General Question

flo's avatar

Is there an article by the following doctor about science and non science claims?

Asked by flo (12974points) January 16th, 2019

Philip Fernbach
https://www.colorado.edu/ics/news
Something like People who think know the most know the least? referring to anti science skeptical about scientists people

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

24 Answers

gorillapaws's avatar

Are you referring to the Dunning–Kruger_effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect as it relates to this particular doctor? I’m a bit confused by the question.

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws I tried to read the article. It would take more me time to understand. I’ll try it again.
@elbanditoroso Yes that’s it. I thought I posted this link
https://www.colorado.edu/business/philip-fernbach by the way
I looked in this page and I couldn’t find “Why We Believe Obvious Untruths”

What do you all think of the article?

flo's avatar

I looked in this page for the article:
https://www.colorado.edu/business/node/4613/articles
@gorillapaws thanks, I just went back to the article, and there is nothing to it I was just rushing. But isn’t everyone who disagrees with and exposes our ignorance of “low ability”?

gorillapaws's avatar

@flo It’s an actual phenomena in psychology. People who are objectively of low ability believe themselves to be much higher than they are (when comparing actual measurements: test scores, etc.) because they are unaware how much they don’t know, whereas an expert will often underestimate their ability because experts realize just how much more info in that subject they still don’t know about.

For example I was a Latin student in middle/high school and went to an annual Latin conference in my area with my class for several days where we competed in a variety of events. Several of the events were simply tests you could take to see who could score the highest. A few of us took the Greek tests just to see if we could bullshit our way through it and score some points for our school. After taking the Greek test, I actually thought I did fairly well (especially for never having studied Greek before). It turns out that I completely bombed it—like less than if I had guessed randomly (and rightfully so). But I was actually surprised that I did so poorly. There was a big disconnect between my confidence and my ability. THAT’s the Dunning–Kruger effect at work.

I wasn’t sure if this was what you were referring to in your original question.

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws I see your point it makes perfect sense .

See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/opinion/sunday/why-we-believe-obvious-untruths.html. Is the author calling any side opposing to his side I guess, “low ability”?

gorillapaws's avatar

@flo I think the author would agree with the sentiment that the people who disagree with Vaccines are “low ability” when it comes to immunology, or people who disagree with climate science are “low ability” when it comes to climatology. They may be very high ability in other areas, it’s certainly plausible that a genius mathematician could be completely wrong about parenting. The point is it’s not a “low ability” in the broad sense (i.e. this is a dumb person overall—although they could be) but narrowly defined to the particular topic, subject being discussed. We all have areas of knowledge that we’re “low ability” in, nobody is an expert in everything.

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws So, do you think he is pro “amount of people”; the person that” or the “number of people” and the people who” Is he anti the English language grammar or pro?

flo's avatar

,,, I mean “the person who”?

gorillapaws's avatar

Sorry @flo I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re asking me.

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws Ok, let’s forget about my last post/s. Are there varied positions held by different professionals just about any given thing? Like atheists, (although I’m not calling them professionals) there are the rabbid anti religious kind, and there are the kind who you would think that they are religious if they didn’t tell you that they are atheist. So, what does one party calling another party “low ability”, name calling, have to do with anything?

gorillapaws's avatar

Two professionals in the same field can certainly have a high-level disagreement over an issue. Assuming they both know what they’re talking about then that wouldn’t really be an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Calling someone “low-ability” in a subject they’re objectively not is simply an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy.

flo's avatar

Calling the person “low ability” (no different from ” calling them “stupid”) is a personal attack.

Any expert in a field is willing and eager to listen to anyone who s/he knows is supportive of his/her position. They don’t first ask the credential/s, is that not correct?

flo's avatar

There is a solid argument for getting vaccinated, which is herd immunity, (for the ones who are too weak to fight it off) . So, just calling anyone who’s against “low ability” or “stupid” or “ignorant” it doesn’t help them see the light. Does that add up?

flo's avatar

Edited to add to last post

flo's avatar

Edited some more:
...So, just calling anyone who’s against one’s ideas “low ability” or “stupid” or “ignorant” it doesn’t help them see the light.

gorillapaws's avatar

@flo As I said earlier, “low ability” could be referring to a specific area of knowledge that they are lacking in, whereas when someone is called “stupid” it’s generally understood to mean that they’re just not smart about anything. Given that, I would say there is a meaningful distinction between the terms.

Vaccination is a great example. I would say that I have “low ability” when it comes to immunology. It’s a massive field of study that’s constantly evolving. I have a crude understanding of how vaccines work, and a basic understanding of herd immunity. I probably understand vaccines better than a large majority of Americans, and yet I’m still of “low ability.” I certainly don’t consider myself stupid.

I completely agree though that personal attacks are unhelpful and ineffective in making convincing arguments.

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws You’re not contradicting yourself?

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws Actually you weren’t.

But it’s fine for a person to say
”....happened to me (a bad thing) because I was a dummy I didn’t….”(do the preventative thing.
Or
“I’m a stupid/ignorant/low ability when it comes to…”(whatever fileld).
etc.
It s another thing to call someone else terms like that. It’s a personal attack whether we choose euphemisms (“low ability”) or not. It has nothing to do who has credintials and who does not.

flo's avatar

…Edited (in seconds).

gorillapaws's avatar

@flo I agree that it’s counterproductive to call people names instead of addressing the logic and facts behind their argument.

flo's avatar

Ok. Thanks for not disappearing, ....not that I’ve known you to.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther