(02-10-2014, 10:07 PM)zenmaster Wrote: The irony is that often instead, it is the non-disciplined, non-scientist who is the one not aware of their bias and unfounded assumptions. From such an utterly ignorant, bed-wetting, armchair position they interpret experience as they will, with lazy dissatisfaction and blame, reinforcing unfounded prejudicial notions.
You are correct that in many cases the non-scientist is unaware of their own bias. However, the relationship between the scientist and non-scientist is often more complex - "trust" of the scientist by the non-scientist is a large factor. Consider how a scientist and non-scientist relate: Often, a scientist makes a discovery or breakthrough that has the potential to change the non-scientist's life. Many examples, microwave ovens, artificial sweeteners, vaccines, hell even you could say air conditioning. Whenever something new is introduced into the non-scientist's life from a scientist's work or discovery, the first question often is: Is it safe?
In seeking to gain an answer to the question to "is it safe" seldom does the non-scientist actively read and understand studies and the theories behind the device because the non-scientist often lacks the expertise or the time to understand the new device at such a deep level. The non-scientist who is interested in researching the new device will often read media reports, summaries of the studies, and as well as anecdotal evidence in coming to a conclusion. For a random example, I'm betting very few people here actually understand the sub-atomic interaction of microwaves with various types of matter and how that ends up heating up your food or water. Or how the combustion engine in your car actually works an alternator to generate electricity and recharge your car battery. In a certain sense, a large part of the determination as to whether something is safe turns on "trust" - trust in the media reports and their authors, trust in the summary of the study and the conclusions of the researchers, and often trust in governmental bodies which make recommendations concerning these (which is later augmented by experience by personal use). As anyone who is familiar with the traditional concept of trust, once trust is breached, or called into question, it is *very* difficult to regain.
If one looks to the scientific field as a whole, looking for instances for where scientists made "the wrong call", one does not have to travel far to see shocking and harmful instances of scientists being "wrong", and non-scientists, rightly or wrongly but definitely understandably, start to loose trust in all scientists in general - a very short, brief list (googling can reveal many more, but some I am familiar with):
Thalidomide. Irradiation For Enlarged Thyroid. Vioxx. MMR vaccine in Japan.
Once trust has been lost, it's very hard to gain. But you see this frustration play out at large in the public whenever a new media article comes out talking about how a new study reverses some finding. Just read the comments: "First they say alcohol is bad for you, now they say it's good for you." Trust is a huge part of the problem in the relationship between the non-scientist public and the scientist. At the end of the day, people are suspicious of many claims by scientists. They don't have the time to read or understand the theories involved. They look at the recent history, and they no longer have trust in these experts.
That's a big part of the problem. Understanding that it goes deeper than unawareness of biases is important in order to truly begin to bridge the gap between these two mentalities.