Income is an important determinant of people's satisfaction with their lives, but it is far less important than most people think.If everyone had the same income, the differences among people in life satisfaction would be reduced by less than 5%.We are here not looking for tools with which research scientists might benefit their science.We are looking for tools to help non-scientists understand science better, and equip them to make better judgments throughout their lives.
The club usually has its Pope(s), hierarchical priesthood, acolytes and a set of guiding assumptions and accepted norms that are zealously guarded almost with religious fervor.
That's probably part of the story, but let's be optimistic and concentrate on something remediable: lack of training in how to think critically, and how to discount personal opinion, prejudice and anecdote, in favour of evidence.
I believe that the double-blind control experiment does double duty. It also has educational, didactic value in teaching people how to think critically.
Why do half of all Americans believe in ghosts, three quarters believe in angels, a third believe in astrology, three quarters believe in Hell?
Why do a quarter of all Americans and believe that the President of the United States was born outside the country and is therefore ineligible to be President?
If all schools taught their pupils how to do a double-blind control experiment, our cognitive toolkits would be improved in the following ways: 1. Do you need language — including words — for sophisticated thinking or do they merely facilitate thought?