In most cases, individuals fail to trust and believe in scientific truths. Research findings depict that human beings are extremely loyal to their beliefs as scientific truth is less established by reasoning than exertion of will. Most scientific facts have been rubbished simply because they go against the popular opinion. However, science has imperfections and most scientists have failed to admit and to embrace their humanity. This is what Cordelia Fine examines in the article “Biased but Brilliant.” In Pfeffer and Sutton’s article, “Trust the Evidence, Not Your Instincts,” the authors affirm that what is really important and needs trust is not the instinct or belief rather the evidence. This paper compares the two articles as it exclusively examines the impacts of both scientific facts and instinct or belief in decision-making process, basing the facts on the proofs and evidence for scientific reasoning, and personal instincts for beliefs.
Fine postulates that humans always try to find evidence that support their beliefs as they discredit and avoid the information that suggests otherwise. Scientific reasoning is based on facts and evidence; however, most humans believe that reasoning is basically persuading other people to accept our point of view. Social values and science normally oppose each other as science largely contributes in rubbishing the social values. Scientists are stubborn and pigheaded as they fail to embrace humanity and deny the social values any legitimate role in scientific reasoning. Fine’s main concept is that both science and humanity are important and should be considered in any decision making process. Pfeffer and Sutton, on the other side, believe that in any decision making process, the core determinant should be the evidence and not personal instinct. However, individuals tend to use their instincts and beliefs even if the evidence proves otherwise.
Work cited
The provided case study article.
