I just had a heated debate with someone about nuke reactors, that boiled down to them believing that they know more then nuclear engineers and people with PhDs. I don't get it, if someone has a degree that they earned from a place that denoted their specific knowledge in a field that I don't have any knowledge in, I tend to listen to them.

This seems to be happening alot, with scientists being shunned for their hard work and knowledge in:
Homeopathic medicine believers
Anti-Vaccine lobbyists
Anti-EMF lobbyists (Yes they do exist, we had a town council meeting about power lines and how OMG THEY KILL CHILDREN)
Mystics
Astrologists
"CO2 is good for earth" people
Conspiracy Theorists of all kinds
On that note, Truthers...
And birthers
Home Schoolers (Most of them anyway)
Global Warming "Skeptics"
Tea Baggers (You know what I mean, and in the "He's not actually a socialist" meaning not the "Republicans r dumb" meaning.)
And I'm sure many, many more.

Why is this so prevalent? Is this post-modernism at work here?

Honestly, you didn't think your question (the title of the thread) through at all?

A lot of people always believe they're being fed bull****. So they question it. Which is of course true, most of the stuff we're told or see in the media is complete bull****.

"Home Schoolers (Most of them anyway)"

nop

It's been my experience, Tibby, that many of the people you've outlined (especially conspiracy theorists) rarely ever try to challenge their own beliefs. They believe what they believe for some silly reason, not because they've thought it through rationally.

Being a skeptic does not mean you call bull**** on everything that comes your way.

Exactly this. This is a very old, out-dated example, but: doctors used to recommend smoking.
That may be extremely old news, but what is considered absolute fact one day is laughed out of the room the next.
We are indeed, fed a lot of complete bull****. Sometimes by experts in those fields, having a degree in something doesn't mean you're right about everything in that field, a lot of the time it just means you can quote more stuff you've read about it then others whilst sounding more sure of yourself.

Now, don't get me wrong, a lot of the people in your list are just listening to bull**** they got fed from somewhere else instead of from 'official' channels (wait... you said teabaggers? you and I have very, very different definitions for teabagging)

People are people. I don't understand why you think this is anything new. Belief without being grounded in fact, or indeed contrary to it, has been well established in humanity for ages.

Everyone has opinions that chafe with the majority or common knowledge here and there. In the hospital, we make recommendations based on scientific evidence or at the very least combined experience, but every now and then a patient will throw it in our face and say they know what's best for themselves. In some cases they do great, in others, no so great. We just do our best to provide them with options. Some physicians choose to get very angry about this (paternalism, as it can be called). Myself, I'll do my best to explain why I say what I do, but nothing more.

It's always worthwhile to hear where people come from, because you might just learn something. Not specifically that you will learn anything about the subject at hand, but get some insight into the person, and humanity as a whole. If their decisions effect you, knowing where they are coming from is the only hope (however slim) of convincing them to your side.

Taking an air of superiority is never really warranted unless you yourself are an expert in the field and actually understand the position you espouse. Even then, there is nothing to gain in arrogance. It hardens the resolve of the other side and does nothing for your argument. The discussion becomes fruitless and therefore pointless, unless you want to feel better about your own intellectual might. However, the only truly intelligent people I know don't engage in such actions and treat everyone with respect.

The difference is the recommendations by doctors are based on evidence, and 'absolute fact' simply doesn't exist in that context (outside of mathematics). The link between smoking and lung disease was not an easy one to establish, and while now that is well established it required a whole generation of long-term smokers to grow old before we had the data and the technology to prove it.

So, from that, the stuff we know now, could that turn out to be wrong? Could something we thought was safe turn out to be unsafe? Yes. And that will almost certainly happen, such as with asbestos. That's how science works. As we get better technology to investigate the world, we refine our knowledge about how it works. That may not seem satisfying or reassuring, that a 'fact' is only a 'fact' in the context of the available evidence.

Phlogiston was an element that, for about 100 years, was believed to be responsible for fire. Reading the history of science is actually quite frustrating, as all these great 17th century chemists made great discoveries but was each hampered by their belief in ****ing phlogiston - but with the available knowledge at the time, phlogiston actually made a lot of sense and that theory allowed them to make other useful discoveries (such as the discovery of nitrogen).
And more importantly, the scientific method allowed for the disproof of the phlogiston theory. In science, nothing is sacred.

It may not be intuitively satisfying, but it's the best process we have. Mysticists and quacks may dismay at this process and throw their hands in the their and cry 'science doesn't know everything! some stuff science thought they knew was wrong, so what they think they know now can be wrong too!'. That may be so, scientists don't (claim to) know everyting, but they do know something and what they do know is based on evidence - which is far more than be said for crap like homoeopathy and astrology and other stuff that is just as much bull**** as phlogiston.

I think maybe the reason people have difficulty trusting science is because your opinion doesn't matter. In politics, your opinion is very important. In American Idol, your opinion is very important. In science, it is of no significance whatsoever. What matters is not what you believe, but what you can prove. There is nothing democratic about science. Science will still work, and scientists will continue to do that work, regardless of whether you believe in it or not. You may not 'believe' in quantum mechanics, but your computer wouldn't work without it.

I have no idea what this means.

The link in my signature has a pretty good explanation.

Heh. That's a great article. I especially like the quote in that article, which is in my signature.

Most of the folks in imsoshort's list are probably nut cases. A few, however often have reasonable grounds for breaking convention.

As a quick but brief (read: I am not arguing in favor or opposition of) example, homeschooling. Depending on the school district, homeschooling may be a better option for certain children. Some districts graduate anybody with a pulse, even though they read at a 5th grade (10 years old) level. Homeschooling would be a preferable option.

Further, some people go against "professional advice" for monetary purpose. For example, I would rather replace the fuel pump on my car on my own, than pay a professional to do it. It's a simple job, and it will cost 50% less. I don't think this type of thing is specifically what you're talking about, though.

"Tea Baggers" is the term that some liberal commentators use to refer to the "Tea Party" protesters, ever since they promoted mailing tea bags to the White House.

People are convinced of their own infallability and therefore are unable to consider that they might be wrong. So even though on some level they know there's a bunch of people who know more than them and disagree, and a mountain of evidence disproving them, they sort of just ignore it and make up ridiculous justifications for doing so.

This is why when you press creationists, "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers, etc. about their beliefs, either they'll start attacking you ("I can't believe you're so brainwashed! Open your eyes!") or they'll get right down to it and admit to actually believing that god planted fossils to make it look like evolution happened, or that all scientists are part of a conspiracy to sell carbon credits and make everyone communist, or whatever. To them, it makes sense as long as it supports the opinions they hold as gospel truth, no matter how absolutely ludicrous it would seem if they were able to look at it objectively.

I think this is why they're so distrustful of science, too. The scientific method *relies* on being able to say "I was wrong" and to these people this is actually seen as a sign of weakness.

I'd say about 90% of home schoolers are not 'think they are better than cases' - Why are home schooled kids a lot smarter than pubic school kids?

Usually the parents that choose to keep their kids home schooled are smarter than the teachers. Usually the public school system blows (I went to middle school in a building that didn't have walls. It was one big open room with like 20 class rooms. no walls. And it was built in the 1800s on top of that. The high school was a trailer park. Again, the building was old and the town grew. At least each classroom was it's own trailer instead of a giant cubicle.)

I get the impression that the homeschooling situation is a lot different here in Canada. Here, home schools are basically for religious indoctrination and social segregation of children.

If home schooling is done right, for example by a smart, open-minded parent who happens to be a teacher, there won't be a public or private school in the world that is better.

Though the child may be lacking in certain social skills or general knowledge. [Hi Obi! :P]

But in some cases it would be bad .... if my parents tried to home school me we would have murdered each other.

But usually the kids end up being more educated.

I don't think you know what post-modernism means.

Well, that and that fact that home-schooled kids by definition have parents who care about their education automatically puts them above average.



Hey, it's not my fault that popular culture is boring!

Homeschooling seems too presumptuous to me. Unless they're polymaths, two parents (often just one as the other will work full time) are very unlikely to be able to offer the breadth of subjects to the same standard as a school can with multiple teachers specialising in each area.

Sinatra wasn't boring, he was all secret mob deals and kidnappings!

That assumes that the teachers at the public school 1) are actually any good at what they do, 2) give a damn, and 3) are properly equipped (materials, size of room, proper number of students, students who try, etc). The public schools in my district and those surrounding do not meet all of those criteria (most don't meet any).

Some places, though (*coughORANGECOUNTYcough*) do have that, and would be a far better choice than homeschooling.

if anyone believes that home schooling is only for crazy people i would like to refer you the the los angelas unified school district.

many many times the teachers are good at what they do but have to deal with students who have no interest in what is being taught, whos parents either cannot or will not instill any discipline in the kids. they often have to buy supplies out of pocket. even though kids are out of control they are expected to keep control of the class without ever physically toutching a student or "losing it" in any way.

yeah, private school... not so bad.

Hey man, you went to school in orange county? I went to Tustin High, and I loved the place. Couldn't imagine better teachers.

No, I didn't go to school in Orange County. I grew up and still live in the 909. Teachers here are useless union *****es.

...It's not college. Teachers just get teaching degrees, which are a joke a most universities anyway. Besides that, save maybe for some classes in your junior or senior year of high school, you don't need any expertise to teach anything you learn in school. Educational techniques may be helpful when you have to deal with a whole class room of hyperactive kids, but you can't really beat one on one.

Calculus, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, all pretty difficult to home teach, I imagine. Especially the AP courses, which are equivalent to university sequences in those subjects.

I think my real point here is, the argument I had boiled down to "What are we going to do with the waste" "Salt mines have been prop-" "NO IT WILL LEAK OUT AND KILL THINGS, WE CAN'T USE POWER IF WE HAVE NOWHERE TO PUT THE WASTE" "Studies have conc-" "IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG, SO ARE THEY I KNOW MORE".

I've seen this alot, it's bloody annoying.

Pretty much.

Researchers have studied the difference in educational quality between public school, private school and homeschooling. You know what they've concluded? There is no difference in quality of instruction: the teaching is just as good, the facilities are just as good, and the curriculum is identical.

But the same studies show that private and homeschooling do have superior educational outcomes, even if you compensate for economic and ethnic backgrounds. This is mainly because more of the instructor's time is spent educating, and less is spent on remediation, behavioral correction and classroom disruptions.

How sad is that? I'm always dumbfounded whenever someone tries to defend their public school experience, like they have any idea what they missed out on by not being surrounded by a gaggle of chuckle****s.

I've always defended my public school because it was very good and had excellent teachers and curriculum but yes, it would have been far better without the knuckledragging idiots.

Better get those kids homeschooled pronto!

The only families I know in real life who homeschooled did so for religious/social isolation purposes. That said, I haven't seen any statistics about motivations for homeschooling nationwide, and my experience was probably biased by the good public schools in my area. I would like to see some sort of "involved parent" comparison, though I can't imagine how one would quantify that. I'm certain the differences between homeschooled and public schooled would become much less (if any remained) if parents who valued and supported education equally were compared.

I consider public schools a "use it or lose it" resource, much like clean drinking water. If no one who has any influence uses them, there will be no reason for anyone to bother keeping them in good condition.

Public schools exist to teach obedience, foster joy in completing mindless busy-work, and to keep young children out of trouble while their parents contribute to the economy. Nobody with any meaningful amount of wealth or influence sends his kids to a public school.

They don't even prepare you for university unless you take IB or AP, and those classes cost extra money anyway.

I like my public school experience precisely because I got in trouble.

"Hey man remember that time we skipped school and went swimming and got completely hammered" was great times!

I think that perhaps the differences in the educational system here make homeschooling less viable. The only successful homeschooler I've met still had to re-enter normal education to get through his A-levels. And his mother was a teacher who shared the load through a network of other teachers homeschooling their kids. Parents who want to get involved with their kid's education here do so by joining the PTA or becoming part of the school's board of governors.

In the UK to be a secondary school teacher you need to have at least a Bachelor's degree in the field that your teaching or at least allied to it (engineers can teach maths for example) and then you take the PGCE as training to become a teacher. Some of my teachers had a PhD in their field. During the course of my education I took maths, biology, chemistry, physics, English, French, German, Latin, geography, history, art, design, electronics, IT, PE, RE and economics. I cannot imagine any two people on their own managing to cover all that with the same level of depth.

Over here to be, for example, a high school math teacher you only need to take 16 credits of 100 and 200 level math - literally high school math, treated with slightly more rigor.

What PhD would condescend to teaching high school?

At the state-funded college I attended, those in the secondary education program had to pretty much be majors in the subject they were going to teach, and take a series of educational methods classes on top of that. This probably exceeds what most districts require for hiring, though, especially those who have to keep lowering their standards because no one wants to work there.

At my high school there was a world of difference between those teachers (usually teaching AP classes) who had or were working on their master's degrees and those who were clearly hired as coaches. This probably supports Jon'C's point about schools mainly serving purposes other than education, but I'll let that rest unless the thread moves in that direction.

Not to mention that getting schooling in a particular area means absolutely nothing regarding the knowledge or aptitude of a person.

Thanks largely to the internet, we're in a gray period of enlightenment.

Wait what

schooling in a particular subject does exactly that -- it increases someone's knowledge, and, if the schooling is on how to do something, the aptitude a person has in doing that thing.

Schooling doesn't do anything w/ regards to creating intelligence or natural talent, though -- is that what you're saying?