Why are we expected to accept mainstream science blindly?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why are we now expected to blindly accept mainstream science and not question it even though the way you make scientific breakthroughs is to question science in the first place?”

Science is about asking questions because every established scientific fact and theory accepted by “mainstream science” is a transparent data repository.

Let’s first address this notion of “mainstream science” for the abomination of prejudice it is. There is no distinction between “mainstream science” and “non-mainstream science.” There are not multiple streams of acceptable sciences. There is “fringe science,” which involves investigations into concepts not grounded in science, but at least attempts to follow the investigative methodologies of science to prove their conjectures. “Fringe sciences” conforming to this definition include investigations into aliens, the afterlife, and all the supernatural. These are specious leaps of the imagination without grounding in proven scientific principles.

Any of the many investigators who have looked into these phenomena could identify something previously undetected. They can then provide evidence of their discovery through a context conforming to scientific rigour. Their findings can then be validated by any party’s ability to replicate their results predictably. If third party tests validate the propositions made, then their discoveries are incorporated into what you want to refer to disparagingly as “mainstream science.”

In the media world, “mainstream” refers to popularity while “fringe” refers to often extremist and not-popular venues of presenting information. There exists no validation system within media to ensure accuracy of the information presented. Your use of “mainstream science” attempts to transpose the chaotic nature of information presented within a media context onto a discipline built upon rigorous processes to ensure accuracy and transparency.

You’re not “expected to believe anything” that has been accepted by “mainstream science” but if you have questions, you have every right to repeat the tests conducted to derive the results described within each scientifically accepted fact or theory.

Nothing within the discipline of science expects anyone to believe anything. The expectation is that you disbelieve and question everything. The problem lies in the degree of effort people put into their investigations before accepting or rejecting any scientifically credible fact or theory.

When people pose questions like this, they admit to a poor understanding of the scientific process and approach their criticism with an arrogant form of indignity — as if they’re being lied to. The harsh reality, however, is that they are admitting to wallowing in ignorance and expect the world and the science discipline to cater to their personal biases like profit-chasing enterprises in media do.

When such minds reject a scientifically credible fact or theory, they’re not rejecting valid science or identifying flaws within testing methodologies, data collected, or conclusions. They are indulging in a wholesale dismissal of an entire branch as an excuse for failing to study their subject sufficiently to identify flaws. They’re indulging in pure bias — subjectively driven drivel.

We see this nonsense play out in every space a believer indulges in dumping their biases onto the world while pretending to possess enough of an understanding of science to dismiss the work of an uncountable number of professionals dedicating their lives to discovery. Professional scientists adhere to principles of integrity that can reveal fundamental and profound truths about the universe we inhabit. We cannot learn anything without rigorous discipline practiced with integrity, no matter how much the ignorati wish to drag the only means by which we, as humans, have developed for acquiring knowledge into an abyss of prejudicial ignorance.

The garbage perpetually barfed up by the scientifically illiterate is obnoxious, and it seems never to be cured by our species as it recurs like a herpes virus. After all the years of addressing the fundamental misapprehension of humans evolving from apes and the multitude of memes and discussions online about how utterly idiotic that degree of ignorance is, someone posed that question yesterday — and with righteous indignity. I couldn’t believe my eyes. “If humans evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist?” — the degree of blind stupidity in this question is abhorrent on far too many levels to tolerate. We cannot afford to tolerate this threat of ignorance to our survival as a species.

Yet, this is the kind of mind that believes science is the equivalent of mainstream media, and they are entitled to regard a massive branch of science as a repository of opinions, not facts. They dare to be arrogant enough to believe themselves entitled to be angry with people lying to them. The ignorance in such a position is appalling. It’s like a two-year-old child telling an adult that two-plus-two doesn’t equal four — then they stamp their feet and demand to be told they’re right.

That’s how your question was perceived when I first read it.

That’s what prompted me to check out your profile because this screams ignorance of science and I suspected first, that you were a troll who knows better and barfs up provocative nonsense for the insipid sake of getting a reaction… but you’re not.

Your profile indicates that you’re sincere in your questions, and that’s horrifying AF. I can accept how you might be a youth still in grade school, but if you’re a high school graduate, this question is an indictment of your education.

I feel sorry for you, but worse, is that I’m horrified for a nation that is poised to start another world war that almost guarantees human civilization as we know it will be destroyed forever. If that happens, the main culprit won’t be utterly evil monsters vying for power, but the ignorance of the poorly educated.

Is it okay to tell your religious family that you have atheist views?

Chances are excellent that if you have to ask strangers online, you’re already concerned about their reactions.

That should be a huge red flag, especially after reading some of the horror stories in the answers already given.

Your parents have spent a lifetime being who they are and believing what they do.

Their vision for having children was miniature versions of themselves who they could accept may take a different path than they took for themselves but would at least hold the same values they do.

As you may have noticed, religious beliefs are not like most other beliefs people have about different things in life.

Religious beliefs are personal identities, group associations, and a support structure where opportunities in life are found.

They will view their religious beliefs as a prescription for success in life and a symbol of unity within their family. All their children sharing in their beliefs means they will have become successful parents who have given their children their best chances at leading a happy and rewarding life like they feel religion has done for them.

Rejecting their religious beliefs will be interpreted as a rejection of their parenting.

It may not make sense to think of religious beliefs you don’t share on this level in that way. The reactions you will get from them if you insist on having them see you on a different path to self-development, self-discovery, and self-discipline than they took will show you what a wedge in your relationship will feel like.

They may initially show some acceptance because they love you more than their adherence to their beliefs, but that acceptance will grow into a distance between you.

You will eventually discover their open embrace of you, and your accomplishments will be responded to with increasing disinterest.

During periods of conflict, they may claim they no longer understand you and will blame your straying from their beliefs as the cause. They will look for scapegoats to blame and begin criticizing your choice of friends, the school you attend, or the video games you play.

Anything they can use to justify how you are not choosing to betray them willingly, they will weaponize during open conflicts you might have. If you have never experienced open conflicts with them before, you likely will afterwards.

To answer your question directly, it’s okay to be who you are, and it’s even recommended in a world where you will spend your entire life fighting to preserve who you believe yourself to be, but you will have to learn to pick your battles in life, and some are just not worth fighting.

Eroding one of the most important relationships you will ever have is not a battle anyone should take lightly, particularly in a world where a whopping majority (70%-80%) of families are dysfunctional. Suppose you have a happy family life as it currently stands. In that case, you might want to accept how that’s already a treasure beyond what most experience. It may not be worth giving that up to have them accept what you believe in yourself because your assertion could very well end up in your rejection.

You can certainly continue to question your views on religious beliefs, and you should continue to do that for the rest of your life because that’s how you will grow as a person. Understand, though, that it is always a personal journey one takes. As much as one would like to share every intimate detail of that journey with others, it’s impossible with almost every other person one will encounter.

Your personal development journey will always be your journey. The rest of everything you encounter will be about how to get along with the people in your life so that your life isn’t made any more complicated than it already is or will be.

Good luck with your journey through this nuthouse.

What do you think of a person who dismisses what you believe to be true?

I don’t.

I also don’t put much faith in my beliefs. I prefer facts and knowledge. If people dismiss them, they’re more likely to be trapped by their beliefs.

It’s their choice but also my choice to avoid dealing with people who dismiss facts in favour of whatever beliefs they may hold.

I think much more highly of a person who does not adhere to beliefs and of people who process facts in ways that contribute to our shared knowledge of a subject.

I am often happier when someone offers a rational response that increases my knowledge of a subject than if someone responds with beliefs to facts I may have provided. My goal is always to expand my knowledge rather than convince others to believe as I may. I prefer to transcend my beliefs with knowledge because that’s what I value most.

A lot of dialogue between people suffers because people conflate facts and beliefs. I think beliefs create barriers between people and kill one’s learning ability.

I think beliefs are egotistical and responsible for most, if not all, conflicts between people, but I’m willing to think otherwise if people can offer facts to contradict this belief.

I have otherwise lost almost all my tolerance for people who entrench themselves in beliefs they feel compelled to impose upon others.

I feel similarly to people who respond to facts by dismissing them. They’re not worth my time, nor do I care if that’s what they choose for themselves.

I am far more interested in engaging with people who offer facts than I am in engaging with beliefs.

To return to my first sentence, I have no thoughts about my beliefs being dismissed because I don’t value beliefs due to being skeptical of all beliefs. I also know that most people I encounter tend to favour beliefs over facts.

It’s like I don’t pay much heed to religious people or their beliefs until I find myself dealing with any specific one of them. I also don’t use much cognitive energy thinking about them as people when they express their beliefs because that would make me guilty of wallowing in my own beliefs.

People are entitled to their beliefs, and a big part of life is learning how to cope with the beliefs they hold.

There but for the grace of God go I.

I am amused that I can often quote religious references as an atheist, and that tells me how deeply penetrating beliefs can be.

It’s why I don’t trust beliefs.

There may be some wisdom in some beliefs, but they’re just temporary conclusions, while some have more staying power than others.

Once I’m dead, I won’t believe anything.