Telika: There's also a genuine, intolerable, unavoidable, anti-democratic (and dangerous) violence in the reality of expertise. We all know of of institutions producing fake expertise (from Lyssenko to modern economy presented as hard science), so a hint of suspicion is rational. But this suspicion is further fueled by the sentiment of exclusion from discussions on matters that actually require levels of knowledge that not everyone can attain (if only because it requires yearslong building). People feel deprived of their voices in front of scientific communities, at the same time where wikis, participative internet and populism offer them a form of "democracy" where each voice is equal. Accepting that we are not equals in front of scientific knowledge, and accepting that it makes us vulnerable to manipulations but that we have no mean to combat it (at the layman level, the ratonal thing is still to trust expertise until further notice) is just tough on the morale, self-esteem, and fantasies of self-sufficient heroism. This gives momentum to populist charlatanism and super-selective relativism. Via, at best, the principle of indifference ("I don't know the answer therefore I'll assume it's 50/50").

Suspicious humility is a difficult stance to hold. Many people, without being experts at a scientific field, are still sufficiently aware of the functionning of scientific communities (their advantages, shortcomings, and shortcoming self-awarenesses) to generally trust its consensuses. But others, less directly aware of its validation and invalidation processes, have no reason to trust it. And yet others are taught -by their own selected authorities- to dismiss it by principle (because the scientific world is the enemy of traditional conservatism, is a nest of subversive communists, is the tool of Satan against Faith, etc).

It's not easy to build a consensus on stuff we don't have directly access to. It's not easy either to accept that we're not in position to hold our own strong opinion, and have to rely on (rationally) selected authorities.

This thread has very clear exemples of this unease, with fears of "top-down" authority arguments. Unavoidable fears, for unavoidable sources of knowledge.

Trilarion: One can try to rationalize it, but I guess that future generations will not look very favorably on us. Heck, I guess even our own children will probably loathe us a great amount.

But is it really rational? The amount of precaution and risk-aversion we take to avoid airplanes from falling down, or chocking on some plastic wrapping compared to converting the whole available space for living into a permanent desert and not doing even remotely what would be possible about it.

We have so many insurances against anything, but even if global warming would not likely be true, shouldn't just the possibility that it could drive every sane person to immediate emergency actions just because the estimated loss is so big?

Therefore I must conclude that we are on average crazy and irrational (or just not very smart). Blind spots are okay, but I guess they do not really explain. We are capable of learning and adapting our opinions.

tinyE: No, it's her nature. :P I love the woman, she's my mother, and being bullheaded can be noble in certain situations, but the woman has never changed her mind in 78 years! :P She asserts her opinion, and regardless of what happens or what comes to light, she sticks by it.

Shit, the woman still insist Nixon did nothing wrong, not because she actually believes that, but because she voted for him and would never admit she voted for a crook.

But that's getting into my personal family history which really has no place in this thread.

Trilarion: I guess this will be the answer in most cases really. And for older people it might be just that, they won't feel the impact too strongly, so why should they care about it? Maybe for the sake of their children and grandchildren and so on... but that is the only argument I really have there.

Braggadar: Like i've been saying, it's not really fair to make blanket assumptions. We're not experts on the human psyche or census-takers here, but I would think that there are other reasons beyond "I don't care because it won't affect me" in play.
It might be partially this in someone's mind. After all, we all don't react one way because of one thought, but another major part of this might be a long-term result of "media bombardment".

How long can we listen to ever-changing theories by the scientific community as a whole before you finally achieve apathy / distrust?

kohlrak: You might find this particularly enlightening.

Telika: No but the fact that you consider it so is.

kohlrak: As well as your apathy.

Telika: Scientific research is hard. Youtube alt-right influencer #17'654 jerking you off for 58 minutes is lazy. Even if it makes you feel super intellectual because words.

Different standards. Don't overestimate yours, or the reasons why you selected them.

Braggadar: Now-now peeps. Let's keep it impersonal.
This is after all is likely the catalyst of most thread locking. Not the topic itself, but our behvaiour toward one other.

Braggadar: ...How long can we listen to ever-changing theories by the scientific community as a whole before you finally achieve apathy / distrust?

Braggadar: It shouldn't be surprising, because that's all part of being human. Every one of us has blinders and blindspots. We have out hang-ups, our biases and our bouts of denial. We are a product of our environments. To deny this is denial in itself.
Every one of us feels a drive to contribute to a discussion that interests us, regardless of our level of expertise or amount of evidense to support it. This forum is littered with examples of this behaviour, so why would a more important issue be any different?

Telika: Scientific research is hard. Youtube alt-right influencer #17'654 jerking you off for 58 minutes is lazy. Even if it makes you feel super intellectual because words.

Different standards. Don't overestimate yours, or the reasons why you selected them.