Trust Me, I M A Scientist By Daniel T. Willingham

Joel Achenbach, the author of the article, “Why Do Reasonable People Doubt Science?” starts of by saying that in today's era the people often disagree with scientific reasoning. The world we live in today is so full of problems it's hard to tell what is real anymore. The decision is left to the individual to decide what to believe is true or false, and then how there going to put their beliefs into action. Achenbach later explains in his article that the scientific method pushes back all the opinions and unfolds the real truth.

In characterizing scientific research, Barry chooses specific diction that has strong connotations so as to create the greatest effect by contrasting them. His juxtaposition of the words “certainty” and “uncertainty” serve a twofold purpose in the context of this piece. The first is to emphasize the fearfulness and timidity associated with uncertainty. Secondly, it serves to exhibit

He explains why UCTs are as popular as they are in modern society, and why people should nevertheless disregard and approach them with caution. What Keeley refers to as “virtues” are the reason for the popularity of UCTs. He gives the virtue of explanatory reach as the first and main reason for UCTs popularity, which is the account of all knowledge including errant data. This is in stark contrast to the received theory, which is imperfect by nature. This quality of UCTs is particularly attractive because it appeals to human rationality by allowing for no loopholes. Keely argues that errant data alone is not significant enough, and that a theory should never fit all of the data. This leads into one of the main points, concerning falsifiability and skepticism. Unfalsifiability is acceptable when the item or person under investigation is not actively trying to escape from the investigator. Keeley contends that the problem is not the innate unfalsifiability, but rather the increasing amount of skepticism required. Keely seeks a hole in the concept of conspiracy theories that accounts for a person’s innate sense that belief in a particular conspiracy theory is not justified. In the case of the natural sciences, falsifiability is acceptable because of the rigorous protocols in place, and therefore, we are warranted in believing scientific claims.

Barry opens his nonfiction text by emphasizing that certainty is a confident resilience while uncertainty produces frailty, but in a way that sends out opposite outcomes. He enhances this purpose by constantly using repetition with the word uncertainty to amplify how scientific research is an uncertain apparatus. By way of illustration,

Ben Goldacre, the author of Bad Science, begins dismantling scientific claims with the notion of detox. Goldacre argues that the idea of a “detox” does not exist, specifically not in a medical textbook (Goldacre, 11). It is rather a whole new physiological process that is created by marketers, lifestyle gurus, and alternative therapists. The concept of detox is rather a marketing invention, and due to its lack of scientific meaning, it can be described more as a cultural product (Goldacre, 12). How much we buy into detoxing our systems depends on how much we value ritual in our lives as individuals (Goldacre, 12). Every religion and culture has some form of purification or abstinence tradition or ritual; In Islam, there is Ramadan, in Judaism, there is Yom Kippur, and so forth (Goldacre, 13). Due to the recurring themes of purification and rituals in our lives, the idea of detoxing makes sense to us, as we believe that there are quick fixes to our negative and unhealthy habits (Goldacre, 12). We often seek redemption in our western lifestyles; whether it’s unhealthy food, drinking, drugs, or other indulgences. Therefore, the concept of cleansing our bodies from material indulgences appeals to us as we crave recovery and protection from the consequences of our harmful habits (Goldacre, 14).

Facts are statements that are indisputably true. Truthful statements are authentic because they are widely accepted to be accurate and fit reality. When answering the question “given access to the same facts , how is it possible that there can be disagreements between experts in a discipline?”, one must consider the definition of an expert. For the sake of this paper I am defining an expert as someone who excels in their field , and constantly evolves their knowledge as their field progresses. I believe that disagreements between experts when presented with the same facts, occur because of bias. Bias is a sway towards one side or view of a situation or statement. Therefore I ask , how does someone’s personal bias affect their interpretation

The author says that to be a scientist, we must have the courage to face doubt, and he backs up his idea with a 19th century French physiologist, Claude Bernard, “Science teaches us to doubt.” Saying that a scientist must be open-minded to the fact that their findings are not always correct, the author describes Einstein’s process and how he goes about it. There is sense of knowledge that Claude Bernard seems to have as he is titled, “the great French Physiologist”. Also, the qualification and power that comes with Einstein’s name is known worldwide and clearly apparent. Both of these names and titles, which are very credible, come together to make Barry’s argument more

Bernard once said that “Science teaches us to doubt.” Barry uses this quote to explain his theory of scientific curiosity and the world of uncertainty. He explains that certainty creates strength and uncertainty can be found as a weakness that brings out hesitant feelings. However this quote explains that science is built upon uncertainty and in which this quote is to convey to the reader of Barry motives.

When we do anything, it is influenced by our past and the people around us. If we walk across the street or play a game, we are consciously or subconsciously motivated and swayed by the lessons and suggestions from people around us to walk or play a certain way. This is the same case for reading or listening to scientific concepts and theories as we try to compare and test them against what we have learned before, even if neither of them are factual or heavily supported by others. For example, when my family and I were visiting an apartment, the landlord kept talking about the benefits and advantages of Vitamin C, referencing a novel he read as a child; however, once we left the complex, my father told us that this was not completely true,

In Jerry Grillo’s article on “Real Science, Impact,” it talks about how Biotechnology is known for helping people. It involves the development of vaccines, therapeutic devices, and medicines. People can find jobs easily in this field and make good money. It also talks about how the research team is testing out new drugs that help’s with the immune system to help fight tumors. The medication itself is expensive. The company that created the drug had a poor second-quarter financial report. The stock tumbled overnight. The research team has been focused on cancer and finding a cure for it. More than one company is currently working on creating antibiotics, vaccines, and more. Research companies are contributing billions of dollars in tax profits

Most intellectuals or academics obsessed with one way of approaching new ideas and texts, the doubting game, at the other's expense. It is important to consider other related concepts such as the believing game to consider issues ad situations in a more analytical manner. These two mechanisms enable one to criticize or accept facts based on various condition, situations, and events.

Currently, since scientists have valued facts differently it is essentially an implication that no risk factor is at the moment convincing enough. Hence, rather than disagreeing upon which factor is essentially the cause, scientists have come to a mutual understanding that “none of the identified factors seem to be suitable” (Hempel, Chambers, Bagnall, & Forbes, 2007). The example of this chronic condition represents that viewing facts from different opinions and perspectives is not necessarily a mechanism for disagreement: but it is a step toward experts agreeing that further research is crucial. Consequently, the Natural Sciences prove that different values do not always lead to disagreement and hence varying perspectives is not a dependable mechanism for disagreement. This is because scientists do not always require personal knowledge to draw conclusions, and are usually open to considering varying

Throughout the course of history, scientific discoveries have led to the birth of new knowledge. Humanity’s increase in knowledge has helped to achieve new heights of understanding in a variety of fields such as medicine, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. While some of these achievements in science can generate much prosperity, some technology has created significant amounts of controversy. The Honors 2400 class entitled The Chernobyl Incident has granted me over the course of the semester the opportunity to analyze these scenarios and understand the challenging questions that are associated with the pursuit of knowledge. From many examples discussed in class, I understand the importance of limiting knowledge, the discoveries that humanity should or should not pursue, how individuals pursue confined questions, and who is ultimately responsible for approving or disapproving of these scientific questions.

Knowledge is considered accurate when there is sufficient evidence that it is the truth. Over time, methods of verifying the accuracy of knowledge change. As learners, we often equate accuracy with the value of knowledge, however, the value of accuracy is dependent on the area of knowledge under consideration. Today, accuracy in the natural sciences is vital as any error can be catastrophic. In 1986, a flawed reactor and human error caused the Chernobyl disaster that exposed millions to radiation and had significant long term impacts. However in history, complete “accuracy” is almost unattainable. As historians cannot first-hand experience past events, they can only try to make connections with available sources to suggest what happened

Disagreement may aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences because disagreement leads to new discoveries. Disagreement is about gathering reliable knowledge as well as using this newfound knowledge, and occurs when a group fails to reach a consensus over the logic of an argument. Knowledge is composed of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Two areas of knowledge that are impacted by disagreement are human science and natural science. Human science is the study of human behavior and how humans gather information. Natural science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world. In order for a disagreement to occur, one must be familiar with the subject and have his or her own prediction that is different from the norm. Therefore, to advance knowledge in the areas of human and natural science, people must disagree. The roles of logic, reason, and emotion will be investigated to see how they are used to help gain new knowledge in both human and natural science.