SCIENTISTS INSIST THAT THEY ARE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY REALLY ARE!

WELL, MOST OF THE TIME.

This incident had happened some ten years back. I was attending a function along with some of my relatives. One of my cousins failed to turn up. When asked why, her sister told us that she was suffering from 'Monkeygunya'!

'There is no disease called Monkey Gunya", I insisted, "And even the World Health Organisation has not registered it! It is just a medical rumour and at best the disease is nothing but Chikungunya which some doctors might have mistaken and given the new name. Some people confuse the symptoms of hand, foot and mouth disease for Monkeygunya. However, there is a "Monkey fever" or Kyasanur forest fever transmitted by as two species of monkeys which are known to harbour the virus. Monkey fever was prevalent in late 1960s and early 1970s. This fever also has similar symptoms of chikungunya like muscle pain and nausea'.

"You are wrong! There is a disease called Monkeygunya. The doctor told us", my cousin was adamant.

"The doctor must be an alternative medicine practitioner, not the real one", I told my cousin.

"Even some news channels have reported it", my cousin said.

"What do journalists know about it? They just report anything anybody says without confirming the authenticity of the news", I told my cousin.

"Oh, stop this argument", one of my aunts had scolded us. Later even my sister had reprimanded me for arguing with my cousin.

And I was distressed. Not because I was wrong or made an argument with my cousin. Not because I had ego problems and wanted to be seen 'right' always. Not because I was arrogant.

My only aim was to remove misconceptions. I am from the field of science. Here we have to make corrections when we know something is wrong for certain. We cannot let ignorant people spread false information and mislead people.

And that is the problem! That is the reason why scientists are branded as arrogant!

BUT, many scientists have to defend science against irrational opinions and beliefs. When a non-expert has an opinion different from an expert in the field, I think the expert has earned a right to be more authoritative. I don't think it is fair to call this arrogance.

The problem is  several of the characteristics of arrogant people are similar to the characteristics of 'learned' people.

Arrogant people believe that they know more than they do, and they will talk as if they are experts. Scientists will also talk like experts, often because they are experts! If you're not an expert yourself it may be tricky to tell them apart.

Arrogant people won't listen to others and don't like to take input or criticism. Scientists will also ignore 'nonsense' from other people, because they understand what they're doing is right and better than the people who are giving them an 'advise'. 

Arrogant people may put others down by correcting them or try to make themselves feel good by making other people feel inferior. Scientists can make other people feel inferior simply by being smarter.

That is the reality! Many smart people cross the fine line between the two, either because they don't realise how they come over there or because they don't care. And in some sense they have a point - if you're right and you know you're right it can be tiresome to deal with someone who clearly doesn't understand something as well as you do, especially if they don't realise it. This is very unfortunate. It's a tough situation to be in.

In my encounters with the non-scientific world, I have seen some people who are really interested in knowledge and genuinely try to understand what I say. These are a pleasure to talk to. However, some others with half knowledge - try to argue, refuse to see the facts and waste my time. The second type of folks make scientists impatient and naturally they get irritated. Scientists only ask people to stop spreading ignorance. It causes people who have very valuable and expensive time to have to stop their work to correct the dangerous ignorance of the mistaken beliefs.

Well, I try to be as patient as possible because I know ordinary world should be treated in a different way from the scientific world. However, sometimes arguments become unavoidable here.

That is the reason why some scientists even refuse to talk and communicate with people outside of their world. One of my scientist friends says, 'Unless I know the person, I'm probably not going to want to take the time to explain all the background knowledge I have on a topic I know a lot about. I may not want to take the time to explain confirmation vs. representation biases or the scientific method or the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Doing so is simply wasting my precious time. And unless people embrace a scientific way of thinking, it's not going to matter, anyway. I have spent a lot of time studying things, they haven't. They should also allot some time to get educated and understand things in the way I do'.

There's a story about Einstein emigrating to America and giving a press conference. One of the reporters asked him to explain the theory of relativity. Einstein asked the reporter to first describe how to bake a cake. The reporter said "Well first you take some flour..." to which Einstein interjected and said "What's that?". The reporter explained and carried on "...then you add some baking powder..." and again Einstein interjected "What's that?" His point was, it's difficult to explain the intricacies of science in a meaningful way without the listener having sufficient background in science in terms of vocabulary and the basics.

So who can tell a person who completely closes his/her mind that the problem lies with him/her and not with the scientists? As it is the minds of the scientists will be in a 'highly excited and stressed state' because of the work their grey matter has to do. Scientists give more value to their time than others and anybody who tries to waste their time with unnecessary arguments will be treated with impatience. Arrogance? Not really.

When a real estate developer or a celebrity or a politician gives the nation their 'expert opinion'... on medicine, on climate science, on GM products? When they argue a link between autism and vaccines, despite the fact that medical studies have widely shown there is no proven link between the two? Experts might scream and use these words: false, dangerous, damaging, deplorable, repugnant, stupidity!

Highhandedness? No! Not at all! When merely stating a fact makes a person think so, s/he is at fault! Is this an "Assault"? I feel this actually reflects the frustration of the scientific community!

Scientists don't deal with all fields like politics, sports, art, and several others at a time like the journalists do. They are specialists, trained for years to become experts, who by necessity speak in a highly specialized language. Only a select few of them have good communication skills and can effectively translate the most complicated ideas into a language everyone else can understand. But still a scientist must try to put things in a way everybody can understand.
Because... "When a stupid person can't understand an average person, the stupid person is blamed, but when an average person can't understand a genius, the genius is blamed!"
So...a scientist is in a disadvantageous position and has to really try hard.

Watch this video where a scientist tells how difficult it is to explain things scientific to people who don't have any basic knowledge in the subject:

If the scientist in the video sounds haughty, let me tell you that is not the fault of only the scientist. A person who is about to talk with a scientist has to learn a little bit about the subject in the right way. Unless you do that, a scientist cannot help you much. That is the truth about the scientific world and that is how you should deal with it.!   

Some of the intelligent people - who are intelligent and analytical in specific subjects like science need not be good at talking. They are good at just thinking. It takes time for them to arrange their thoughts into good words. They are not quick witted. They need not be good at language skills too to arrange words attractively like in poetry. People might think they - especially majority of the scientists - because they are not good communicators- are dumb while they are talking. Again introverts need not be good communicators like extroverts. So people refuse to take them seriously and argue forgetting that they are speaking with the experts in the subject!!!
Just because some people are good at talking they need not be geniuses. They can be good at acting skills and in art subjects. People might give some clues about their capabilities while they talk but they need not be full proof intelligence markers. Don't judge people just by listening to their conversation. Their work too should be taken into account.

Another thing scientists say that sucks about explaining a layperson is: they just say stuff. That may or not make sense to them. And the people who say it think they're right, because emotion! Because intuition! Because outlier! Because single anecdotal piece of evidence! And they refuse to come out of these holes! Unless people co-operate and accept to do neutral reasoning scientists cannot help them much!

Just because you believe in something doesn't make it true! Sometimes you got to accept facts whether you like them or not! Data and facts are very important in understanding the scientific world. If you refuse to accept them, there isn't much a scientist can do!

If you use false/old data or pseudo-science to fortify your arguments, a scientist usually finds that out instantly. If you talk nonsense you must expect to be challenged. Don't forget this: you can hardly fool an expert!

One scientist friend of mine once told me about an incident. It seems one person argued with him using all rubbish. When my scientist friend was dumbfounded after hearing to the nonsense the person was speaking and said, 'what?!' with much difficulty, the person looked at my friend triumphatically and said, "Being a scientist you don't know all these things? This shows your ignorance! I know much more than you do", to the utter shock of my friend. 

Don't expect the scientists to know all the rubbish you know. They deal only with facts. If a scientist doesn't know about  or never heard of what you are talking, it means you are speaking trash!

And a scientist is a person who will not accept anything just because two-thirds of the world says it is right. S/he is the type of person who demands that he bring non-corrupt data to prove that he is the creator even if the creator of this universe appears before her/him!

Haughtiness? People in the field insist that it is a full proof scientific method. And they don't care what the world thinks or says about it because that is what sustains the scientific world.

Audacity, maybe, for the sake of science !