Coded to Not Trust Smart People

Dilbert is one of my favorite comics. The recent Sunday comic is a good one so click that link.

Dilbert creates a simulated world in software and programs the people in it to think they have free will. Dogbert asks what happens if they discover their true nature. Dilbert replies that he coded in some limitations to hamper that and describes a few of them. Read the full comic because they obviously correlate to our own limitations in this Universe.

I'll go ahead and reveal the punch line here for discussion. Dilbert coded the simulated people to not trust smart people so they won't question the simulation. Sometimes it seems like this is a painful part of our reality (or are we in a simulation?).

It's not a small minority who distrusts smart people, science, and anything else associated with intellect. There's a disturbing post about this at the Scientific America blog called (Dis)trust in Science. The article pins it on this very thing you're using to read this. "The rise of the internet and, more recently, social media is key to explaining the declining public confidence in expert opinion."

The article has a bleak assessment:

Our information ecosystem and credibility mechanisms are broken. Only a third of Americans trust scientists and most people can’t tell the difference between truth and falsehood online. The lack of trust in science—and the excessive trust in persuasive purveyors of misinformation—is perhaps the biggest threat to our society right now. If we don’t turn back from the brink, our future will not be a dream: it will be a nightmare.

The mindset of distrust in science appears to be the same mindset relying on faith for their beliefs. I really don't understand rejecting the scientific method which humbly seeks to let reality speak for itself. Religion demands unquestioning faith in their claims even if it contradicts new evidence. Science builds up claims from observation and predictions for how things actually work.

The scientific method supports a theory only when its predictions can be confirmed. Science must challenge a theory when its predictions prove false since the goal of science is to reveal the existing truths of reality. Questions are expected and add to discovery. In contrast, religion challenges questions and seeks to conceal itself in mystery.

Religious dogma doesn’t work under the scrutiny of the scientific method. Science embraces criticism and deals with it directly. Science isn’t afraid to be updated with newly discovered truths since scientific discovery demands we question everything.

I have no intention of contributing to the mess. I'm pointing this out to remind people to not blindly follow anything you read. Please try to make your own reasoned judgement and verify your sources. The article links to The Pro-Truth Pledge which combines the struggle against misinformation with science advocacy.

I've reviewed the pledge and agree with it as a signatory so hold me accountable if I don't live up to those standards. I try to operate with facts as verifiable truths as much as possible since I view that as a core feature of agnosticism.