Why can't people just accept evidence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7495837.stm

by pierrefar • 18 years ago

12 15 18 years ago

news.bbc.co.uk

bdfh42• 18 years ago

Two problems here.

The most fundamental problem is that we are talking (in this instance) about belief systems. People seem programmed to reject even positive evidence that conflicts with their belief systems - just as they ignore the complete absence of evidence supporting things like religious faiths, fairies at the bottom of the garden etc.

The second problem is that very few of us are taught how to assess evidence. Most lack the skills required to judge the relevance and likely accuracy of what is presented. Evidence (I know) to support this hypothesis can be gleaned from almost any daily newspaper - most items are written by intelligent human beings but the results lack any analysis that reflects an ability to process evidence properly.

pierrefar4• 18 years ago

I agree 100%. My initial question was from the final quotes from Paul Robins who seems to assess the evidence correctly ("This study has shown that there's no proof that acupuncture can help") and then pivots into close-mindedness by saying "that suggests that there should be lots more studies to examine the question. I'm convinced it can help."

I want to see him come up with well-controlled studies to support his conviction.

gm2• 18 years ago

Why people can't accept evidence? What do you know as "truth"? Just look at the title of the article: "Acupuncture 'no help for IVF'"

See the single quotes around the key statement? Even the reporter does not want to endorse the truthfulness of the statement. Wise choice, since the content of the article states something that is, at least up to a point, opinion.

Rather your question should be: "Why do some people, like myself, so readily accept incomplete facts as absolute truths?" Take heed and listen to bdfh42's comments about assessing evidence. He is right on the money, no need for me to repeat what he stated.

pierrefar4• 18 years ago

The single quotes are very common on the BBC in headlines and are used inaccurately for direct quotes. Don't ask me why they do that. It's in no way suggestive that the reporter is or is not endorsing the statement.

And it's not opinion. Looking at 2000+ women over 50 years is not merely opinion. It's a lot stronger evidence than "I'm really surprised by this result", which most certainly is opinion. Statistical anlysis does not care about experience, and when done properly it speaks in the cold hard truth that any effect we may have observed previously is spurious.

For myself, I'll happily accept the stats that the article talks about now as the best objective evidence we have now, and will happily change my mind when new evidence emerges.

m0nty• 18 years ago

"Don't ask me why they do that."

Because the BBC is funded by a mandatory licence fee (TV tax) and so it must appear even-handed and balanced. If they're not, people complain that "I pay my licence fee but the BBC is mocking my deeply-held beliefs." It really annoys me sometimes ("Islamist terrorists" rather than "Muslim terrorists") but in other respects they are an excellent source of information.

gm2• 18 years ago

That's fine, no one is trying to convince you. I personally have no stake at all in changing your mind, nor did I imply so. Don't feel threatened.

I was just trying to say that people identify themselves with a viewpoint and then their ego silently but consistently defends the viewpoint since defeating the viewpoint diminishes the ego's self-worth. Reading an article, for example, then becomes an analysis, "friend or foe." It is either something to agree with and reinforce the ego's stance or something to attack since the ego is being threatened.