There is a New Scientist magazine article from 2010 entitled "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" that gives some insights that I think can be used to help explain some of what's happening today concerning all types of "deniers."
The article explores the surprisingly large group of scientists from all over the world who were against the Theory of Relativity in the wake of Einstein's discovery. The article's author, Milena Wazeck, notes the main reason was not based on a routine scientific dispute:
One of the many opponents of relativity was described as having an attitude about the advancement relativity represented that was a danger to science itself because "nothing better symbolised the modern specialisation and incomprehensibility of science than relativity." In other words, science was leaving behind those unable to understand its newest findings.
This attitude seems very similar to those who deny in today's world things like climate change, evolution, and the effectiveness of vaccinations. This attitude of something being wrong because it's not easily understood also seems to be included in many of the claims of fundamentalist religious believers who push the idea that their religious doctrines trump new discoveries. They attempt to make arguments that try to include scientific objections, but I think their most detailed anti-science arguments generally reveal a lack of understanding instead.
Conspiracy theorists are just one of these modern attempts to undercut science. They make the attempt by trying to poke holes in scientific findings and assertions in which they hope people will insert their conspiracy theories as the only valid alternatives, even though their objections often fall short of being scientifically viable--letting alone the invalid nature of the conspiracy theory itself. This strategy can only work for people who do not understand the science in play and can easily substitute something they think they do understand.
One final point is that religious-based objections are likely to challenge science being okay with information yet to be discovered. Religion is more comforting to many believers because it always has a god figure to fill any gap of information. Since science doesn't provide a way to automatically put something in the place of missing knowledge, it is too difficult to understand and, therefore, rejected.
The article explores the surprisingly large group of scientists from all over the world who were against the Theory of Relativity in the wake of Einstein's discovery. The article's author, Milena Wazeck, notes the main reason was not based on a routine scientific dispute:
Einstein's opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasingly mathematical approach of theoretical physics collided with the then widely held view that science is essentially simple mechanics, comprehensible to every educated layperson.
One of the many opponents of relativity was described as having an attitude about the advancement relativity represented that was a danger to science itself because "nothing better symbolised the modern specialisation and incomprehensibility of science than relativity." In other words, science was leaving behind those unable to understand its newest findings.
This attitude seems very similar to those who deny in today's world things like climate change, evolution, and the effectiveness of vaccinations. This attitude of something being wrong because it's not easily understood also seems to be included in many of the claims of fundamentalist religious believers who push the idea that their religious doctrines trump new discoveries. They attempt to make arguments that try to include scientific objections, but I think their most detailed anti-science arguments generally reveal a lack of understanding instead.
Conspiracy theorists are just one of these modern attempts to undercut science. They make the attempt by trying to poke holes in scientific findings and assertions in which they hope people will insert their conspiracy theories as the only valid alternatives, even though their objections often fall short of being scientifically viable--letting alone the invalid nature of the conspiracy theory itself. This strategy can only work for people who do not understand the science in play and can easily substitute something they think they do understand.
One final point is that religious-based objections are likely to challenge science being okay with information yet to be discovered. Religion is more comforting to many believers because it always has a god figure to fill any gap of information. Since science doesn't provide a way to automatically put something in the place of missing knowledge, it is too difficult to understand and, therefore, rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment