "only" interpretations, that your - Jose's - interpretations are right and anyone who refuses to adopt them is wrong.

That's not science, that's dogma, that's telling people that your version of reality is the right one and any others are wrong - you see? there is no difference between they way you think and the way the clergy thought who imprisoned Galileo, the delusion is so good that you actually count yourself amongst the "Galileos" and not his detractors, the irony!

You'd have a point if I ever said something was true merely because I say so and demanded everyone agree. As we've been over, I showed you how the very process that you advocated for (scientific testing) showed that human/primate ancestry is much, much more likely to be true.

So your characterization of the situation is directly contrary to documented reality.

As you wish.

[Purple Knight]

If that really is their motivation then I'm with you in calling it out.

Of course it is. If creationists' positions really were based on thorough and objective study of the science, they would actually be familiar it. Yet invariably they are surprisingly ignorant of the very subjects they attempt to argue against.

Wherever I see that, and I do see it sometimes, I'm with you. I do not always see it. Sometimes. Sometimes not. I think this is a great forum filled with thinking individuals on both sides and that's why I love it. I'm not here to confirm my beliefs. I'm here to challenge them and defend people I disagree with.

Sometimes they start from the answer and work backwards, but sometimes I do that too. I assume evolution. And it works. I often observe an animal doing some apparently totally bonkers thing, but after I've had my laugh I sit and wonder, "Why was this behaviour selected for? Why did the one that does this survive over one that didn't?" And it often yields a viable understanding. I think I'm gaining understanding but maybe I'm just working within my own framework and prejustifying. My point is, I think working backwards from an answer, as a way to answer the questions in the middle, is a viable strategy, and I think we've all used it on tests. We might, for example, be presented with a matching-things test, and we answer the easier ones first, and we're left with a pair that doesn't make sense. But we know this is the answer, and when we ask, "But, why is it the answer?" we may actually gain understanding.

There are industries I've never had that problem with and thus I have some degree of trust. Car repair is another matter. Electronics repair is up there with car repair. If you want proof just look up some old John Stossel consumer report stuff. He would bring a TV with loose part to a repair shop and some shops would say, this has a loose part, while some would just lie and milk the hapless consumer for everything he's got.

Well it's not a binary, all-or-none situation where you either become an expert in everything yourself, or you rely on experts for everything. We all are experts in some things and rely on experts for other things.

That's why the logical answer is going to vary from person to person. It's fine not to trust experts if you have reason to believe they're scammy. IMO the replicability crisis is more than enough reason, and simply being aware that people can fudge their data - that there's no oversight for the most part at the data collection step - and that they have every reason to fudge it would be enough reason. I want to live in a world where you don't have to assume people are telling the truth if they have a known reason to lie.

I can't recall meeting anyone who actually thinks religion and science operate via the same methodology. Have you?

I think if they don't fully understand the scientific process, they must trust others saying science is better, to know science is better.

I have to put myself in the shoes of someone in a world that was flipped. Religion is dominant. Science is considered foolish and laughed at. I don't understand the religious method, but I'm told it's superior. I've read books on the way the top religiosos know truth, and I... just... do not... clucking... get it. Because religion is dominant, most of the truths the world knows have been discovered by the religious method - this is simply because most people who go looking for truth use it. Religious American is a respected publication, and it has articles about what the best religious scholars have discovered about our world. I subscribe to it. Only catch is, I don't understand the methodology.

Should I trust? Should I, because I'm stupider than everyone else in this world, just trust?

No. Because people are scammy.

Yes, like with any other human enterprise, scientists could potentially just completely fake their work. What's your point?

That nobody has to trust them. It's a judgment call, not a given.

[Jose Fly]

Wherever I see that, and I do see it sometimes, I'm with you. I do not always see it. Sometimes. Sometimes not. I think this is a great forum filled with thinking individuals on both sides and that's why I love it. I'm not here to confirm my beliefs. I'm here to challenge them and defend people I disagree with.

Well heck, if you know of some creationists here who actually know and understand the science they attempt to debate, I'd love to meet them! Who are they?

Sometimes they start from the answer and work backwards, but sometimes I do that too. I assume evolution. And it works. I often observe an animal doing some apparently totally bonkers thing, but after I've had my laugh I sit and wonder, "Why was this behaviour selected for? Why did the one that does this survive over one that didn't?" And it often yields a viable understanding. I think I'm gaining understanding but maybe I'm just working within my own framework and prejustifying. My point is, I think working backwards from an answer, as a way to answer the questions in the middle, is a viable strategy, and I think we've all used it on tests. We might, for example, be presented with a matching-things test, and we answer the easier ones first, and we're left with a pair that doesn't make sense. But we know this is the answer, and when we ask, "But, why is it the answer?" we may actually gain understanding.

I've been working in science for about 25 years now, and from what I've seen, starting with your answer and working backwards from there is a very bad way to do science and is a good way to get yourself into trouble. There's a very good reason why the scientific method ends with, rather than starts with, "conclusion".

That's why the logical answer is going to vary from person to person. It's fine not to trust experts if you have reason to believe they're scammy. IMO the replicability crisis is more than enough reason, and simply being aware that people can fudge their data - that there's no oversight for the most part at the data collection step - and that they have every reason to fudge it would be enough reason. I want to live in a world where you don't have to assume people are telling the truth if they have a known reason to lie.

Aren't you committing the fallacy of composition? Or at least dipping your toe into it?

As I said, we all are in the same basic boat on this. No one is an expert in absolutely everything (and therefore never relies on experts for anything), nor does anyone rely solely on experts for absolutely everything. We all rely on our own knowledge, experience, and faculties for some things, and experts for others.

I think if they don't fully understand the scientific process, they must trust others saying science is better, to know science is better.

Only if they live as a hermit. One doesn't have to look very hard to see countless examples of science producing useful things.

I have to put myself in the shoes of someone in a world that was flipped. Religion is dominant. Science is considered foolish and laughed at. I don't understand the religious method, but I'm told it's superior. I've read books on the way the top religiosos know truth, and I... just... do not... clucking... get it. Because religion is dominant, most of the truths the world knows have been discovered by the religious method - this is simply because most people who go looking for truth use it. Religious American is a respected publication, and it has articles about what the best religious scholars have discovered about our world. I subscribe to it. Only catch is, I don't understand the methodology.

In that scenario, my first question would be...why don't you understand the methodology, especially if you've been reading about it?

Should I trust? Should I, because I'm stupider than everyone else in this world, just trust?

No. Because people are scammy.

So under that framework you cannot ever trust anyone.

That nobody has to trust them. It's a judgment call, not a given.

Of course. Has anyone here ever advocated the position "Everyone must trust all scientists all the time"?

[Purple Knight]

Wherever I see that, and I do see it sometimes, I'm with you. I do not always see it. Sometimes. Sometimes not. I think this is a great forum filled with thinking individuals on both sides and that's why I love it. I'm not here to confirm my beliefs. I'm here to challenge them and defend people I disagree with.

Well heck, if you know of some creationists here who actually know and understand the science they attempt to debate, I'd love to meet them! Who are they?

I've seen EarthScienceGuy make a few good points. I actually called him on the fish-that-clone-themselves thing because I understood the entirety of what he posted, but I also have to admit that he made a good argument.

Evolution has some major problems.

A huge problem is Muller's Ratchet paradox.

Background: The Amazon molly (Poecilia formosa) is a small unisexual fish that has been suspected
of being threatened by extinction from the stochastic accumulation of slightly deleterious
mutations that is caused by Muller's ratchet in non-recombining populations. However, no detailed
quantification of the extent of this threat is available.


Results: Here we quantify genomic decay in this fish by using a simple model of Muller's ratchet
with the most realistic parameter combinations available employing the evolution@home global
computing system. We also describe simple extensions of the standard model of Muller's ratchet
that allow us to deal with selfing diploids, triploids and mitotic recombination. We show that
Muller's ratchet creates a threat of extinction for the Amazon molly for many biologically realistic
parameter combinations. In most cases, extinction is expected to occur within a time frame that is
less than previous estimates of the age of the species, leading to a genomic decay paradox.

Same is true of Lenski's e-coli experiment. After 70,000 generations they are still e-coli and the adaptation rate has decreased over time.

The way Professor Tyndall puts the matter is this: “These evolution notions are absurd,
monstrous, and fit only for the intellectual gibbet in relation to the ideas concerning matter which
were drilled into us when young. Spirit and matter have ever been presented to us in the rudest
contrast; the one as all-noble, the other as all-vile.�

Basically these fish should probably be dead from the buildup of detrimental mutations because they only clone themselves and thus can't get rid of them. I'm a cat breeder, and if someone bottlenecks my cats down to 2, one with genetic problem A but positive trait Y, and another with problem B but positive trait Z, even if they're each homozygous for their respective bad, I can eventually get rid of both problems AND have individuals with both benefits by utilizing breeding and selection. Whereas in that situation the fish might be screwed. You would need one of the lines to mutate away its detriment while spontaneously copying the benefit of the sister line.

I've been working in science for about 25 years now, and from what I've seen, starting with your answer and working backwards from there is a very bad way to do science and is a good way to get yourself into trouble. There's a very good reason why the scientific method ends with, rather than starts with, "conclusion".

It's a bad way to do science, compared to other ways of doing science that purposely stuff up your poop end and blind you out of your eaty end so you know you're not just pooping out your own bias and eating it back up, and if what you thought was true ends up on your plate, it happened organically. This may be a bad and disgusting metaphor but I like it. Now, that's not to say you can't gain understanding from working backwards. You can. It's just unsanitary. In other words, it might be tainted, and conclusions that are sanitary, because you washed your hands every time you might have touched bias, are vastly preferred.

Saying working backwards is bad is like saying abductive reasoning is bad. It's bad compared to deductive reasoning, but it's not worthless or somehow less than worthless, meaning it was less likely the conclusion rather than the null hypothesis was true.

That's why the logical answer is going to vary from person to person. It's fine not to trust experts if you have reason to believe they're scammy. IMO the replicability crisis is more than enough reason, and simply being aware that people can fudge their data - that there's no oversight for the most part at the data collection step - and that they have every reason to fudge it would be enough reason. I want to live in a world where you don't have to assume people are telling the truth if they have a known reason to lie.

Aren't you committing the fallacy of composition? Or at least dipping your toe into it?

Not unless trust is the default. Saying that some parts of the economy are scammy therefore all of them are at least suspect is perfectly logical unless I need rock solid evidence to say it's okay not to trust somebody. The only reason I even presented evidence that some parts are famously scammy is to refute the potential claim that everyone is honest. Not to prove other parts are scammy, but I don't have to prove they are definitely scammy to say it's okay not to trust them. Motivation + lack of oversight = justified suspicion.

But there are instances where fallacy of composition would be... not a fallacy. For example, if one part of the bucket leaks, the whole thing is unsound. If one premise in an argument is suspect, the whole argument is. I won't actually go so far as to rant that if the government can't keep scammers in check, then the whole economy is busted. That's not my claim. Some areas seem less or not affected. But rotted wood in only some places does still make for a leaky roof.

As I said, we all are in the same basic boat on this. No one is an expert in absolutely everything (and therefore never relies on experts for anything), nor does anyone rely solely on experts for absolutely everything. We all rely on our own knowledge, experience, and faculties for some things, and experts for others.

Honestly I would rather the world be populated with more religiosos who inherently doubt and mistrust experts even if they don't match their knowledge or understanding, and if I were God I would use them to replace all the lazy fools who know something smells fishy but throw up their hands and just say, eh, those are the experts, nothing I can say. There are a lot of reasons religious people annoy me, and this world would bother me more, but I think we'd have a fairer world and fewer scammers - fewer people getting away with using their expertise to scam.

I think if they don't fully understand the scientific process, they must trust others saying science is better, to know science is better.

Only if they live as a hermit. One doesn't have to look very hard to see countless examples of science producing useful things.

Because science is the default. If science was suppressed and religion was dominant, science could be the better method and most of the usefulness would still be produced by the inferior method.

I have to put myself in the shoes of someone in a world that was flipped. Religion is dominant. Science is considered foolish and laughed at. I don't understand the religious method, but I'm told it's superior. I've read books on the way the top religiosos know truth, and I... just... do not... clucking... get it. Because religion is dominant, most of the truths the world knows have been discovered by the religious method - this is simply because most people who go looking for truth use it. Religious American is a respected publication, and it has articles about what the best religious scholars have discovered about our world. I subscribe to it. Only catch is, I don't understand the methodology.

In that scenario, my first question would be...why don't you understand the methodology, especially if you've been reading about it?

Because I don't have a personal Jiminy Cricket, and they're demanding I use it as a bloody microscope and look at the world through that lens. Can't do that if I don't have one.

Should I trust? Should I, because I'm stupider than everyone else in this world, just trust?

No. Because people are scammy.

So under that framework you cannot ever trust anyone.

Trust is earned. If science gives you good products, useful insight and truth, as it long has, feel free to trust it regardless of whether I say the industry have motivation to deceive. If science starts giving you phones that get throttled when they age to 6 months so you go and buy a new one, feel free to not. If you've subscribed to Scientific American for 10 years and found it worth the money, and/or found that on the edge of new discovery stands usefulness or at least something interesting that expands your understanding, trust, go ahead.