Tried the Concordant colours / Discordant colours test. 8 seconds and no mistakes in both cases. I don’t know what that might suggest to a ‘scientist’ but to me it says that I, at the age of 70 can pass a kindergarden reading test.
On the basis of that I will continue to be sceptical of all ‘science’ until I have subjected it to my own logical examination.
Here’s an example of why we mistrust science. Think of the health warnings on cigarette packs, don’t know the exact wording outside the UK, but I’d guess everywhere in the Anglosphere they’re quite similar to ours, a range of short, scaremongering sentences,one of which reads “Smoking Causes Cancer.”
If you were, in an internet comment thread, to point out that statistics prove it doesn’t I guarantee you will attract a shit storm of criticism most of which will inform you that smoking does cause cancer, the science is settled on this.
On the other hand everyone can cite an Uncle Charlie or someone (Aunt Millie in my case,) who smoked X number of cigarettes a day for over sixty years and does of old age.
Such people are told that is anecdotal and not admissible in a scientific debate. It may be anecdotal but it is also scientific. If one makes a statement like “Smoking causes cancer,” then it only need one person who is a regular smoker and lives out their natural term, eventually dying on other causes (and there are plenty of other causes linked to smoking — I’m not supporting the tobacco lobby here,) to prove the statement wrong.
A quick calculation (from a very complex dataset) shows that for the UK in the 1980s, 15% of male smokers developed lung cancer, only 8% of female smokers did. So statistics show that smoking does not cause cancer (though it may be a very big contributory factor,) but other factors are at work. This is backed up by the existence of a small number of non — smokers who develop lung cancer. These facts were noted by a Scottish judge in dismissing a case brought by a widow who was trying to sue tobacco companies for causing the death of her husband.
SMOKING TOBACCO IS DAMAGING TO HEALTH, there is no realistic argument against that, I chose it as an example of why science is not trusted because it is one of the most controversial, due to the demonization of smoking. The case is that ordinary people are not stupid (the jury is still out on scientists,) they instinctively know when statistics are being twisted to make a false case.
This has been very apparent in the case of the climate change scare, few people are fooled when they read that the proof of global warming is obtained from mathematical models which are fed “adjusted data.” As the 19th century British politician George Canning said, “I can make statistics tell me anything except the truth.”
So while science is not always wrong, we should always mistrust it, especially when statistics are being twisted and distorted to point to desired conclusions.