To questions on, for instance global warming, you get a whole lot of different answers from the glib/humorous to the earnest/detailed. I enjoy the answers that make me laugh and appreciate those from folk who know something about the subject but that leaves a lot from folk who - whilst they may be very nice people - have some scarily uninformed views. Everyone has a right to speak - and that's to be encouraged - but there's a lot of complete nonsense written in this science category.
2006-09-26 08:18:37 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Funny isn't it. By and large, people who don't have children don't feel compelled to answer questions on parenting, but anyone who has ever seen an episode of Star Trek feels empowered to offer an authoritative answer on any aspect of science. There is, as you say, a great deal of ignorance on display. 'Scarily uninformed' is a term that probably applies to 90% of the world's population on 90% of important issues.
There is also a lot of academic snobbery, where someone (possibly a youngster) has asked a sincere, if naive question, and gets a condescending answer from some frustrated would-be rocket scientist. I guess you just have to take the rough with the smooth.
Take heart that whilst people are typing stupid answers on here, they are at least taking time off from being stupid parents, stupid drivers and stupid voters!
2006-09-26 08:55:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, it depends on the catorgary that the question is in.
I haven't really added many answers on here, mainly because I don't have time, and if someone has already responded to a question similarly to I would, then I don't see the point in duplicating answers.
Unfortunately the system itself seems to cause the problem, as by answering questions you can gain points (for whatever good they do?!), or even win prizes (sure I heard that on the radio the other day). So people will add answers copied from the previous responses, maybe "flowered up" to get their points for answering, or give their "gut feeling" (see previous answer above!!) which usually is half wrong and very uninformed at best.
The answer - Yahoo stops giving prizes; no points system - everyone can see everything and vote on anything, etc and people might then keep themselves to the topics they have indepth knowledge of - and the website return to the what I'm sure was the ideal of it's creation, namely to provide an alternative to looking through encyclopeadia or reference books.
2006-09-28 11:10:41 · answer #2 · answered by robbiec1980 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This site is the ultimate example of "truthiness". Truthiness is a modern phenomena wherein truth is dictated by consensus. For example, if enough people agree that Alaska was the least populated state in 1909, then it must be true, although Alaska wasn't even a state in 1909. Truthiness can also be defined as "truth from the gut", as in "I know that our government did 9/11 and nothing anyone can tell will make me believe otherwise", therefore the GUT belief becomes fact (to the person). If 48% of New Yorkers polled believe that our government had prior knowledge to the terrorist attacks, and they convince another 3%, does that make it fact? Many today would argue yes. Somewhere along the line a frighteningly large proportion of our society stopped KNOWING with their head and started BELIEVING with their gut, and knowing and believing have become interchangeable, and that is why on this site you will get confident, concise, deliberate, well thought out, WRONG answers.
(this could be another)
2006-09-26 15:38:09 · answer #3 · answered by mrknositall 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just a few thoughts on your interesting, but probably unanswerable question:
First, although there are probably a disproportionate number of Americans here, this site isn't visited by any one society alone.
Computer ownership probably isn't representative, skewing the population on this site.
People who have a lot to do in their lives probably spend less time here than people who are unemployed or who are avoiding work.
Also, given the number of questions posed, only a very small proportion of people who happen to be logged in at the time will see a given question.
And, many people on this site stay within one or a few categories, so people who stay in the Entertainment section, for example, won't see a question on global warming.
And, at least one person on the site puts interesting questions in her computer dock, and visits them in turn. This gives time for people to answer. If what I have to say has been said, I usually don't respond. Dunno how common I am though, being somewhat of a freak in general.
People click on those questions that get them most hyped up (in either direction).
So, there's an unrepresentative subset plugged in to their computers, an unrepresentative subset of them on the site, an unrepresentative subset of them who see the question, ditto for click the question, ditto for click Answer This Question.
You could check out websites of polling organizations, and see if what they find looks like what you see here.
But, yes, there are all too many, as you say "scarily uninformed" folks around. And, yes, their viewing, buying, and voting patterns govern our lives with their ill-informed choices.
2006-09-26 17:24:00 · answer #4 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Part of the problem and the reason Yahoo is so popular is that many of us do not trust the authoritative organizations who propose these national issues. Global warming is one that rewards doomsday sayers for their alarmist ways. Did you know that one volcanic eruption spews more of the gasses they claim are ruining our climate than all the production and automobile use in the world in one year. What has the earth been doing with all these gasses for centuries? Is our climate dependent on ozone? Ozone is created by ultra violet light splitting oxygen molecules and by lightning burning through the atmosphere. Ozone has a half life of 20 minutes (the split oxygen molecules rejoin within 20 minutes) so it is created as fast as it dissipates.
Truthiness is an issue, but it is an issue within government, media, and academia as well.
Another example is Darwin's theory of evolution. Facts of the theory are; Darwin himself denounced the theory before his death, no conclusive, evidence has ever been found, all the arguments for the theory are dependent on unprovable theorem. It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a Designer, God.
http://judgeright.blogspot.com
2006-09-26 16:31:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree to the nonsense...i also find it annoying when people say your talking a load of crap when your actually right. Ive had that before...and yes i am getting sick of telling people CFCs affect the ozone layer...not burning fossil fuels. I still get told im wrong by these simple folk lol
2006-09-26 17:38:59 · answer #6 · answered by jo88 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not representative at all, I would think. Everyone has a right to air their opininion, but unless they KNOW something for certain as fact, it's best to ensure the view given is expressed as an opinion, I think :-)
2006-09-26 19:34:05 · answer #7 · answered by PAUL H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that is the point of this forum. You get all different types of answers that do represent all different types of society from all different types of backgrounds. That's what makes it so great.
2006-09-26 15:22:41 · answer #8 · answered by motheroftwo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont try to speak or represent society when i answer , i answer from experience i have had with in the subject.
2006-09-26 15:27:10 · answer #9 · answered by lilredhead 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer (at least for now) is in the eye of the beholder.
2006-09-26 15:21:26 · answer #10 · answered by NOIZE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋