Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

>If nothing else, the variants occurring in real time right before our very eyes should make the idea of evolution a lot easier for some in various communities to finally grasp.

I don't think the issue of evolution has ever been a question of people grasping the science. The issue has and continues to be the resolution of its conflict with their faith. Some have found a way through that mental obstacle course, but most have not.

View on HN

Scary number of people, not even of religious sort, think that it's perfectly fine to pick and choose which parts of scientific achievement they accept and which they don't. It's more on the scale of what they like or don't like. They might like their smartphones and other gadgets, not so much vaccines, fluoride, GMO, all that which isn't 'natural' or 'organic'.

So yes, it is a question of people grasping the science, not of this specifically, but as a whole. They are not on-board, they never fully confront any contradictions that they encounter or spew. Logic is not their friend, they are not inquisitive, getting to the bottom of something is not in their nature. You might think that in general people are reasonable, but margins are not that high and informed-ness is very surface-level.

There’s certainly some deeply unscientific thinking out there … but I don’t think your examples are good ones.

It’s reasonable to dislike GMOs (or some subset of them) because of who’s selling them and why, unrelated to the science. It’s reasonable to argue against fluoridated water even while accepting it’s good for dental health, because you disagree with mass medication. It’s reasonable to buy organic food if you know it to be free of certain chemicals which, knowing their scientific characteristics, you would rather avoid.

Problem is that people I'm talking about can't divorce not liking something from accepting something as a thing. They would look for 'evidence' that it doesn't exist, harmful or a product of a conspiracy. They don't use scientific method, they are not looking for facts, they are looking for confirmation of their preconceived notions using biased search engine queries or by hanging around in their bubbles. People like that don't have a habit of changing their opinions, that's who I'm talking about.

> People like that don't have a habit of changing their opinions, that's who I'm talking about.

I think this is a pithy description of human beings. :)

Of course, it's a habit we'd all do well to do out best to develop.

It is absolutely scientifically ok to reject GMO, since they decrease variety and after x years of abundance in a year a superbug can destroy it all.

In case of GMO it is a play with the unknown (health, stability), it is a risk against a somewhat cheaper food. In case of vaccine it is still a play with unknown, but there the risk is against another risk not just money. If the virus would be less deadly much less people would have taken it. And the other way around as well, would be more deadly people would queue up instantly.

It is not as black and white as you describe. stupid vs smart people as you say it.

And by the way, this is called common smartness. Everybody is susceptible for different thing everybody is resistant to different things so the whole word is hard to take on.

> The issue has and continues to be the resolution of its conflict with their faith. Some have found a way through that mental obstacle course, but most have not.

This baffles me. I believe most Christian religions(definitely Catholics and most Protestants) embraced the evolution decades ago. So who is debating it and why?

Not sure if they constitute "most protestants" but the majority of so called evangelical christians are quite hostile to the scientific reality of evolution.

Ah now I see. It looks like the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy is an US thing - it's unusual to find Protestants in Europe that would reject the evolution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com