Unfortunately the reality in science isn't always as good as the ideal, but because it's science it's possible to demonstrate the existence of these problems and overcome them. Recent research has revealed that there is a correlation between how "trendy" a field is and how many errors appear in that field's research papers. It's one more demonstration that even though science isn't perfect, scientists can use science's methods to reveal and overcome those problems.
Researchers have previously suspected that trendy fields may attract spurious results, for two reasons. First, because there are greater rewards for getting positive results, so there is a stronger incentive to massage data or ignore outliers. Second, because more groups test trendy hypotheses. This would lead to more negative results, too, but the positive ones get reported more.
Now biologist Thomas Pfeiffer at Harvard University has found that "popular" results are indeed less reliable - at least those regarding protein interactions in yeast. Such interactions are of huge interest because they identify links between genes and their function.
Source: New Scientist, July 4, 2009
Can you imagine anything even vaguely similar happening in religion? I don't expect we'll ever see a priest or theologian announcing that popular religious beliefs should be subjected to greater critical scrutiny and held to stricter standards of proof or evidence before being accepted. Perhaps that's why religion and theology never produce any useful, reliable knowledge about the world whereas science -- imperfect as it is -- consistently produces very useful knowledge which improves our lives.
Well, since the popular (and therefore obviously true) opinion is that the Sun and all the Heavenly Bodies revolve around the Earth, I’ll be burning anyone who disagrees at the stake. Besides, science shows that the fewer disagreers there ARE, then the more POPULAR that opinion will be! And therefore truer!
Gosh, if only we could make LAWS which could open the eyes of the disbelievers and FORCE them to see/live things our/the popular way!
Oh, wait, there ARE, right Maine?
The really irritating thing about the use of the “popular=true” argument is that, almost without fail, they will include people who disagree with them in their voting bloc.
For example, a Christian will argue that the popularity of “Christianity” indicates that it’s true, but this includes all the different and mutually exclusive Christianities (38,000 at last count, I think). When you actually look at the specific Christianity to which the Christian in question subscribes, it’s as much of a minority view as anything else. So, according to their argument, it can’t be true.
And some will even have the nerve to claim that, because there are so many “religious people” or so many people who “believe in God”, that there must be something to religion or God. As if all these people don’t belong to thousands of totally exclusive sects from all over the world, with competing theologies, explanations and rules.
It’s almost as if they know their beliefs are nonsense and are grasping for any straw they can so they won’t have to face up to thaT fact. But I couldn’t possibly comment…
Very common indeed…I get this “argument” from both my parents and my in-laws.
After describing how behaviors that can be described as altruistic are being documented in various animals, and in the human line this is thought to have evolved into an innate morality, no god required. My mother-in-law, taking the ueber-Catholic side, said, “Well, there are more people that think like me than think like you.”
Says I, “But that doesn’t make it true.”
A related issue: My father comes up with a statement that, “There are lots of doctors and lawyers – who are smart, educated people – who believe in God. Are they all morons?”
Says I, “They are carrying on in a delusion that was pounded into them in childhood.”
via sonord:
That’s another one of those arguments that even the person making the argument would realise was ridiculous if made about any subject other than religion, isn’t it? I mean, nobody seriously thinks that having at least one incorrect opinion makes you a moron, do they?
Nobody agrees with everyone about everything, so if that criteria applied then everyone would consider everybody else to be a moron, and the term would become useless.
And those smart, educated people don’t all believe in the same god, either. There are smart, educated Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Sunni Muslims, Shi’a Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc. etc. and at most only one can be right. But they can all be wrong, and they fact that there are so many gods that seem to provide the same effects suggests that they’re all wrong, and for probably the same psychological reasons.
As you say, they’ll have had it pounded into them in childhood, probably along with a host of other silly beliefs that they can’t quite shift.