I'm fascinated by how wrong I was about the last post--thank you. I was certain many of you would head for the Natural Sciences in search of unexpiring truths, surprisingly anachronistic facts, or both. Kudos for your original approaches.
This week, I leave you no choice. As shared through Theory of Knowledge.net's monthly newsletter, please read this article in The Independent. Consider what it reveals about science, about journalism, and about our willingness (eagerness? need?) to believe both. What ways of knowing contribute to our credulity? Please extract and discuss the implications of two knowledge questions. Due Sunday, as usual.
I am an avid believer in science. Having said that, I have been taught to be a cautious believer in 'science'. Growing up, my favorite weekend activity, other than finding baby birds and exploring gullies, was reading The Week. In The Week, there are many credible articles but what always caught my attention was the "It must be true, I read it in the tabloids" section. Due to the fact that it was in a magazine I, and more importantly my parents, trusted, I believed all of it. Both the article and my example prove the same thing; people will believe what they read. Wether it be in a science journal or on the news. We, as humans, allow ourselves to be tricked into false ideologies. The more seemingly credible the source, the faster we let ourselves believe that the information is true. Especially when it comes to medicine. And even more so when its something that we wish desperately to believe, for instance that chocolate is good for you.
ReplyDeleteKQ 1: To what extent does certainty depend on our own justification and not actual evidence?
When we say we believe something, are we saying we believe it because we really need to or because the facts all point to it. When I say I believe someone is telling the truth, and if I really do believe that, most of the time I'm saying it because I really want to believe them. Its hardly ever because the actual facts say that they aren't lying.
KQ 2: Are some facts only 'certain' because we need them to be in natural sciences?
A lot of science is accepting what's been proven by others. For instance, I have always 'known' that humans are composed of millions of microscopic cells. I accept this as truth because I personally haven't observed them. However, in IB Bio this year I've done a lot of work with the assumption that this is true, and to understand everything that was happening in my course, I needed to 'know' that all humans really are composed of these things I couldn't see.
Most of the deadlines of any medias tend to attract attentions of the readers, and the readers are very likely to believe what they say on the title and the articles. Because they appeared on famous newspaper and websites, people are more likely to be tricked. This credulity could be caused by people blindly following the authority and their desperate desire for something which led them to try and believe every possibility no matter what. Furthermore, many time the websites, newspaper, and magazines' titles are not only unsuitable for the actual context, but also reports the false information with a purpose, which its to gain profit through advertising for other companies. In the article, the scientists revealed a secret mean to test on who easily people can be tricked by the shoddy scientific study. The title is shocking enough to get people’s attention to read more about the study because its very special and overturned the common view on the relationship between chocolate and weight losing. It is also very ironic because this reveal of effects of shoddy study also is a shoddy study itself, which spread the wrong information to a world wise by using the excuse of science. For those who really wanted to loss weight and read these article about chocolates aids to loss weight, it is very unfair and immoral because they may really believe it and start to eat too much chocolate every day in order to “loss weight”.
ReplyDeleteKQ1: What ways of knowing can cause our credulity in a certain claim?
Like mentioned above, people are too desperate to achieve one goal, which cause them to blindly believe anything they heard. Thus, the credulity is mainly caused by faith and emotion.
KQ2: What cause people to become rely on authority too much that they loss their independent and critical thoughts?
People usually put too much faith in authority. Day after day, they gain a habit which is to believe whatever is said by the famous people or other authorities. Eventually, they loss their ability to criticize and refute. This article made me thought about 1984, which people are so dull to even realize what is wrong and right.
This article reveals about our willingness to believe in such a trick due to our unconditional belief in science. Nowadays, a lot of people believe that science is a credible thing that contains knowledgeable information and reliable understandings. When something is labeled with “science”, people are likely to assume that thing to be true. In this case, people blindly trust this “scientific trick” without acknowledging the reliability behind it, which is the mistake to measure a large number of things about a small number of people.
ReplyDeleteThe credulity is also caused by a large number of people’s conviction. As this trick is spread out among medias all over the world, more and more people are consequently drawn into it. As a result, the minority that do not know much about this trick are gradually affected by those convinced ones, and start to be persuaded as they do.
KQ1: How does our emotions undermine logics to justify an scientific understanding?
Our emotions can certainly hinder our ability to judge something purely through logic, especially when they are intense. In this case, from the perspective of a lot of people who are eager to lose weight by eating chocolate primarily, when they see the results that fit their thought and need, they would immediately agree with it without anymore judgement such as looking at the process of the experiment and thinking about the reliability critically.
KQ2: To what extent does common belief affect an individual’s thought on one scientific approach?
Common beliefs can always affect individual’s thoughts to a large extent. For instance, as a lot of people are convinced by such a shoddy trick, a lot of individuals who do not primarily know a lot about this case are likely to be unconsciously convinced by such false credibility. If not completely drawn into such credulity, a large number of people are still not likely to judge this experiment critically since most people are calling it “reliable”. What remains apart of the common belief is only a tiny group of people who disregard other’s thoughts and insist on their own judgements.
There are a few things the study, and this article reveals about people. First of all, it’s obvious that people are going to want to believe chocolate helps them loose weight. Anyone would love an excuse to eat more chocolate. Even if the idea doesn’t really make sense, if people want it to be true, they’ll believe it. It also really shows the power the media has over the public. If information is published in enough places, it’ll be treated as fact, no matter what. That’s why it’s still so important to check the validity of the source every time. ALSO, scientific studies seem very official, and when people don’t really understand a topic (as is often the the case with science), they’re often likely to just believe it, rather than question what they don’t understand.
ReplyDeleteKQ1: How certain must we be in our beliefs for them to become truths?
This question should probably be phrased in another way: "Can our conviction cause a belief to become truth?”. However, if we can try to assume that the answer to that second question is yes, then it becomes a question of strength of mind and reason. If we can justify something to ourselves, does that make it true? Maybe not, but if we convince ourself that it is, then how do we disprove it?
KQ2: To what extent do emotions affect reason?
I think this is a fairly self explanatory question. It would seem that the consequences possibly compromised reasoning changes depending on the topic or AOK. In the humanities/history/the arts, it makes sense for opinions and thoughts to change based on personal feelings. However, in the sciences, especially the natural sciences, we can’t allow reason to be affected by emotion. Science is cold hard facts, and some things cannot be changed.
I think that the main reason why most believe in information backed by science rather than any other area of knowledge is because of how present science is in our daily lives. Almost every home has a tv, phone(s) of some sort, computer, and more. There are examples of science that we use constantly throughout our day, and although we use other areas of knowledge, they are more subtle. By constantly being subjected to scientific successes we are more likely to believe scientific facts when they are presented to us.
ReplyDeleteWithin this article, it does not talk about broccoli, avocados, or working out as a weight loss tip but rather chocolate. If articles worldwide were to hail broccoli or the other two things that I stated before as weight loss tips ,that would be both truthful and boring. Journalism today is not about being truthful but more about being interesting. Chocolate catches the eye and chocolate makes us want to read more- broccoli typically does not-and because it is an intriguing subject we want to believe it. The more impossible an articles subject-the more we want it to be true.
KQ #1: In what ways do sense perception help to heighten the credibility of a fact?
This question occurred to me when thinking about whether I would believe the hoax fact or not. Typically when I read about a new 'scientific' fact or study, it is easier for me to believe when I am given examples of that scientific theory at work, and especially when I can witness it myself. If I heard from multiple people that the chocolate hoax worked, or if they showed me how it worked for them, it would help me believe it more rather than just reading about it.
KQ #2: How can memory provide an explanation for facts or theories?
Most of science is proven through multiple failed and successful trials. The more successful trials there are to prove a fact, the more believable it is. If there are multiple instances within our memory that prove a theory or fact, the more likely we are to believe it.
This study is an example of how pseudoscience and people's dependence on popular media can lead to essentially useless data and an odd sort of mob mentality in which people trust a media source to give them scientifically accurate data.
ReplyDeleteKQ1: How does a knower's trust in the reliability of another source affect that knower's perception of new knowledge?
Although this example was deliberately intended to show that people will believe anything these days, many other "legitimate" examples of this sort of pseudoscience are out there. These examples include such myths as "dark meat causes cancer". The key to all of these pseudoscientific stories is that they define their study with a causative link. In a study of this sort, the scientists are supposedly observing the correlation between consumption of dark chocolate and lowered cholesterol. As the article says, although there are "significant" results, a correlative link is much weaker than a causative link. Even the educated consumer can fall for this false causation idea. My father has a PhD in communications and should, hypothetically, know that exaggeration is common in marketing. Yet the other day he forwarded me an email with the subject line "Okra Cures Depression: New Study". This email had been sent to him by one of his former professors and he trusted that professor's authority. After extensive testing and frying of okra, I have concluded that there is no direct causative link between okra and happiness, although okra is delicious and does make me happy while I'm eating it. My father's educational background should have allowed him to analyze this knowledge. A study of a small sample of supposedly depressed people eating allegedly well-cooked okra as part of an experiment published on Upworthy.com was not necessarily the most scientifically accurate study. Yet my father trusted his professor to send him emails with reliable data, and hence, he believed the Okra Lie.
KQ2: Does the amount of knowers contributing to an idea, study, or article, cause it to be more accurate than one with fewer contributors? How does this affect the perceived reliability of the source?
As seen in this example, a small sample of people being studied for a large amount of things does not produce truly correct and accurate data. However, studies of small groups and their behavior under different stimuli are not always inaccurate. For instance, the Zimbardo experiment, better known as the "Stanford Prison Experiment", used only 24 people. These 24 participants were assigned roles as either guards or prisoners and required to live as if they were in a prison for the duration of the experiment. Although a small number of participants were used, the Zimbardo experiment revealed that the prison environment quickly turned the 'guards' into sadists and the 'prisoners' into animalistic opportunists. (Those interested in reading more about the Zimbardo experiment can do so here http://www.prisonexp.org/)
Studies with small numbers of people can provide accurate and significant data. However, the Zimbardo experiment came from Stanford, a historically reliable source. Many people remembered that Stanford's studies had been accurate in the past, and were hence more inclined to believe Stanford's study than a hypothetical similar study conducted by the psychologists over at Buzzfeed labs. Memory plays a role in the understanding of authority; we trust people we trusted before, until they give us a reason not to. However, it is interesting to note that amateur scientists can and do make legitimate findings in their fields. In some cases, where the results are cold facts e.g. the equation explaining gravity, or the proportions of the human body, the credibility of the source does not affect the accuracy of the data. Many accurate and eventually respected theories have historically been made by outcasts from the scientific community. In other words, Da Vinci did it; why can't Buzzfeed?
This article reminded me of a post I saw on Tumblr that read something like "Study Reveals That Tumblr Users are 50% More Likely to Believe Fake Information on the Internet." I believed this headline just to scroll down and find out that the headline was a fake that some Tumblr user had created. That encounter and this article revealed to me that it is easy to be tricked by studies and headlines that look official. In both of these examples, the fake facts were things that people would either want to believe or didn't mind believing. For the Tumblr example, I believed the headline because it made sense to me and it wouldn't make huge difference in my life whether it was true or not. For the chocolate example, I think many people might believe it because who doesn't want another excuse to eat more chocolate? If it said something such as "Reading lowers your vocabulary and grammar skills," then I would be more suspicious and take a closer look at the source. Also, as something gains more popularity it is easier to believe since so many other people believe it.
ReplyDeleteKQ 1: In what ways does the credibility of knowledge rely on the faith of the knower?
Much of the value of a piece of knowledge lies in the faith that people put in that knowledge. There could be a fact that is true, but it has no value to people until they learn about it and accept it. In this case, many people put their faith in the article, increasing its value and credibility even though it was false information.
KQ 2: What role does emotion play in increasing the credibility of knowledge to a knower?
There are many times that emotion increases the credibility of a piece of knowledge to the knower. Emotion can have a big impact on whether someone believes knowledge or not. In this case, the idea of chocolate helping me lose weight would have made me happy, increased my positive vibes towards the information, and made it more credible to me.
In an internet age where many articles online are not accurate or are not founded in any real science, people turn to scientific journals for the truth. We believe what is printed in these journals because they are supposed to be reputable sources. However, not all scientific journals are run by dedicated scientists. Scientific journals are for-profit and scientists pay for their work to be featured in journals. Someone who was more interested in the profit to be made than double checking the science could have allowed for a fault article to be published. I do not think that the article was believed because people needed to, but because journalism, esp scientific journals have proven to be reliable in the past. However, it should be noted that the journalists responsible formatted media releases so that it would attract the necessary attention.
ReplyDeleteKQ 1: How can the memory of the use of certain words while discussing natural and human sciences elicit the same response despite the credibility of the subject being discussed?
In the article the way they got the readers to believe them by describing the results as "statistically significant." The use of scientific or "smart-sounding " words can confuse a reader into believing whatever is said because they do not understand. In the same vein, complex words associated with science or other research that was actually sound can confuse the reader due to word association. Similarly, if a word is only heard when spoken by very smart people (professors, scientists etc) then connotations may be added to it even if they are very far off from the denotations. Maybe since the writer of the fake article "talked the talk" it made people believe him.
KQ 2: Why is faith in previously reliable sources and fanatical headlines allowed to override reason?
It should be realized through basic knowledge that chocolate would not help weight loss. The idea actually contradicts everything learned in the science of life biology courses. However, faith in reliable sources and love for fanatical or radical headlines can sway people. If Neil deGrasse Tyson told me that I could survive in space without a space suit and then used big science terms that I had no idea what meant then I might believe him because 1) he's a reputable source and 2) that would be kind of awesome. Our lack of faith in our own knowledge and abilities lends us to put more credulity in others. It is easier to believe knowledge that contradicts what we previously thought if it comes from the right person.
This article reveals a great deal about people’s tendency to believe ideas they want to believe, ideas that are popular among belief at the time, and ideas that sound or look official. Journalism is an easy medium for exposing a substantial amount of information without limitation to the information’s validity. The article addresses a study completed with much room for error that was publicized and then believed by many to be true. To augment this, science has proven to be extremely beneficial to our world today. It has advanced and enhanced today’s society in a number of ways simply because of knowledge. Much of this knowledge is exposed via journalism. Scientific journals have the tendency to sound more official than others due to the knowledge that people currently have of its impact on today’s world.
ReplyDeleteKQ 1: Is it possible for journalism as a medium for exposing information, false or not, only employ one way of knowing for the reader?
I came up with this question after first exploring my answer. I believe that it’s impossible to understand and attempt to believe an idea without employing more than one way of knowing. Personally, when reading an article I find myself trying to relate to it emotionally or trying to connect it to some past memory. If the article poses an issue, I use reason as a way to understand the problem. Language is a way of knowing impossible to ignore if we are talking about journalism. It can either provide a barrier for the reader in the sense that if the writing is geared toward that of science people may be tricked into thinking it is valid just because of the author’s scientific eloquence. This is related to the study done on the effects of eating dark chocolate; people may have been more likely to believe the study was realistic due to its place in the realm of science or simply because they wanted to think eating chocolate would help them lose weight.
KQ 2: How can emotion work with sense-perception to provide a reason for our credulity?
I can’t remember if I have already wrote about I sign I drive by every so often in one of my past blog posts. Since it appears frequently and it fits in my answer, I will discuss it again. There’s a red sign posted on the side of the road with large white letters that spell out T H I N K. Every time I drive by it I can’t help but think about what I am doing as a driver. Clearly, its significance is to make the effort to aware drivers of the importance of safety and careful driving. I always have an emotional reaction to the sign considering its bright impact. In this case emotion and sense perception are intertwined. Similarly, when I opened the site for this article I was immediately drawn to the large picture of the chocolate before I read the title of the article. Therefore I became excited and content as I thought I was reading an article about chocolate. Here my emotion and sense perception worked together and fooled me into perceiving a different topic of the article I was about to read.
We live in a "click-bait" culture, where open access sites like Buzzfeed create intriguing headlines that will cause readers to click on links that help feed advertisers money. Therefore, I find the circumstances around the "chocolate improves weight-loss" study in no way unique. I recognize that it was supposed to serve as an example to remind us of the importance of peer review and dangers of unethical scientific methods, but all the same it presented a classic case of scientists ( or companies) using pseudo-science as a selling point. Both the scientists and journals which circulated the study were implicit in the hoax, by nature of their relationship. John Bohannon framed the study in such a way that it would be sensational, and he fed it to a media that he knew would crave money and could benefit from the boosted viewership and popularity such a study might cause. On their part, the journalists circulated the article without verifying the facts with an independent group of scientists. This study revealed the corruption that exists when science passes from the purely experimental, scholarly realm into the public sphere, in order to cater to a specific audience.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, language and emotion are the most prevalent ways of knowing that contribute to credulity. First, the erudite language presented in the study - For example, creating the "Institute of Diet and Health" and changing his name from "John Bohannon" to "Johannes Bohannon, Ph.D", - made it sound more professional and official, thus people were more likely to believe it at face value. Emotion is in involved because many people already love chocolate, and thus hearing a study that presents chocolate in a positive way causes people to react favorably towards that study. People will convince themselves of the legitimacy of the study because they want to believe that chocolate will improve their lives.
KQ1: In what ways must a knower to rely on her emotions in order to interpret and understand reason?
ReplyDeleteWhat I often see happen is that people will either confuse reason with emotion or use emotion to fill in the gaps of reasoning and to legitimize information, the latter of which I believe occurred for me in when reading about this study. Before I knew this study was a hoax, I was predisposed to believe it because chocolate is one of my favorite foods, and how awesome is it to eat chocolate and magically be healthy? When I read the statistics about the amount of reduced cholesterol levels eating chocolate created, I might not necessarily have understood what all the numbers and percentages meant but my predisposed emotional instinct told me to interpret the data positively. I used my emotions to compensate for my inability to understand the reasoning behind the study and to validate my convictions. My emotions allowed me to reach the same conclusions that was presented logically in the study using an alternate pathway.
KQ 2: How do the denotations of language contribute to the credibility of scientific information?
In the scientific field, there is an incredible amount of jargon ( a lot of it Latin) that is thrown around when conducting experiments and writing labs. The challenge presented is that before studies are published as fact they must be carefully peer-reviewed, thus scientist need to be able to see beyond all the incredibly descriptive and scholarly language in order to thoroughly evaluate information- and sometimes they don't because simply because a study sounds impressive and therefore accurate. For instance, in reading about the same study conducted by John Bohannon versus Johannes Bohannon Ph. D, the second sounds more reliable and credible because the author clearly appears more knowledgeable in his field and his conclusions are less likely to be questioned. By only slightly altering the language that is used in the title page, the credibility of the whole study increases significantly without necessarily even needing to delve further. Using language that references a Ph. D or the "Institute of Diet and Health" denotes reputable sources and intellect, thus amplifying the credibility of the scientific research.
KQ #1: In what ways do our emotions affect our ability to believe what we read?
ReplyDeleteI think that in the case of many people, the idea of chocolate helping lose weight wass something that was desirable because they like chocolate and so they were more likely to believe that because they wanted it to be true. I think that for me, since I do not like chocolate, if it were something such as a cup of tea with sugar for example, I might fall under that category of a person who would jump at a theory without considering the actual science behind it, simply because I would want it to be true. I also think that this is a somewhat scary thought because it means that there are people in our world who rely heavily on their emotions and who do not always consider the facts or whether or not they have the truth. This scares me because I know that people get the wrong information frequently and I am not sure what will happen when they do not stop to think about the consequences of acting on their incorrect information.
KQ #2: To what degree is a person responsible for actions taken based on incorrect answers?
I think that the answer to this question would rely on the incorrect information given. Granted, every person is responsible for the actions he or she takes, because we are all gifted with free will and the ability to question the world around us, but to some degree the giver of the incorrect information must be held to some account. I think that if a person is mislead and his or her actions cause severe problems, such as a death or other permanent damage, there is some fault by the person who mislead the original in the first place. This would especially be true if the person who did tthe misleading dd so knowingly, as was the case with the article. The scientists gave out faulty information to show how incorrect information could make media headlines. This shows that they knowingly mislead their readers and they risked causing said readers to lose trust in scientific newletters which rely on those readers for business and the scientists also risked causing health problems to their readers. While it is true that the editors and readers had the ability to search at any time more information on the subject, it is also important to keep in mind that the scientists would have been considered a reputable source, making that possiblity much less likely.