Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
1–10 of 132 posts
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#2I think it's pretty obvious to everyone what the downsides of people being ignorant are, I would be more interested in seeing some work trying to measure or quantify the damage done by people blindly following mainstream consensus that turns out to be incorrect
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#3I think it's pretty obvious to everyone what the downsides of people being ignorant are, I would be more interested in seeing some work trying to measure or quantify the damage done by people blindly following mainstream consensus that turns out to be incorrect
This article is not about ignorance per se. It is about views in opposition to well-established consensus, e.g. "rejection of vaccines or opposition to climate change mitigation policies." These views are highly damaging to society and individuals.
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#4It is my experience that listening to experts normally is a good idea, but the idea of a scientific journal publishing research that we should all listen to scientists and not hold anti-consensus views, has more than a little possibility for bias on the part of the researchers. Moreover, would it not be odd if those who held anti-consensus views were not overconfident? People of average or lower-than-average confidence would defer to the consensus. It's almost like saying "people who disagree with others more, are more disagreeable".
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#5I think it's pretty obvious to everyone what the downsides of people being ignorant are, I would be more interested in seeing some work trying to measure or quantify the damage done by people blindly following mainstream consensus that turns out to be incorrect
You’re in luck, the article speaks to exactly that question!
Specifically, it says that the people “following mainstream consensus” are actually less likely to do so “blindly”, i. e. overconfidently.
So the answer would seem to be: rather low.
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#6I don't know anything about the subject, but I scored pretty high in overconfidence and I totally disagree with this scientifically sound, peer reviewed paper...
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#7I think it's pretty obvious to everyone what the downsides of people being ignorant are, I would be more interested in seeing some work trying to measure or quantify the damage done by people blindly following mainstream consensus that turns out to be incorrect
That would be interesting i know how it has personally effected me and others. All i can gather is that over time the people blindly following mainstream consensus are isolating themselves together and getting more and more radical ideas.
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#8> Consuming foods with ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming foods modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
In surveys, everything hinges on how you phrase your question. In this case, I'm compelled to agree: I don't believe there's a health risk from eating GM crops.
I do think GM crops are bad, though, because they are associated with strain patenting and seedless plants; because they contaminate neighbouring organic plots with non-organic DNA; because they are often sold in conjunction with herbicides; and frankly, because I hate the way their lobbyists act on our legislators.
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#9Wow, Science has stooped to a new low. I could picture this in Pravda way more easily.
So Copernicus was overconfident in his anti-consensus view?
Re: Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views
#10It is my experience that listening to experts normally is a good idea, but the idea of a scientific journal publishing research that we should all listen to scientists and not hold anti-consensus views, has more than a little possibility for bias on the part of the researchers. Moreover, would it not be odd if those who held anti-consensus views were not overconfident? People of average or lower-than-average confiden…
It's saying that people who hold anti-(scientific)consensus views generally believe themselves to be more well-educated than they actually are. That's a far cry from merely being disagreeable. It doesn't seem to say anything about actually knowledgeable scientists holding anti-consensus views, except insofar as to reiterate the thesis.