When We Don't Like the Solution, We Deny the Problem 282
Ichijo writes: A new study (abstract) from Duke University tested whether the desirability of a solution affects beliefs in the existence of the associated problem. Researchers found that 'yes, people will deny the problem when they don't like the solution. Quoting: "Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."
never mix science and politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Senator James Inhofe (Score:5, Informative)
Inhofe is now the head of the senate environmental commitee that oversee 100% of all climate change legislation and policies in the US.
He wrote a book 305 page book entirely on the subject of global warming. The name of this book is "the greatest Hoax".
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest... [amazon.com]
Senator James Inhofe (Score:2)
Senator Inhofe is a well-known climate change denier. That he is in such a position makes me want to weep.
(See eg http://www.desmogblog.com/jame... [desmogblog.com] )
For counterpoint book recommendations, I suggest:
'The Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes and Conway
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.or... [merchantsofdoubt.org]
'This Changes Everything' by Naomi Klein
http://thischangeseverything.o... [thischange...ything.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inhofe is now the head of the senate environmental commitee that oversee 100% of all climate change legislation and policies in the US.
He wrote a book 305 page book entirely on the subject of global warming. The name of this book is "the greatest Hoax".
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest... [amazon.com]
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert: If Harry Potter didn't have enough magic for you, read this book.
Re:Senator James Inhofe (Score:4, Insightful)
There have been undeniable lies presented by AGW supporters, and I'm sure the book lists them.
If there are undeniable lies, then you should be able to list a few of them (without us needing to buy the book). Indeed, please do.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't accusing you of lying. What I wanted was some examples. (I've no particular agenda).
May I be permitted to make some observations?
Firstly making an incorrect prediction isn't lying as such, especially if the mistake is admitted.
Secondly, I'm not sure Al Gore is a scientist (I believe him to be a politician), so I'm not sure I would take his prediction seriously. (Now if he was quoting a scientist or scientists, that would be different. Was he?) (I should add that I'm not a US citize
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore made the statement that we would suffer sudden *catostrophic* changes in about 10 years if *drastic* steps weren't taken now. He said this about 15 years ago.
Re:Senator James Inhofe (Score:4, Insightful)
Al Gore made the statement that we would suffer sudden *catastrophic* changes in about 10 years if *drastic* steps weren't taken now. He said this about 15 years ago.
Can you back that up with an actual cite to the transcript or essay from Gore that says that? It just sounds like a climate science denier meme to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather reality.
Among other things, hyperbole can lead to inaction as soon as somebody calls one bluff. There's a mostly-incoherent incoherent post above from a guy who found two incorrect statements about climate change and therefore doesn't believe it happens. That's a result of hyperbole.
Re: (Score:3)
LARGE MAJORITY of the population doesn't believe AGW
Wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
I'm curious why you even believed this. My knee-jerk reactionw as "there's no way that's even close to true" and a quick search bore out that instinct..
Re: (Score:2)
Mean Central England Temperature Annual Anomalies, 1772 to 8th November 2014 [metoffice.gov.uk]
Global-average temperature records (Global average temperature anomaly 1850 - 2012) [metoffice.gov.uk] One data set from a part of the UK, and one a global data set. The last few years are interesting in the UK set, and the trend in the global set is clear. By the way, note the ".gov.uk" moniker. This is an official UK government organisation, independent of party politics.
Re:Senator James Inhofe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Senator James Inhofe (Score:2, Funny)
To a Republican, changing your mind EVER is utterly unacceptable and indicates weakness. The reason is irrelevant. They value simple solutions no matter how complex the problem, and they believe evaluating one's beliefs against facts is just wrong. Beliefs are more important than facts, especially if those beliefs support the large corporations which fund the right wing machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Irony overload.
First of all, you actually have the same problem he's talking about -- an inability to tell the difference. I thought the first AC making fun of Republicans was being ridiculous but you're a great example of what he was talking about.
Second, you're referencing "Bush Lied People Died", which was a case where people doggedly insisted that Bush lied (instead of him behaving, perhaps poorly or inappropriately, but nevertheless honestly reacting to the legitimate information he had). You're talk
Re:Senator James Inhofe (Score:5, Insightful)
See what I mean?
Posts like yours just go on to make more and more people not believe you.
IPCC said himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, had to admit they were wrong. .4 C by 2010, we currently have 18 years of NO WARMING.
Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010, Al Gore
Every year we would face numerous hurricanes more powerful than Katrina, hasn't happened.
Ocean level rise would make beach houses in Florida under water, isn't happening.
Because of increase CO2 temps would incread by
Look at ANY IPCC prediction before 2007, now that we can measure it to reality, and evey single one is wrong.
The fact that I even have to list any of these because you didn't know show how absolutly in denial the AGW supporers are. You know damn well what the lies are, yet instead of admitting them and coming up with better scientific evidence instead you chose to attack me and claim I was lying. That is what I was compling about and thank you for proving me right.
All the examples you gave are failed predictions, not lies. Lies would be something like falsifying current data. Predicting the future is notoriously hard, to call failed predictions "lies" is assigning malice to the statements that I don't think exists. Perhaps if you toned down the rhetoric and didn't accuse people who don't share your views of lying there could be meaningful dialog on the matter. I doubt that will happen, because it is much easier to demonize your opponent than it is to present data that contradicts the hypothesis. Perhaps the people who believe AGW isn't happening should make some predictions of their own (glaciers will grow? Ice extent will increase or stay the same? Ocean levels will not rise?) and we'll see how their predictions hold up.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate models comes with a responsability.
But it's ok for people like Inhofe and the GP to deliberately misrepresent what the models say, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Senator James Inhofe (Score:2)
By your reasoning, when you answer a question on a test in which you are trying to do well and get a question wrong, you are lying.
Models are that - models. They are based on the sum of knowledge you have. Models are meant to be adjusted to fit the facts. Failure to do so and assume you are correct is lying
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to know if it was correct or if I was just guessing.
Maybe if you're testing rote memorization of facts. But climate change is a math / science question.
If you have a math test that is set appropriately to test you, then some questions should be right at your limit. In fact, a properly administered test at the end of a University course of either math or a math-heavy science course is very likely to end with many people being *almost* right but having a key error.
If you don't have experience with this, then you've never been appropriately tested. I don't c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but they are actually lies. If you say your model is correct and its predictions proven wrong you lied. You lied letting people think your model is correct. You lied not making the mandatory statements about the probability of occurrence of your prediction. Climate models comes with a responsibility.
Since climate model predictions haven't been proven wrong yet it's impossible to say the modelers lied. Climate model predictions come with uncertainty ranges noted though sometimes they are removed to simplify the graph for the general public. So far temperatures fall within the uncertainty ranges of climate model projections. You'll have to wait until real world temperatures fall outside of the models uncertainty range for a period of time before you can claim they are wrong.
Re:Senator James Inhofe (Score:5, Informative)
Wow! That's a pretty damning list. Now all you need to do is prove that they are in fact lies. The problem is, your list of lies contain lies of its own. And when it can be found that something was said that turned out to be incorrect, can you prove that those are lies as opposed to the results of early models that didn't have the sophistication of our current models? If you claim that someone is lying, then you are saying that they are attempting to deliberately mislead people.
Being wrong or making a mistake does not prove that deliberate misleading is going on, nor does a handful of claims invalidate the thousands of other claims that have been shown to be correct. Even the scientist who pointed out the mistake that the IPCC made about the glaciers still said that he believed that the errors shouldn't shake people's belief in climate science. [cnn.com].
If you do believe that catching someone in a lie disproves what they are saying, what should we think about how you have misreported what people said? You claim that Al Gore said that "Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010", but what he actually said was this:
Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.
So instead of the definitive claim that it would happen, he said that just some models predicted that there was just a chance that it COULD happen. A model being inaccurate does not constitute a lie. Misquoting someone to twist what they say into a lie, is actually a lie.
So did anyone really claim that there would be hurricanes more powerful than Katrina? It seems they did claim the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic that are as strong or stronger than Hurricane Katrina will increase twofold to sevenfold [nationalgeographic.com] but that was for every 1 degree C increase, which hasn't happened the time of Katrina.
I'm getting bored, so I'll skip to the end. Your assertion that every single prediction of the IPCC from before 2007 is demonstrably wrong [commondreams.org].
Re:Senator James Inhofe (Score:5, Interesting)
Fundamentals of AGW (Score:5, Informative)
There are useless predictions, damned lies, and statistics all around if you want to look. Clearly the scientific community has failed to predict all aspects of the future. This has nothing to do with the evidence for AGW and you're disingenuous for suggesting so.
There is a very simple set of measurable facts that are the foundational basis for the theory. Solar irradiance is constant to within .1% as far as we have been able to measure. Carbon Dioxide is known to absorb outgoing long-wave radiation. Human activity has increased the partial pressure of CO2 markedly, extending the CO2-rich region further out into space. There is only one way for the Earth to radiate heat to space. That is enough to determine that CO2 causes warming, and what the direct effects of a doubling of CO2 will be (roughly 3.7 W/m^2 of warming).
However, it is well known that Earth has large reservoirs of a much more potent greenhouse gas covering about 70% of its surface. Given that warmer air can hold exponentially more water vapor, it is unlikely that the CO2-water vapor feedbacks will be anything but strongly positive. By itself, a doubling of CO2 would only produce about 1 degree C difference to the global average temperature. With water vapor and other feedbacks, no one knows for sure, but you can read the IPCC report if you would like to know what the current estimates are.
You can argue as much as you like about the scientists' moral character, about their predictions, and whatever credibility you think they do or do not have. The science is inarguable, and you can even measure the warming effect of CO2 yourself with simple lab equipment. The deniers need to bring more facts to the table. Unless they can poke holes in the fundamental theories of radiative transfer, all the rhetoric on either side is worthless.
Re:Fundamentals of AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Joe Average disbelieving AGW because he's a moron or because he's drawing the entirely correct conclusion that agreeing it's true would have negative consequences for him?
I think that is likely what many Joe Averages are doing ... but it seems to me that the negative consequences of denying AGW are likely going to be more severe than the negative consequences of agreeing with it (in the same way that the negative consequences of pretending you don't have cancer are more severe than those of getting it treated ASAP).
i.e. I think Joe Average is fooling himself.
Re: (Score:3)
The last IPCC report suggested policy changes that would subtract from future global GDP values by .006%/year. That's not 15% of your paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
United States (28.38%)
Japan (10.83%)
France (7.22%)
Germany (7.14%)
United Kingdom (6.68%)
China (6.64%)
Italy (4.45%)
Russian Federation (3.15%)
Canada (2.98%)
Spain (2.97%)
Somehow I doubt your
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't read the book (don't plan to either) but it doesn't help the books detractors when virtually all of the five star reviewers are verified purchasers, and practically none of the one star reviewers are.
It's just kind of silly to bemoan something you have never "experienced." If you do that, you'll be just like all of the politicians and pundits seen in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There have been undeniable lies presented by AGW supporters,
Proof someone lied isn't proof they are wrong. The two are orthogonal. You still need to prove them wrong, even if you think the standard of proof is lower because of their past behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the government signed the Farm Bill into law again giving Sam Donaldson and Scottie Pippen welfare for not planting crops this year!
The $956 billion farm bill, in one graph [washingtonpost.com]
Please, continue to tell me how there's no corporate welfare from the Democrats, just Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:never mix science and politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, politics would be an awful lot better if politicians were driven by scientific results instead of baseless ideologies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you give a survey like this, I will probably answer in a way intended to piss the person who wrote it off. If someone presents me with something I don't believe, and with narrow minded and/or politically charged options to solve it, I stop caring and start being angry.
If they really wanted to understand human behavior present facts that most people don't know, and solutions that we're not emotionally involved with. Attempt to do science while toying with people's emotions, they will toy back.
Re: (Score:2)
The conclusion presented in the article however, is not that, I can agree with that (even if it's obvious). Their conclusion is that people stop believing in the problem. Probably not true, probably not even the right conclusion to draw from the data presented. If you present a "fact" and then *a* solution that may or may not address the problem, may or may not be optimal, and may reveal you as having a controversial political bias then you are basically asking for people to screw up your experiment.
First,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: never mix science and politics (Score:2)
Wouldn't that effectively be mob rule?
Re: (Score:2)
'Until they fail to meet their requirements' would mean 'immediately', as the requirements begin unmet; and if you mean they'd declare a deadline for meeting their requirements, that'd just be letting them set their own term limits. "I promise to [fix all problems] over the next 50 years!" and bam, president-for-life.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That there are citizens in your nation representing you who shun science, logic and evidence, well, that is a political problem. And it's all mixed up with getting science elected when we visit the voting booth.
I mean to say the idiots haven't won yet, even though at present they seem to have the lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Political science is not the same thing as politics. You're discussing the latter, not the former.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, science needs to override politics.
"Values" based politics has brought us war, depression, and misery. It has to be replaced by What Works. Facts. Results.
Otherwise the movie Idiocracy will be a documentary of the future.
Re: (Score:2)
And once again conspiracy theories get more wind in their sails.
"Results" based politics brought us Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouges, witch hunts, Hiroshima, 9/11, every form of religious persecution ever, and in fact pretty much every atrocity in human history. All of these wer
Re: (Score:2)
"Results" based politics brought us Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouges, witch hunts, Hiroshima, 9/11, every form of religious persecution ever, and in fact pretty much every atrocity in human history.
Really? It seems like the Soviet Union, the Holocaust, Maos' Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, and 9/11 were all "Values" based to me. The rise of Communism was a revolt against capitalist values, it was not a fact-based decision where communism was experimented with and found to be more efficient than capitalism and thus the conversion was rapidly and peaceably carried out. The Holocaust was a values-based decisions that Jews, gays, intellectuals, political opponents, and
Re: (Score:2)
Never mix science with politics.
Don't worry. We never do. Scientists can't be trusted because they use the metric system just like foreigners do.
Re: (Score:2)
Another dimension to consider what a politician says publicly and what they do privately. The joke about northern and southern racists comes to mind -- a southern racists won't mind a minorities stay near him as long as they don't become uppity; the northern racist won't mind minorities become uppity as long as they don't stay near him.
So, the false choice of people saying things is not enough (though saying the wrong things is of concern) -- there should be some action along the lines too. However, it look
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this is exactly what a bunch of douche bags with university degrees have done. Some of the sickest holders of doctorates imaginable and they all end up working in the same places Public Relations Agencies where they whole express purpose is to use their understanding of the science of human psychology in order to get people to deny reality in order to buy the marketed solutions. We as a society and creating qualified experts to expressly teach us via every mass media outlet imaginable to do exactl
Sounds like (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Funny)
GamerGate... I've got nothing.
Confusion (Score:2)
Quantifiable (Score:2, Insightful)
Usually I like hearing about research that 'confirms' very obvious features of human nature, because it's valuable to measure things, even obvious things, quantitatively. But this experiment doesn't sound all that rigorous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Quantifiable (Score:4, Interesting)
"This lacks rigor" without some sort of explanation is horseshit.
What level of research were you expecting? The Duke U profiles and Google Scholar results show that these two researchers seem to have an idea, do a basic study, and move on to something more interesting. (Campbell, Troy H.; Kay, Aaron C.) For that, on its surface, I have no objection.
I haven't read the paper, so I can't say whether there are citations that cite tangential research, or prior study. Tangential citations suggest that this is a new idea building on previous related but different ideas. Prior study citations would suggest that an initial finding is being examined more thoroughly, and the expected rigor goes up.
So, feel free to review the citations and give me your opinion on whether this is exploratory or followup research. And tell me also how this fails in rigor, because I can't tell that based on the abstract.
"This experiment" seems to focus on Republicans for the first of 3 studies, and then a fourth contrasting study was done apparently to make sure this effect was not limited to the conservative mindset. The only failing in rigor I can see is that I don't see a screening for candidates to see if they are in fact members of the target group (i.e. do they hold the belief that free markets are good and regulation is bad). But it might be described in the study.
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation Bias (Score:2)
It's well established that people distort recall of facts, weighing of evidence, etc. to prove their ideas correct. This study seems to just say "what if the facts being distorted came from a scientific paper" and "what if the ideas were political (free market solves everything, we could get rid of all guns by making them illegal)."
It's such an unsurprising result that I'm amazed they ran the study.
Re:Confirmation Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Confirmation bias is a general container for a number of different coping mechanisms. It is also the foundation of a number of behaviors. In contrast, Solution aversion seems to be one behavior which results in confirmation bias. Explaining how we get there, rather than just saying that it exists.
This study seems to say that when I don't like a solution, I deny there is a problem. If I like the solution, or it is not a strongly held belief one way or another, I don't deny there is a problem. Your attempts at summarising lack important details. "What if the facts being distorted came from a scientific paper" was already studied as "the backfire effect", and "what if the ideas were political" has been beaten to death. Their combination isn't novel.
This is not about the general case of "here's a fact, do you believe the fact?" It's a more specific case of "here's a problem, do you agree based on whether you agree with the solution".
WELL DUH! (Score:3)
This is one of the earliest recognized phenomena in historical literature. It's evidenced here every frackin' day!
Ego trumps reality in arguments every time because it's more important to WIN then to be RIGHT. That's why bluffing is so important in poker.
There's a larger issue here in the examples given though - There's NO SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION FOR THEM - They're moral and ethical arguments with subjective values. One side will argue that closing down coal plants will cost jobs and increase the cost of energy which will destroy the economy vs the other side arguing that carbon pollution from coal will destroy the environment. Both are hyperbolic but where you fall on the spectrum of "what matters" will determine how you argue, regardless of the "facts". Same with gun control - One argues that restriction of gun rights causes more crime while the other argues that more guns equal more gun crime. Both are objectively scientific facts but which fact trumps the other?
And the report says it's because people ignore science? I think that says more about the quality of the report and the reporters than the people being reported on.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... carbon pollution from coal plants will in fact destroy the environment. We have plenty of historical evidence to suggest tighter environmental regulation that limits the expansion of coal plants will result in new investments that bear fruit to future technological innovations. It's happened every single fracking time.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that?
Have you drank the latest silver bullet methodology to improve your engineering productivity today? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you are being sarcastic about engineers? I guess it depends what discipline and type of work you do. :)
In electrical engineering there is a saying:
"Never discuss in polite company: Politics, religion, or grounding."
Distrust of the source (Score:5, Insightful)
When I see a commercial make a claim about a problem, and the solution to that problem just happens to be "Buy our new product!".....yes, I would say that the proposed solution tends to make me view the claim about the problem more skeptically. That seems totally rational to me.
I don't see why this would be any different. If it sounds like someone is pushing the need for tighter (or looser) gun regulations, it's reasonable to question if they've cherry-picked their statistics about the problem to support their case.
Maybe f they'd had one source give a totally neutral statement about a problem, and then a different source suggest a solution, and managed to prevent the subjects from realizing that the experimenters were responsible for both statements...
Re: (Score:2)
Depressingly many instances of communication are effectively just disguised commerials for something or other. People say things to manipulate others into doing something for the speaker's own benefit all the time.
Questionable Methods (Score:3)
This is Real (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they appear to have shown malleability in the belief of the subject in a problem based on whether the solution was favorable or unfavorable to their closely held beliefs.
I see it all the time in my job. I get called out to assess structural problems in peoples homes, and also to consult on renovations and modifications. Most of the time, people who find a fault in their home complain about why the local inspections office didn't catch the substandard building practice when it was built. Most people who have to pay me design a correctly engineered wall or beam are angry that the building department is making the process so difficult and expensive by requiring special design and inspections for a "simple" change.
I actually had a woman who was angry with me because I told here she'd need to install a beam if she took out a support post in her basement. The beam looked continuous from the wall, over the post, to the second post, and she was pretty sure it would be fine if they just removed it, but the building official said she couldn't make the change unless she had someone design a beam for it. She told me she probably wouldn't apply for a permit, since nobody would ever see the work getting done. As I was about to leave, she asked about a large crack in the basement wall of her addition that was put in about 10 years ago. I looked at it and there was no reinforcing or filled cores in masonry, and the back fill was too high for an unreinforced CMU wall. I told her this and she asked - with a straight face - how could the town inspectors have allowed the contractor to build it incorrectly, without requiring someone to design the wall? Wasn't that their job?
So if you ask whether government oversight is good or bad, for this woman it was clearly bad when it was going to cost her money, but it would have been good if it had prevented her house from being damaged. Same woman, same inspections office, same requirement that an engineer design a structural building element. The effect is very real.
No, she really didn't get it. (Score:5, Informative)
No, the irony was entirely lost on her. It's hard to convey her intent and emotion in a post. She was really put out that she was being required to build something to code and that she was considering just avoiding the inspectors. She was also astonished that the inspections were so minimal that they missed a glaring error - or possibly that they didn't catch someone who didn't even apply for a permit previously. There was no connection between the two in her eyes, no "how come I have to do it but they didn't". The same people who were incompetent for not catching the first work were incompetent for keeping her from skirting the regs this time.
Also, she bought the house after the inferior work was done. She assumed it was done right because she assumed it was inspected by the town. She paid no money the "first time" for the inspection. In fact, it's unlikely there was any inspection the first time...it was before our town did much more than note that work was being done with a "permit" but no inspections were regularly made on residential work (or any work for that matter). So no inspection, bad work, owner mad. Today there's required inspection, guaranteed proper work, owner is mad.
Note that, had she tried to remove that post, the whole first floor would likely have sagged 1.5-3 inches almost immediately, if it didn't actually break/collapse. Since I see buildings fail (actually collapse) due to poor workmanship on a regular basis, I think I have a bit of a strong position to argue that this is not some expert hubris, but actual experience. There are some things in the building code which are of pretty limited value to most people. And the structural provisions don't really matter but once in 50 years (our design is for a 2% or 50 year return period storm/event), which is non-trivial for construction. However, most people I've encountered get pretty wrapped around the axle when they find a load of snow in their kitchen, or their front yard in their basement, or their garage on the ground in pieces after a thunderstorm.
On the trickiness of words (Score:3, Insightful)
From the dictionary definitions, one would think that "liberal gun-control ideologies" would mean to encourage as wide as distribution of as many guns as possible. But this is not the case. But "liberal gun-control ideologies" actually means as few guns as possible to as few people as possible.
Just a random thought from a Blue State (WA) where another freedom of action was circumscribed despite the Red Wave that swept the rest of the country. See I-594, specifically the definition of transfers. No more borrowing a friend's shotgun.
Re: (Score:2)
From the dictionary definitions, one would think that "liberal gun-control ideologies" would mean to encourage as wide as distribution of as many guns as possible. But this is not the case. But "liberal gun-control ideologies" actually means as few guns as possible to as few people as possible.
Just a random thought from a Blue State (WA) where another freedom of action was circumscribed despite the Red Wave that swept the rest of the country. See I-594, specifically the definition of transfers. No more borrowing a friend's shotgun.
In my country gun control means you don't get to own a gun if you have a criminal record, you don't get to own a gun unless you first learned to use it properly, you don't get to own a gun unless you have demonstrated knowledge oft the relevant laws, you don't get to own a gun unless you have a certified firearms and ammo storage locker, you don't get to own an gun without registering it with the police and you don't get to sell your gun without first informing the police. However, as long as you aren't a f
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting comparison;
"gun control means you don't get to own a gun if you have a criminal record" True in USA as well.
"you don't get to own a gun unless you first learned to use it properly," Proper safety classes are encouraged, but not required.
"you don't get to own a gun unless you have demonstrated knowledge of the relevant laws" Required for a hunting license (the course covers gun laws as well as hunting, and also required for a concealed carry permit in this state.
" you don't get to own a gun
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, in my country 'Liberal' is a term for right-leaning conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on your point of view with respect to various socio-economic theories. From the left, everything appears to be leaning right.
In most of the world, 'liberal' means laissez-faire, small government. Some types of conservatism rely on massive government intervention or support of business. But either way, since both of these philosophies tend to support capitalism, wealth creation and maintenence they look pretty much the same to socialists.
This is why religion survives ... (Score:3)
when presented with the lack of evidence of religious assertions or evidence that contradicts a belief: they will deny what is going on or branch out on some tangent.
Few people are really objective and will cling to all sorts of positions rather than change their minds.
Have a look at privacy (Score:3)
"The NSA is killing your privacy"
- "Uh oh!"
"Stop using facebook and dropbox!"
- "I have nothing to hide anyway!"
Obvious (Score:2)
When the solution is too complex (Score:2)
Another way to put it: When the solution is too complex, we solved the wrong problem.
Not only in politics (Score:3)
I've observed the same behavior in software development, particularly in the open source world. Some project maintainers are happy to have people helping by reporting the problems they find, while others will deny that a problem exists (and sometimes go as far as trying to discredit the reporter) if they don't happen to be affected/bothered by it. I guess inconvenient truths are hard for some people to accept.
Seen it in other areas (Score:2)
I am transgender, and few times I have seen parents of children who may be trans come and post in trans communitys asking for help. Although they dont say it, some of them are looking for a 'cure' for their child, rather then how to get them the help they really need (eg gender therapists and eventual puberty blocking and hormone replacement) These people are generally not happy with the responses, which in trans communitys tend to be very pro-transition.
beautiful reversal of language (Score:2)
Ah, what a beautiful reversal of meaning: "liberal gun-control ideologies" is the new term for "restrictive gun-control ideologies". I think that tells you pretty much all you need to know about this "study".
And in other breaking news ... (Score:2)
That seems quite reasonable (Score:3)
There's nothing inherently irrational about this. For example, if your daughter says to you, "My grades are bad and my teacher says I need to spend more time studying", you'd believe her. But if she says, "My grades are bad and my teacher says I need to stay up later", you might not. The incentive to exaggerate or misstate evidence depends on the consequences of accepting the evidence, and thus the reliability of evidence depends on its consequences as well.
Valid Assertion? Valid Solutions? (Score:2)
If a person can't verify the validity of the assertion, is it any wonder they will base their opinion on the proposed solutions?
A person is told the sky is falling. They can't verify it, but are told the potential consequences.
Then the person is told the 'needed' solution, say, cut off everbody's right leg.
Well the cure sounds pretty bad, and the impact of the cure on the person is very clear.
So two possibilities: one is unverifiable, the other well understood. Which one would a person choose?
Science and
This research brought to you by... (Score:2)
This research brought to you by the letter "Duh!" and a grant from the Really Freaking Obvious foundation.
I suppose it's good to have a study to back up the obvious. It's just that, according to the study, the people most in need of convincing are exactly the same people who are going to most vigorously deny the validity of the study.
Re:Customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out that if the cure is worse than the disease people don't want the cure...
Some people seem to be 'denying' that that actually is the rational attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that is a rational answer... but not the only one. "The problem doesn't exist", "the problem exists to a lesser degree", "this problem doesn't exist but a confusingly similar one does" are all also rational answers to many questions.
Re: (Score:3)
... As a result, the country mobilized against the threat. Strong government action by the Bush administration [washingtonpost.com] outlawed the worst of these gases, and brilliant entrepreneurs were able to discover and manufacture new cleaner energy sources. As a result of these brave decisions, our emissions stabilized and are currently declining [eia.gov].
The chart you link to of CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2013 shows that they have risen 10% over that time. The only years in which they fell were during the economic recession. Since that was caused by Reagan/Bush deregulation policies is that what you are suggesting to combat climate change?
There is such a thing as fact (Score:2, Informative)
There are basically no credible scientists arguing if global warming is a thing. There are also no credible scientists arguing over whether it will negatively impact humanity. The argument is over what's causing it and the magnitude of the damage. Please note that the consensus is that the damage will be massive, it's just about _how_ massive....
As for social science, human behavior can be measured and predicted. You seem to dismiss this outright because our methods to date have been less th
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You've just demonstrated that you don't understand science or the history of science.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not for climate scientists to decide.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that the fourth link indicates there's basically no consensus at all among scientists about how to respond to AGW. Should we adapt? Should we mitigate? No consensus at all there.
The link you provided indicates that there's consensus on everything rsilvergun said there was consensus on. Furthermore looking at the particular graph you cited, the question was "what is the best course of action?" with 1 and 7 representing mitigation only and adaption only respectively. It seems like there's a consensus that we should take a mixed approach with a little over 88% of the respondents taking one of the 2-6 options and the modal option being 4, right in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
b) adapt to the changes, encourage as many people as possible to survive through prosperity or
survive through prosperity... I need this explained to me.
There seem to be so many implicit assumptions being made and i'd hate to put words in anyone's mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, unless you're a climatologist with some compelling evidence, questioning the existence of anthropogenic global warming makes you a denialist nutcase.
99.99% of the people who don't accept AGW as a "fact" simply don't have the mental tools or training to understand the science well enough to have an opinion worth more than nothing on it.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is this was not a double-blind test (like many things in sociology).
Not being a double-blind test will not completely ruin your experiment, but there are many pitfalls that need to be avoided. There is no indication this happened. At best this is a preliminary study, and the effect could disappear completely once all factors are
Re: (Score:2)
How can you question something without being accused of motivated reasoning or worse? How can you question that which is asserted as the beliefs of a credible consensus of scientists?
You can't. Its a classic fallacy.
yep. Greenpeace founder says nuclear required (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. Most dems go apeshit when you point out that even the co-founder of Greenpeace has said that nuclear is the _only_ feasible solution for most,of our energy needs, and he lays out exactly why. Cognitive dissonance to the max.
He opened one article by saying that he and his friends had slightly exaggerated the risks of nuclear power back in the 1960s-1980s, but a think to get most of their former followers to do the right thing they'll have to come right out and say "we lied to you". That's the only way the people most concerned about global warming will support the one solution that can actually work in the real world. They'll keep chasing magic energy until there is a complete famine rather than acknowledging the solution is something they were told to dislike.