For Jason Kuznicki says he does not grok relativity:
“I’ve read several books about evolutionary theory, and they seem convincing to me. I’ve read Darwin. I’ve read Gould. I’ve read Dennett. In college, my physical anthropology textbooks made sense to me, although I admit I’ve forgotten their authors’ names. I haven’t read Dawkins, but I suspect I can do without him. I’m already quite convinced.
Now this is not always the case when I read about science. I’ve also read several books about relativity, and I’m not convinced. The stuff just makes no sense to me, and I sort of have to shrug and give up. Where my rational side agrees that evolution is correct, I’m taking relativity on the authority of others. You don’t really want to hear what my rational side says about relativity. It’s too embarrassing.
I strongly suspect that most non-scientists who say otherwise about relativity are either talking out their asses or else have turned relativity into a sort of well-boundaried micro-religion… They can’t explain it, but fie on you if you don’t believe. Now, plenty of people do not, in fact, believe it, and not because it is nonsensical to them, but because they have never tried to understand it — what they’ve heard about it gives them the howling fantods, and they give up before they try.”
(For the full context, follow the links via DeLong’s blog.)
Even if you have read Darwin and Gould and Dennett and Dawkins, don’t kid yourself into thinking that you have been able to make some sort of independent, non-authority-appealing judgment about the evidential basis of a complex scientific theory, unless you have serious training in that field. Even if you think you understand it, and can follow each of the evidential steps laid out in a rigorous introductory textbook, you’re not making an independent judgment.
An introductory textbook (not to mention a popular book) simply cannot cover all of the subtleties and limits to the experimental lines of evidence that support various aspects of evolutionary biology. Without more knowledge, you simply can’t make a reliable independent judgment. You can get a decent idea of what kinds of arguments and evidence scientists use to support their conclusions, but you don’t really have any independent idea of how good they are.
If mature, core scientific theories like evolution or relativity seem convincing to you, great. But don’t fool yourself that you’re not relying on the authority of others. The flip side of this is that, if they don’t seem convincing to you, you should just buck up and rely on the authority of others.
Obviously scientists can be wrong, so here’s the rule: Believe the conclusions of a well-established scientific consensus, supported by multiple lines of evidence and typically years or decades of work.
It’s not a perfect rule, but given science’s track record, it’s your best bet.
The Finch and Pea 
One thought on “The Conundrum of the Layman”