When Beliefs and Facts Collide 725
schnell writes A New York Times article discusses a recent Yale study that shows that contrary to popular belief, increased scientific literacy does not correspond to increased belief in accepted scientific findings when it contradicts their religious or political views. The article notes that this is true across the political/religious spectrum and "factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines." So what is to be done? The article suggests that "we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues – for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."
Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans aren't motivated by logic. Instead, they use logic as a tool to satisfy their emotional needs. No tool suits every problem.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that we all need to realize is that ALL of us have this same issue, not just the people who disagree with you.
Re:quelle surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but climate change is scientific fact. The opposing view that you're referring to would be that Liberal republicans could believe in the fantasy that climate change does not exist... and while it's true there are such democrats out there, they are not relevant to this topic. I think that, if you wanted to include democrats in a similar light you'd have to ask them about nuclear power. They tend to completely disregard science when it comes to technologies they fear. Thought this is a generalization. Which is the funny thing about this story. They seem to be reporting "Generalizations about an entire group of people are not 100% accurate!" Well, duh...
Re:quelle surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
"what is the scientific doctrine that Democrats typically reject?"
I wouldn't go so far as "typically ..." etc., but here are some candidates:
- "more guns, less crime"
- "skepticism in global warming science is warranted"
- "collectivist economies fail"
There's belief, there's facts and there's politics (Score:5, Insightful)
" for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."
But you can't. The Republicans won't have you.
Ignorance is a choice, just like belief. The real problem is to get people to reject ignorance. The difficulty in that is that ignorance, like belief, is easy. Rejecting ignorance requires effort. That is why there are so many people who choose ignorance and belief over reason and fact.
For many, being identified as a member of a specific group, even if that group wants you to believe stupid things, is more important than objective reality. They must get something from that group membership that outweighs what they would get from reality. Reality CAN be a bitch.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:2, Insightful)
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one. Science doesn't vote, it either provably is or it isn't.
When we push beliefs on people and claim it's science, we shouldn't be surprised when they treat it as flexibly as they do any other belief. Nor should we be surprised when such misuse of science erodes their faith in its overall veracity.
Is climate change human caused? Hell if I know. But I know it's been pushed on the public about as unscientifically as Eugenics and Phrenology.
Re:Generalization Fail (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/03/gop-house-decides-2nd-amendment-limits-approves-gun-control-measure-voice-vote.html
The republicans are much better at drawing people together based on commonalities in what they hate and fear than the Democrats. That has worked best by pushing simple yes/no good/bad simplified versions of issues - like gun control - and burying the complications.
Re:It's Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be an American if you equate liberal with socialist. In Europe, they tend to be the very opposite of each other.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
But I know it's been pushed on the public about as unscientifically as Eugenics and Phrenology.
Whoa! Phrenology has no scientific basis, but Eugenics certainly does. If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation. That is a scientific fact. Just because you don't like the political act of mass murder, doesn't make it scientifically invalid.
Re:quelle surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Gravity isn't a scientific fact, exaggerating your position doesn't make it stronger.
Re:Generalization Fail (Score:2, Insightful)
The republicans are much better at drawing people together based on commonalities in what they hate and fear than the Democrats. That has worked best by pushing simple yes/no good/bad simplified versions of issues - like gun control - and burying the complications.
Better? How about the "war on women" for example? Nobody has a monopoly on expertise in using those tactics.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
When a claim such as "97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming." is given, what it means is that 97% of climate scientists currently accept the model that humans are causing global warming. It means that, according to the data they have available and the models they have analyzed and/or constructed, the notion that humans drive global warming is prevalent in just about every model that accurately fits the data.
The only reason this whole thing is political (or a debate in the first place) is because there are people who stand to lose significantly from environmentally friendly measures and a move away from hydrocarbons.
Re:It's Okay (Score:4, Insightful)
From your point of view, that's quite possible. After all, for the Commies, everyone in the West was a fascist imperialist.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?
I'm not sure why you need a case study to support research that was originally done almost 150 years ago,
but If you'll accept "not allowing the undesirables to breed" as a proxy for "murder them,"
here's a more recent long term study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox [wikipedia.org]
Or you could just read about Mendel's original research with pea plants and honey bees.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.
Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed that every time somewhere in the US or Europe experiences a bit of cold weather for the season, comments sections all around the internet are filled with people proclaiming this proves climate change is a fraud.
Re:It's Okay (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep. The European Liberals [wikipedia.org] actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:1, Insightful)
When AGW first became a big issue in the 1990s I was talking against it as a big scam on Usenet; particularity my old haunt talk.origins. it was when one of the regulars, a biologist (why any scientist would waste his time debating Creationists I'll never understand), pointed out to me that the theory was reasonably well supported, there were a boatload of papers and that science isn't the product of emotional need, and I finally accepted that AGW, even if it suggested things that I didn't like, was legitimate science.
Funny. I've had the opposite experience.
I was first introduced to the issue by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and pretty much accepted what he was saying... except that there was some nagging doubt due to things like unlabeled graphs and the like in his presentation.
It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.
Case in point: the recent admission by NCDC that certain USHCN data had been derived and used improperly, and they had known it for a long time. They said they had "intended to fix it" at some undefined point in the future, but the question is: why was it not fixed already, and why had they not told anyone (including scientists) about it, even though they knew about it?
And how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?
The IPCC's latest report states clearly that the science supporting their position is weaker than ever... yet they're even more certain that it's true. WTF?
It is shenanigans like these that have fueled my skepticism. Those aren't the actions of responsible scientists.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans aren't a rational animal. They are a rationalizing animal.
-- Heinlein.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody but Americans talk about religion in science.
The rest of the planet doesn't care about old men in the sky.
Tell that to the Taliban, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, etc.
Please come back when you actually have a clue about the subject to which you're speaking and not simply sounding off from your nether orifice.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:2, Insightful)
Assuming the trait is genetically inherited and dependent on genotype in a simple way, possibly. If it's memetic, your attempts to stamp it out could well end up spreading it further by drawing attention to it. But even if it's genetic, evolution has failed to weed out things that will outright kill people, such as Fatal familial insomnia [wikipedia.org] or hemophilia.
This is all ignoring the fact that actual eugenics programs don't typically target specific genes or even traits, but such "traits" as "being poor" or "not staying in kitchen and making sandwiches". They aren't scientific, they're political.
No, because it was not scientifically valid in the first place. The only reason we're still hearing about eugenics - or ever heard about it in the first place - is that some people get off on cruelty yet don't have the guts to simply admit that, so they make excuses and public policy rather than joining appropriate clubs and dealing with their tastes in the private.
Mind you, the same goes for a lot of stupider policies...
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa! Phrenology has no scientific basis, but Eugenics certainly does. If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation.
While it is certainly true that selective breeding is a scientific fact, almost all historical eugenicist movements have NOT been based on scientifically verified traits. Take some time and read about the nonsense criteria that eugenics people would use -- measuring ear size or facial characteristics to determine "degenerate" people more likely to be stupid or commit crimes.
You seem to think that "eugenics" is just a synonym for "selective breeding" or something. While the proponents of eugenics often claim that, in fact their criteria for selection were generally based on bogus "science" (even phrenology) and generally tend to be motivated more by politics or class distinctions than science.
So, no, actual eugenics as practiced does NOT have a scientific basis, even if the general principle might theoretically work.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
The article was written about people like you Jane.
It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.
Where by "digging" you mean reading and believing what it said on "Watt's Up With That", because the politics were more in alignment with yours than Al Gore's were.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your experience comes about because it's very boring having to debunk the same old denialist myths hundreds of times over many years. You may find it fun to repeat yourself on things you've already been proved wrong on, but it's not that entertaining for the other side.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to the Taliban, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, etc.
What good company the American religious right keeps!
Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
In Harry Potter there's a dragon.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what's really weird? That so many people without a PhD in climatology think they need to look at the research to know whether the scientists are right or wrong.
http://in.reuters.com/article/... [reuters.com]
It's so much easier to just follow the money.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hats off to you! Holy shit, you managed to do the impossible. Folks, get out your checkbooks! I won't get into the middle of the AGW debate itself, but rather your huge gaping logical error:
The truth is, this effect is almost surely completely unpredictable, and quite likely insignificant.
First, you state that the effects are "almost surely completely unpredictable". Then you make a prediction, drawing the conclusion that the effects are "quite likely insignificant". For fucks sake, if you don't have a model with good predictive power, you certainly can't draw any "quite likely" conclusions. Your proper response should have been that "the effects are unknown" if no model exists with good predictive power.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.
So you haven't actually starting digging into science (you know, the underlying physics and chemistry, climate models etc). Instead, you started digging into the scandals associated with that science, under the assumption that if you find sufficiently many, that would disprove the theory.
Re:Not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a very valid point, and where I don't recognise the username I do often go over the same ground. But I've been here long enough to recognise the regular faces, and there's a small core group of the same denialists commenting on every climate story. And they HAVE been personally proved wrong on these myths time and time again, and they continue to come back and repeat the myths again, as if the MiB had wiped their memories each time.