Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013

Mestroyer

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

So yes, for all practical purposes the barrier to genuine understanding of scientific theories and techniques is high enough that a layman cannot hope to have more than a cursory understanding of the field.

First, there is no logical connection between your first paragraph and the second one and I don't see any reason for that "so, yes".

Second, that claim is, ahem, bullshit. I'll agree that someone with low IQ "cannot hope to have more than a cursory understanding", but for such people this statement is true for much more than science. High-IQ laymen are quite capable of understanding the field and, often enough, pointing out new approaches which have not occurred to any established scientists because, after all, that's not how these things are done.

And if we want laymen to trust in a process they cannot understand

No, I don't want laymen to trust in a process they cannot understand.

It's impractical for every single person to understand every single scientific theory. Even the domain of 'settled science' is far larger than anyone could hope to cover in their lifetime.

It's true that scientific authority is no substitute for evidence and experiment, but as Elezier pointed out in one of the streams (I can't find the link right now), it's not like scientific authority is useless for updating beliefs. If you have to make a decision, and are stuck in choosing between the scientific consensus opinion and a random coin toss, the scientific co... (read more)

23Moss_Piglet13y

How high is "high-IQ" and how low is "low IQ" in your book? Someone with an above-average IQ of 115-120, like your average undergrad, visibly struggles with 101 / 201 level work and is deeply resistant to higher-level concepts. Actually getting through grad school takes about a 130 as previously mentioned, and notable scientists tend to be in the 150+ range. So somewhere from 84-98% of the population is disqualified right off the bat, with only the top 2-0.04% capable of doing really valuable work. And that's assuming that IQ is the only thing that counts; in actuality, at least in the hard sciences, there is an enormous amount of technical knowledge and skill that a person has to learn to provide real insight. I cannot think of a single example in the last 50 years which fits your narrative of the smart outsider coming in and overturning a well-established scientific principle, although I would love to hear of one if you know any. [...] So no more trusting chemotherapy to treat your cancer? The internet to download your music, or your iPod to play it? A fixed wing aircraft to transport you safely across the Atlantic? Must be tough even just driving to work, now that your car is mostly computer-controlled and made of materials with names that sound like alphabet soup. Almost every aspect of modern life, even for a polymathic genius, is going to be at least partially mysterious; the world of our tools and knowledge is far too complex for the human mind to fully grasp.