ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th July 2019, 07:04 AM   #1
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Something like 30% of people just don't like science.

At least when practiced on humans anyway.

The latest episode of "you are not so smart" interviewed a couple of scientist who have conducted research on how folks respond to controlled studies and there seems to be something like 30% of the population that just doesn't like the notion of running controlled experiments on people.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/podcast/

Some of the examples.
Some doctor's provide treatment A to emergency room patients while other doctors use treatment B. It is not clear whether either treatment works better than the other. When asked how the felt about the following:

1. What doctor is around when you arrive in the emergency room is random so you will be randomly assigned to treatment A or Treatment B.
2. You will be randomly assigned to a Doctor who will randomly assign you to A or B.

Almost nobody disliked Option 1 but something around 30% disliked option 2.

Another example regarding checklists.
A. A checklist of things to check on patient visits would be printed on the back of an attending physicians name tag.
B. The same checklist would be printed on poster in the hospital room.
C. Both.
D. A/B/C would be randomly assigned to different hospitals then outcomes would be measured and the method with the best outcome would be selected for future use.

Almost nobody objected to A, B, and C but something like 30% of people objected to D.

There did not seem to be a correlation with education or even folks with science degrees.

Please note, I'm going from memory, so some of the details will be a little off. Also, the latest episode, 158 isn't up on the website yet. So, get it through your podcatcher of choice.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:17 AM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,818
Seems like a reasonable concern for people to have. I bet way more than 30% of people make some kind of distinction between taking life as it comes and taking life as it is imposed on you by the plan of others.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:18 AM   #3
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,410
I'm not sure liking science is the issue. It sounds more like an aversion to being made part of an experiment when they're going to a doctor for help.

I have nothing against sex. But I would probably object to you making me a part of a sex act if I came to your shop to buy a hat.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:19 AM   #4
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
I'd say that people tend to like "science", or whatever conception they might have of it, selectively, and in so far as it agrees with their biases and beliefs. Not that people, not even the weirdest, reject all of science. But of course that's me, and my bias/belief/observation, not some scientific fact.

What you describe sounds like people objecting to people being made guinea pigs in specific kinds of ways. Not of people rejecting (all of) science.

(I haven't listened to the podcast itself, and I base my comments on what you yourself say in the OP.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:22 AM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,584
What has science ever done for me?
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:23 AM   #6
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Seems like a reasonable concern for people to have. I bet way more than 30% of people make some kind of distinction between taking life as it comes and taking life as it is imposed on you by the plan of others.
What I'm probably stating poorly is that the experiments were framed in such a way that life was imposed on folks regardless of whether there is an experiment.

In the first example above, they are randomly assigned to a group regardless. Its just in one case, it is in order to figure out which treatment works better rather than just assuming both work. They've deliberately framed the questions so that it is not a reasonable concern.

In the second example, same checklist regardless. The experiment is only to see which presentation of the checklist is more effective. Again, its not really a reasonable concern. Almost nobody minded having the procedure imposed on them, there are s substantial number of folks who mind having the procedure imposed if its part of an experiment.

At cave monster, not even remotely akin to rape.

They also did some framing in terms of public policy. There seem to be a lot of folks that would rather public policy be imposed on them without evidence instead of public policy imposed on them to find out what policy actually works.

Last edited by ahhell; 15th July 2019 at 07:25 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:29 AM   #7
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,410
No, it isn't rape. But the way you've described it seems to be "Would you have an issue being part of a study without your consent". Its clearly the consent issue that bothers them, not the study.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:33 AM   #8
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,563
Medical checklists are incorporated into electronic medical records these days. Unless they skip documentation entirely providers cannot fail to see checklists. If they document them falsely that's a separate issue.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:39 AM   #9
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
No, it isn't rape. But the way you've described it seems to be "Would you have an issue being part of a study without your consent". Its clearly the consent issue that bothers them, not the study.
In part probably, as they discuss in the podcast. Though it does not seem to be the entire issue. There really seems to be folks that object to experimenting regardless of consent.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Medical checklists are incorporated into electronic medical records these days. Unless they skip documentation entirely providers cannot fail to see checklists. If they document them falsely that's a separate issue.
Jesus, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:43 AM   #10
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,563
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Jesus, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
I didn't realize we aren't permitted to point out glaring errors that render a purported experiment so unrealistic as to be nonsensical.

Conduct a study on people's reaction to being assigned a patron saint at random, then.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:55 AM   #11
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 262
I read somewhere that people with sociopathic traits are over-represented quite substantially in the medical profession, which shouldn't come as a surprise really - a lack of squeamishness and ability not to be affected and distracted by pain and suffering would make this quite natural. It could even be argued that it's desirable, it seems to me. Less so would be enjoyment of the power and authority ("get undressed please", "after you, doctor") or worse, and there have been some doozys ("Doctor Deaths") over the years.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 12:53 PM   #12
The Common Potato
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Some of the examples.
Some doctor's provide treatment A to emergency room patients while other doctors use treatment B. It is not clear whether either treatment works better than the other. When asked how the felt about the following:

1. What doctor is around when you arrive in the emergency room is random so you will be randomly assigned to treatment A or Treatment B.
2. You will be randomly assigned to a Doctor who will randomly assign you to A or B.
Straying a bit... Wouldn't #1 be better? In option #2 there is the chance that the doctor will note the patient's symptoms and hence his choice won't be truly random.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:11 PM   #13
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I didn't realize we aren't permitted to point out glaring errors that render a purported experiment so unrealistic as to be nonsensical.

Conduct a study on people's reaction to being assigned a patron saint at random, then.
No, its not important. They've run various questions by folks in various formulations, that was just one example. In various formulations of the questions that amount to:
Here's a couple of proposed interventions, do you mind if folks implement one or more? vs Here's a couple of proposed interventions do you mind if we implement them in a manner to test which one works better? More folks object to the experiment rather than just implementing one or more of the proposed interventions. I find this odd and disturbing.

The researchers have offered a number of potential contributing factors, including that some folks object to the lack of informed consent. They don't seem to think that offers sufficient explanatory power given the way the framed their surveys.

Last edited by ahhell; 15th July 2019 at 02:14 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:12 PM   #14
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
Straying a bit... Wouldn't #1 be better? In option #2 there is the chance that the doctor will note the patient's symptoms and hence his choice won't be truly random.
As framed, #1 is not actually testing anything so it wouldn't result in any data.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:35 PM   #15
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,536
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
No, its not important. They've run various questions by folks in various formulations, that was just one example. In various formulations of the questions that amount to:
Here's a couple of proposed interventions, do you mind if folks implement one or more? vs Here's a couple of proposed interventions do you mind if we implement them in a manner to test which one works better? More folks object to the experiment rather than just implementing one or more of the proposed interventions. I find this odd and disturbing.

The researchers have offered a number of potential contributing factors, including that some folks object to the lack of informed consent. They don't seem to think that offers sufficient explanatory power given the way the framed their surveys.
People want the one that sucks the least, I think that is the issue.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:50 PM   #16
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
People want the one that sucks the least, I think that is the issue.
According the interview, they attempted to frame the surveys so that it was clear that they wouldn't necessary get the one that sucks the least. They get an intervention that was implemented by others with no more certainty of not sucking more than the other option or they'd get the an intervention that was implemented by others with no certainty of not sucking than the other option in an effort to figure out which one sucked least.

A significant fraction of folks would prefer the unknown chance of sucking with out the potential to determine the amount of suckage involved rather than an undetermined relative amount of suckage with the opportunity to determine what the relative suckage was or is. I find that weird.

Apparently various formulations of.

We want to reduce/increase/end C.
1. We can Try A or
2. We can Try B or
3. We can try A with some folks and B with others and find out which one is more effective at reducing/increasing/ending C.

More folks object to 3 than 1 or 2. Which I find weird and discouraging.

Last edited by ahhell; 15th July 2019 at 02:53 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 03:16 PM   #17
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
People want the one that sucks the least, I think that is the issue.

I myself would tend to favor the one that sucks more, other things being equal.

Which isn't shallow of me or anything: other things being equal, I'd also prefer the one that would explain quantum mechanics to me, to the one that couldn't, or wouldn't. Or -- other things being equal -- the one that sings like an angel, to the one that couldn't, or wouldn't.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 07:35 PM   #18
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,479
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
People want the one that sucks the least, I think that is the issue.
But it's random in both cases, so while they may want the one that sucks the least, that how much it sucks is constant between both methods.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 09:08 PM   #19
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,818
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But it's random in both cases, so while they may want the one that sucks the least, that how much it sucks is constant between both methods.
The one that sucks the least is the one where you're not someone else's test subject.

That said, I think a big part of the modern skeptical pose is willfully failing to understand the human dimension of these things.

You ask me, gut reaction, I'm going to say no to being a lab rat. The modern skeptic asks that question robotically, and robotically accepts the answer. No useful conclusion is reached, but the modern skeptic believes they've learned something important. And indeed they have. Just not the thing they believe they've learned.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2019, 12:17 AM   #20
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,479
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The one that sucks the least is the one where you're not someone else's test subject.
I think you're probably right. I also think that the reaction is more reasonable than might be surmised from a hypothetical question on a survey. If someone is assigning me randomly to a group they're not doing their best to try to choose the best treatment for me. While we might imagine that there are some situations where no one knows which of two possible treatments is preferable and thus we shouldn't be concerned about random assignment, I doubt that's the general case. Wanting to get the best possible treatment for oneself even at the expense of making future research less effective seems like a reasonable stance to take.

I don't think the problem is in being someone else's test subject, but there are problems associated with being someone else's test subject (at least in general), and it's reasonable to want to avoid those problems, even if your method of avoiding them is adopting a general rule that's only useful 90% of the time. The 10% of the time that being someone else's test subject wouldn't actually have any associated problems, well, that's collateral damage of following a simple rule and doesn't actually negatively affect me either.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2019, 01:10 AM   #21
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,901
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
...I have nothing against sex. But I would probably object to you making me a part of a sex act if I came to your shop to buy a hat.
Not even if you were buying a Dutch Cap?
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2019, 02:31 AM   #22
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You ask me, gut reaction, I'm going to say no to being a lab rat. The modern skeptic asks that question robotically, and robotically accepts the answer. No useful conclusion is reached, but the modern skeptic believes they've learned something important. And indeed they have. Just not the thing they believe they've learned.
I honestly don't get your reasoning.

You are going to get a random treatment whatever happens, depending on which doctor is in.
The only real difference is proper records are kept and used to determine which treatment is more effective. Seems irrational not to do it.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2019, 07:21 AM   #23
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,410
I've been thinking about this and another interpretation occurred to me.

Here's a thought experiment:

There is a risk to crossing the street.

I have no idea what the actual level is, when I tried to look it up, I got mostly think pieces about the nature of risk and studies in psychology

So we'll call that risk a 1/x chance of randomly being hit by a car. This risk is low enough that most people feel okay crossing a street so long as they look both ways. They'll even take on this risk for very trivial benefits, like to look in a random shop window.

Now imagine as an alternative to the crosswalk, there was a booth. You step inside the booth and it points a gun at your head with x number of chambers (Same as the x above) and only one bullet. All you have to do is pull the trigger and it magically transports you to the other side of the road.

If you want to get hung up on the transporter problem, this is a magical booth that uses a wormhole or something, not a teleporter that deconstructs you.

If you want to get hung up on the action of pulling the trigger, it could as easily be a button. You can imagine if you like that you can't see the gun pointed at your head. The only thing important is that you know it's there.

In a statistical sense at least, the risk of walking across the street is equal to the risk of using the gun booth. But I'd wager that a substantial number of people, at least 30% or more, would highly prefer to walk across the road the old fashioned way. In fact, I'll bet the booth could be statistically safer (Just add more empty chambers) and some people would never use it.

People tend to see risk that is deliberately imposed more negatively than the same or even higher risk that is emergent from a complex situation.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2019, 09:21 AM   #24
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,807
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'm not sure liking science is the issue. It sounds more like an aversion to being made part of an experiment when they're going to a doctor for help.

I have nothing against sex. But I would probably object to you making me a part of a sex act if I came to your shop to buy a hat.
Sounds like a typical porn scenario to me.

As to whether I would object to being made part of a sex act when I come to a shop to buy a hat, well, that's going to be highly dependent on who it is that wants to do that.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2019, 10:57 AM   #25
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,818
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
I honestly don't get your reasoning.
And that's exactly the problem I'm talking about.

You're approaching the question and answer robotically, rather than in terms of what humans are and how they work. There's a difference between liking science and being a test subject.

There's also a difference between being willing to be a test subject, and being willing to be a test subject when you're looking for help. Even when you're still getting the help.

Quote:
You are going to get a random treatment whatever happens, depending on which doctor is in.
And maybe 30% of people just want to get some help, and wish you would stop dicking around with test subject crap while they're trying to get some help.

Quote:
The only real difference is proper records are kept and used to determine which treatment is more effective. Seems irrational not to do it.
That's not the question that was asked, though.

Also, humans are only partly rational creatures. We are also partly irrational. This is not sad. It's what sets us apart from the other animals. It's what makes us capable of creating and appreciating art. It's what makes us capable of landing on the moon, and celebrating that achievement.

It's also what makes us resistant to purely rational questions that touch on our personal lives. As a result, I don't think you can simply ask a question like this, and conclude from the answers that 30% of people don't like science. The reality of these responses is more complicated than that, and is informed by the irrational side of our natures.

I think it's a mistake to take this finding as robotically as you are taking it. I don't think it means that 30% of people don't like science. I think it probably means that 30% of people have gut level concerns about mixing research with treatment. For those 30%, convincing them to participate in such research will probably require talking to them in greater detail about their concerns.

You're condemning their responses based on the supplemental reasoning you've presented in this thread. I think it's okay that, when presented with a hypothetical like this, some people will not care to spend a lot of time on supplemental reasoning, and simply go with their gut.

Put those people in a clinic, looking for help, and have the admitting nurse ask if it's okay if they keep records on which physician you see and which treatments are more effective, and I bet you'd get a lot more agreement. I bet you'd probably get 30% of those people expressing shock that the clinic isn't keeping those kinds of records as a matter of course.

---

ETA: I mean, human testing is a huge ethical concern. It's a well-established concern, and a very reasonable concern. Even in scenarios where the ethical risks have been eliminated, you're probably still going to get a sizable segment of the population that defaults to "nope" on such questions. This is not a saddening "people don't like science" outcome.

Last edited by theprestige; 16th July 2019 at 11:01 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2019, 05:47 AM   #26
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're approaching the question and answer robotically, rather than in terms of what humans are and how they work. There's a difference between liking science and being a test subject.
No I'm not. I'm just told you what I would do in that situation and I thought you were explaining what you would do. It certainly sounded like you were:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You ask me, gut reaction, I'm going to say no to being a lab rat.
Gut reactions have their place but are always the easiest option to choose, since it's what you feel like doing anyway.
The rational response would obviously be to help make treatments more effective for future patients, especially since it doesn't cost you anything. I would even be willing to put up with some small inconvenience.


What is wrong with being 'a lab rat' instead of 'just a patient' if your treatments will be identical AND you will be helping future patients?
It makes no sense to me, why does it trigger your gut?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Also, humans are only partly rational creatures. We are also partly irrational. This is not sad. It's what sets us apart from the other animals.
No, animals are just as irrational as we are. Buuuuuttt since we are the smartest we might be the most irrational. I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's what makes us capable of creating and appreciating art. It's what makes us capable of landing on the moon, and celebrating that achievement.
I don't think so.

Why do you have to be irrational to be creative and imaginative?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2019, 05:55 AM   #27
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,613
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Why do you have to be irrational to be creative and imaginative?
This is a good point, and you don't. Unless, for some reason, one operates under the mistaken view that emotion and reason are opposites...or somehow exclusive of each other.

I think a difference needs to be made between irrational (lacking logic) and emotional (which involves feeling, but not necessarily irrational ones). Too many people don't seem to get that difference.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2019, 06:14 AM   #28
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
This is a good point, and you don't. Unless, for some reason, one operates under the mistaken view that emotion and reason are opposites...or somehow exclusive of each other.

I think a difference needs to be made between irrational (lacking logic) and emotional (which involves feeling, but not necessarily irrational ones). Too many people don't seem to get that difference.
Its a reasonable confusion to have though. Emotions are not necessarily irrational and certainly not the opposite of reason, they do however, tend to short circuit reasoned thought though.

Anyrate, my reason for discussing this article is to highlight what is probably an irrational tendency in people that we should probably find a way to circumvent if we want to actually implement effective policy.

I'm glad the discussion has moved on from just the few examples I started with. Its my fault really, never use examples or analogy on the internet. They pretty much always derail the conversation.

Also, the thread title was deliberately click baiting and and exaggeration. I did not actually conclude that 30% of the population just like science. In reality we all like science so long as its conclusion don't hit to close too home or backs up our pre-existing beliefs if the research does hit too close to home.

Last edited by ahhell; 17th July 2019 at 06:18 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2019, 06:27 AM   #29
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,479
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
This is a good point, and you don't. Unless, for some reason, one operates under the mistaken view that emotion and reason are opposites...or somehow exclusive of each other.

I think a difference needs to be made between irrational (lacking logic) and emotional (which involves feeling, but not necessarily irrational ones). Too many people don't seem to get that difference.
That's a good point and one that goes deeper than it might appear on first reading.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 01:57 AM   #30
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,393
Personally I think what such studies and hypothetical scenarios really see, and fail to realize it is: what a lot of people are no good at is just working with purely hypothetical scenarios that go against every single bit of RL experience and common sense. So they'll solve the problem by how it would work IRL, instead of doing the mental contortions to work in your fantasy scenario.

E.g., in the first choice, IRL a doctor will not really assign random treatments unless it's basically placebo. Not the least because they risk malpractice suits and even having their license revoked. Not to mention that they end up ruining their reputation and the hospital's reputation too.

At the VERY LEAST the expectation with a real doctor is that even if he randomly prescribes one of two random placebos for a cold, if your case is obviously outside of the scope of those, he'd do something else. Because humans aren't machines. Machines will pick one of the choices they're programmed to, even if all of them are bloody stupid. Humans might come up with a new treatment or none, if the ones you gave them don't fit.

So IRL going with the doctor would be the safest choice every single time.


Short version: such studies don't show that people don't like science, they show that some survey makers don't understand people. So all you get at the end of it all isn't some great insight into anti-intellectuallism, but just an excuse for the actual idiots to ego-wank about how superior they are to the unwashed masses.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2019 at 02:02 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 06:37 AM   #31
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Short version: such studies don't show that people don't like science, they show that some survey makers don't understand people. So all you get at the end of it all isn't some great insight into anti-intellectuallism, but just an excuse for the actual idiots to ego-wank about how superior they are to the unwashed masses.
I don't think this is a safe conclusion as it solely based on the few examples I've listed. The research was conducted with various different survey questions attempting to figure if folks object to A/B comparison studies conducted on human beings. The two examples are only a small sample of the questions that were asked in this research.

All also think the whole ego wank comment is fairly ironic.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 08:29 AM   #32
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
At least when practiced on humans anyway.

...
Some of the examples.

Some doctor's provide treatment A to emergency room patients while other doctors use treatment B. It is not clear whether either treatment works better than the other. When asked how the felt about the following:

1. What doctor is around when you arrive in the emergency room is random so you will be randomly assigned to treatment A or Treatment B.
2. You will be randomly assigned to a Doctor who will randomly assign you to A or B.

Almost nobody disliked Option 1 but something around 30% disliked option 2.

Another example regarding checklists.
A. A checklist of things to check on patient visits would be printed on the back of an attending physicians name tag.
B. The same checklist would be printed on poster in the hospital room.
C. Both.
D. A/B/C would be randomly assigned to different hospitals then outcomes would be measured and the method with the best outcome would be selected for future use.

Almost nobody objected to A, B, and C but something like 30% of people objected to D.
...
(portion only quoted)

I'm not much of a podcast listener, so going by your examples.

Picking the second one first, I would want C, not D. In part because I already know there's substantial research showing checklists improve outcomes (e.g. handwashing checklist, instruments removed from patient in operation checklist, etc.) and that there is substantial resistance by some physicians to checklists. So, given what is already known, I want checklists used, and patients to know what the checklist is (i.e. on a poster they can see, not only available to the physician as in A). Therefore, because I know something about what is already known, I object to D. Also, there may be non-scientific moral or ethical or legal reasons to want e.g. full disclosure to patients, another reason to prefer B or C not A or D.

The first one, if I'm a patient, and there are two alternative treatments, I want to be asked whether I have a preference. Even if there is no known difference, maybe I prefer one. Or, if there's a double-blind study, I want to be asked whether I'm willing to participate, and given adequate information I would likely agree. What I object to is being treated as a guinea pig with no information. If you want compliance with a randomized study, you'll probably get it, if you give me the medical/scientific information. Treat me only as a subject, and ******* you.
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 09:09 AM   #33
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
(portion only quoted)

I'm not much of a podcast listener, so going by your examples.
I have already said it was a mistake to go by my examples as the were a small sample of the questions that were asked.
There were numerous ways in which the question was ask that boils down to.
Do you object to:
A
B
A for some and B for Some with the intent on figuring out if A or B is more effective at achieving the goal.

It appears in most if not all of the ways this was framed in various settings, there was a substantial minority that object to testing of A and B but don't object to just doing A or B.

Examples and analogy are always a mistake on the internet.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 03:56 PM   #34
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,393
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I don't think this is a safe conclusion as it solely based on the few examples I've listed. The research was conducted with various different survey questions attempting to figure if folks object to A/B comparison studies conducted on human beings. The two examples are only a small sample of the questions that were asked in this research.
Actually, the impression that many people answer based on their RL experiences, not just based on the fantasy scenario presented is not just based on your examples. And it affects a LOT of such trick questions.

But basically you don't have to believe me. See epeeist's answer for stating just that: they'd choose an answer based on extra information they have about the real world, rather than assuming they take only the stated premises and treat everything not stated there as in the air.


ADDITIONALLY, judging strictly by what you wrote, it doesn't sound like the questions were properly randomized, which runs into a slew of other problems. Not the least being, for your second example, that all else being equal:

A) people have an extra probability to answer "yes" than "no" or "let's make a randomized study first" at just about any question. Presumably again because of RL habits. When most people ask stuff like "should I dye my hair blue", they're more likely to respond positively if you offer confirmation and support, and more likely to respond negatively if you tell them that their idea is bad. People try to be agreeable by, well, agreeing to whatever you just said.

Basically if you ask "should we continue the war" vs "should we stop the war", you'll get very different percentages supporting said war.

and

B) they're more likely to pick the choice at the top than the one at the bottom.

So on the whole I'd expect that if they had absolutely no opinion on it, what you'd actually see is inherently the most votes for C (on account that it's the most "yes, you should totally do both" answer), then A, then B, and D to have the least of votes.


So yes, I stand by what I've said. It looks like an amateurish exercise in finding some pseudo-scientific reason to feel superior.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th July 2019 at 03:58 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 04:04 PM   #35
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,745
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Not even if you were buying a Dutch Cap?
Finally! Someone who knows what that is.

I'd always known the term and thought most people did. About ten years ago, I made a hilarious joke on radio, with a punch line of "Dutch Caps", thinking I'd get lots of feedback complimenting me on my sensationally clever humour.

All I got was a million WTF?s.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2019, 06:49 PM   #36
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,078
Something like 70% of people just like science.

At least when practiced on humans anyway.

70%! This is good news. I was expecting it to be much lower....
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:27 AM   #37
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, the impression that many people answer based on their RL experiences, not just based on the fantasy scenario presented is not just based on your examples. And it affects a LOT of such trick questions.

But basically you don't have to believe me. See epeeist's answer for stating just that: they'd choose an answer based on extra information they have about the real world, rather than assuming they take only the stated premises and treat everything not stated there as in the air.


ADDITIONALLY, judging strictly by what you wrote, it doesn't sound like the questions were properly randomized, which runs into a slew of other problems. Not the least being, for your second example, that all else being equal:
Which is clearly making conclusions based on insufficient information has I have repeatedly stated. I gave only two examples, the ones that most stuck out and repeated from my memory of an interview, the research was conducted using numerous other ways to specifically see how folks felt about testing policy in the real world. Once again, I have learned, never use examples or analogy on the internet.
Quote:
A) people have an extra probability to answer "yes" than "no" or "let's make a randomized study first" at just about any question. Presumably again because of RL habits. When most people ask stuff like "should I dye my hair blue", they're more likely to respond positively if you offer confirmation and support, and more likely to respond negatively if you tell them that their idea is bad. People try to be agreeable by, well, agreeing to whatever you just said.

Basically if you ask "should we continue the war" vs "should we stop the war", you'll get very different percentages supporting said war.

and

B) they're more likely to pick the choice at the top than the one at the bottom.

So on the whole I'd expect that if they had absolutely no opinion on it, what you'd actually see is inherently the most votes for C (on account that it's the most "yes, you should totally do both" answer), then A, then B, and D to have the least of votes.


So yes, I stand by what I've said. It looks like an amateurish exercise in finding some pseudo-scientific reason to feel superior.
It may be an amateurish exercise by me in attempting to summarize the research, you can not conclude the research itself was actually amateurish from merely reading a layman's summary. Its actually pretty arrogant of you to do so. Basically, I don't like the conclusions so the research must be flawed based on my understanding of second hand accounts. So, I"m totally willing to call professional scientist amateurish.

I think, next time I find an article or interview I think might interest folks. I'll just post a link and say, "Isn't this interesting?"
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:30 AM   #38
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,444
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
At least when practiced on humans anyway.

70%! This is good news. I was expecting it to be much lower....
That's one way of looking at, still even 30% objecting to actually researching public policy in a meaningful way could be enough to derail useful research.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.