The phrase, "According to scientists..."
It's so widely believed. Like... You can put anything behind it and stick it in a textbook and someone will believe it. I mean, you could say,
"According to scientists, Joe Biden is an idiot."
And while that may be true, just because it starts with "According to scientists" it will be believed to be true by most who read it, even if it isn't. Where has the people's desire for truth gone? Why are we content to dumbly listen and never question? Give me your sources! Let me figure it out for myself! I say that they man who doesn't provide sources is a coward, because that means he's afraid someone will contradict his work and find a better answer than he has. Now, I'm not perfect. There are plenty of posts that I have posted in the past that ought to have sources and don't. Well, get over it. I'm 16 years old. I'm still trying to figure this whole blogging thing out.
So anyways, I'll have sources on work that requires sources from now on. Be sure to correct me if I forget.
But I really can't stress how important sources are. In a post of his on his blog, one of my mentors by the name of Ben Brown discussed what is called the Sleeper Effect. Here's how he explained it.
"Here’s the breakdown: what we learn (the content) and where we learn it from (the sources) are controlled by different circuitry systems in the brain. The system for sources is more short term by default where the system for content is more long term. When we initially hear something from a low quality source, we will tend to be skeptical of the message because we know then that the source isn’t to be trusted. Enter the sleeper effect. We forget the source before we forget the content, so over time, a provocative message from a poor source will become more persuasive."
http://basicallyben.tumblr.com/post/73273942622/how-to-protect-your-brain-from-the-sleeper-effect
Don't fall asleep, my friends. Stay awake, and go find the truth.
God be with you,
Dallin
God be with you,
Dallin
Hope you don't mind if I comment on this. While you make an excellent point, I just wanted to add a little to what you were saying.
ReplyDeletesci·en·tist
ˈsīəntist/
noun
1.
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
These men and women that have devoted their lives to studying a certain topic don't have it easy. Ever since they began their studies a couple hundred years ago, they have been some of the most ridiculed people to walk the earth. You make an excellent point, they don't know everything. They're human, they're not suppose to.
I think that's why they get the most crap from people, because they have spent so much time with their studying that everyone has been made to believe that they are correct, and while this might be true in some cases, it won't always be.
So you know what, yes, go out there and find your own answer, but don't do it just to prove them wrong. They have a reason for believing what they are teaching to people, so look at it from all angles.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. If a person's source for information is, "According to scientists" and they don't name the scientists, how do we know that it's from a scientist at all? For all we know they're making whatever they're saying up themselves.
DeleteOn not trying to find your answer just to prove them wrong I disagree with your point as well. That's the job of a scientist. To prove things wrong. They spend their entire lives coming up with theories and then doing their best to prove themselves wrong. Then, when they can't prove what they've found wrong, they give it to other scientists so that they others scientists can try to prove it wrong. That's how it works. It's how truth is found.
All I'm asking is for people to site sources. :)
Ah, yes, I see where you're coming from there. I am in total agreement that when people stick a title to something in order to make it sound like a true principle, that it's inconsiderate to the reader. So yes, further proof of evidence when presenting something as a fact.
DeleteAlthough, I think it's fair to say that we have different views on scientists. What you're saying is, to my knowledge, mostly correct. The process you explained above is fairly accurate. They do go through a lot of testing in order to prove what they found is correct, and then when they can't prove it to be wrong it's handed off for more testing. I wouldn't necessarily say that all scientists try to prove things wrong, but rather come up with what they think is a logical way of explaining how the universe works. So naturally, that would involve a lot of trial and error and rethinking theories or ideas, which is pretty close to what you said above.
Going back up to what I said before about finding your own answers, the point that I was trying to get at (and you'll have to forgive me, it's been a long day) is just go out there with an open mind. There will always be two sides of the story and in order to find truth, there must be an examination of both.
Anyway, that was my rant. :)