Hacker News Reader

Comment by thenewnewguy | Hacker News Reader

Trying to teach the science behind vaccines, climate change, HIV/AIDS, or any other common denial topic is a losing battle. There will always be a new conspiracy theory to believe in. Knock one common denial argument down and 10 spring up to take its place.

We actually need to focus on teaching trust in scientists and the scientific method. You can't reasonably expect people to understand all these complex modern innovations and concepts to the level where they can easily identify hoaxes. You can expect people to realize who the experts in each field are and find the consensus among their opinions.

View on HN

How do they determine who the experts are? The conspiracy theorists always claim to be scientists that use the scientific method to come to their conclusions.

> The conspiracy theorists always claim to be scientists that use the scientific method to come to their conclusions

That’s fine. It’s a free country. Their kids just don’t have a birthright to putting the public at risk. If they mostly stay at home, the damage is done; but it’s limited.

The other option, having the government override parents’ wishes around medical treatment, is rife with risk.

You're being downvoted, but this meta-level problem really is the problem to solve. How do you identify experts? How do you choose when to defer to experts and when to play it by ear? More generally, how do you decide how to make decisions?

I've thought about this a lot, but there's really no way to get around the fact that you'll draw insane conclusions if you start from insane priors. And you're kinda forced into having insane priors if your parents believe insane things. Either we force people to make the right decisions (as decided by [insert favourite entity here]), or we live with some people doing batshit insane things. Those are the extremes of a spectrum that includes many only slightly forceful interventions, but in a nutshell, that's the choice we have.

Science is about being falsifiable. You can prove many things with a battery, several magnets, and a coil of wire. Non-organic chemistry is similarly easy to demonstrate, even the most ardent of science-deniers would hesitate to dip their fingers into aqua regia, should you tell them what it is. But when it comes to biology and organic chemistry, things are completely different. Let's not talk about controversial scientific questions like microwave radiation effects on DNA. Simple stuff like "catching a cold". How many people do you know believe that it's a function of the weather? Sure, there may be a correlation with cold temperatures which has been proven, but the existence of viruses and the fact that they cause colds is basic science. We teach children the ideas behind splitting the atom and unleashing the metaphorical Death of the Bhagavad Gita. In other words, your average high school kid has a decent idea of what may cause Armageddon, the difference between a compressive and a "gun" type. But how many can tell you how influenza viruses work? There is a huge problem with our current approach to biology, bioengineering, and biotechnology education. Influenza kills a lot more every year, regardless of how often blog.nuclearsecrecy.com shows up and gets upvoted on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com