Denialism. Why people believe unbelievable things.

lauralaurafish

IMO the largest reason that climate change deniers exist is because of the poorly constructed method by which it's been debated (in politics). The fact that climate change is even considered a political issue is comical and more the root of the problem IMO.

The science on if climate change exists isn't entirely the issue either, but rather how much of a role have humans played into it (still very much up in the air) and what else could possibly be the cause of it. We know other planets have also gone through climate changes throughout history, but obviously we're not burning fossil fuels there.



Now...the second topic....religion. IMO, I'm a semi-religious guy and I have a love for all things science. So I tend to remember a few key principles when reading and learning about scientific discoveries...

1) Science is a study of the world around us. I happen to believe that world was created. I believe that the laws of the universe were also created. So therefore science is a study of what was created and anything 'discovered' solely teaches me more about what was created and possibly the creator himself and maybe 'how' it was created. I don't believe that science ever contradicts the creator. God vs Science is solely a product of lack of human understanding and they are not actually at odds (in large part due to religious people that try to fit God into the box they believe God should fit into).

2) Science is not fact. Science is a human interpretation of what we've observed and is subject to bias (both religious or atheistic) Science is often wrong and what we 'know' changes every day (and hopefully will continue to change). Know that I'm not saying, "Don't trust science" or "It's all lies from an agenda", just more that it's always important to remember the filter of the source and what they believe and want and know to be true. (including what you yourself believe and want to know)


I have a unique viewpoint I'm sure

Regarding #1 - Science cannot prove that something does not exist if there is no evidence for it existing in the first place... The burden of proof is not on science. You could argue the same with an invisible unicorn. However, the claims in several religious books have been proven to be either false or metaphorical at best. I think that is why there is such debate. I can show you the Earth is more than a few thousands years old...

Regarding #2 - "Science is often wrong" is a pretty big statement there in itself. It is not science itself but the scientific knowledge that changes and evolves as we figure things out. The method for carrying it out has been established and it is the way we rely on for what you may think of as "science." The way we find things out IS actually by looking at facts and happenings with actual physical proof and findings. I feel your statement that it is not fact is misleading.

Regarding climate and fossil fuels - It has been established that climate changes as a normal part of the Earth's cycle. However, the point is that it has been changing at a much more scarily rapid rate since we came into the picture. Political manipulations aside, I cannot believe how people doubt this.

ihad

Bumping for reference. Interesting points.

CometMeebru

TMRL.

Entire departments in universities devoted to studying something that has absolutely no empirical evidence.

Meanwhile every university student has "you can't make a statement/claim without empirical proof" drilled into their heads from day 1.

Baffles my mind that people can 'believe' in something that has zero concrete evidence, yet they reject something that has been proven by hundreds if not thousands of experts.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

tennisdude2004

Spank - oops sorry wrong thread.

Nice article - I'm 'sceptical' about the conclusion though.

If my five year old starts questioning what I tell him I'll never get him to bed.

God help me when he stops believing that witches will get him if he's not asleep by 8.

dsimmons107

Very interesting but may be to deep of a topic to discuss intelligently in this format. This conversation is for thinkers. Let's see how many show up.

1Cor1510

IMO the largest reason that climate change deniers exist is because of the poorly constructed method by which it's been debated (in politics). The fact that climate change is even considered a political issue is comical and more the root of the problem IMO.

The science on if climate change exists isn't entirely the issue either, but rather how much of a role have humans played into it (still very much up in the air) and what else could possibly be the cause of it. We know other planets have also gone through climate changes throughout history, but obviously we're not burning fossil fuels there.



Now...the second topic....religion. IMO, I'm a semi-religious guy and I have a love for all things science. So I tend to remember a few key principles when reading and learning about scientific discoveries...

1) Science is a study of the world around us. I happen to believe that world was created. I believe that the laws of the universe were also created. So therefore science is a study of what was created and anything 'discovered' solely teaches me more about what was created and possibly the creator himself and maybe 'how' it was created. I don't believe that science ever contradicts the creator. God vs Science is solely a product of lack of human understanding and they are not actually at odds (in large part due to religious people that try to fit God into the box they believe God should fit into).

2) Science is not fact. Science is a human interpretation of what we've observed and is subject to bias (both religious or atheistic) Science is often wrong and what we 'know' changes every day (and hopefully will continue to change). Know that I'm not saying, "Don't trust science" or "It's all lies from an agenda", just more that it's always important to remember the filter of the source and what they believe and want and know to be true. (including what you yourself believe and want to know)


I have a unique viewpoint I'm sure

^^This

BamaBreezeNSaltAire

ETA:
This:
"In fact, most people are woefully under-prepared by their education to do things like read and evaluate scientific papers or even to just judge scientific claims from media sources"
deserves a standing ovation.

^^^
We might survive afterall.

Alehmer

Never have I seen such a succinct answer to this. From the Bill Nye (evolution) vs. Ken Ham (creationism) debate, which is VERY good watching, look for it on Youtube.



edit for picture that fits

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Thus I propose a new tactic. Let’s get Carl Sagan’s Baloney detection kit in every child’s hands by the time they’re ten. Hell, it should be part of the elementary school curriculum. Lets hand out books on skepticism like the Gideons hand out Bibles. Let’s inoculate people against the bull**** they’ll invariably contract by the time they’re adults. We can even do tests to see what type of skeptical inoculation works best at protecting people from anti-science. It’s a way forward to make some progress against the paranoid style, and the nonsense beliefs purveyed by all ideological extremes. There is no simple cure, but we can inoculate the young, and maybe control the spread of the existing disease.

Yep, I'd love to see this too.

geebusuk

Climate change is a bad example to my mind.
The problem is that there is SIGNIFICANT poor information on both sides - something you don't find so much in some areas of controversy.

Of course, anyone that really is a 'climate change' denier is obviously of ridiculously low intelligence.
The words description should be 'man made climate change denier' - unfortunately another bit of trying to twist the view a bit by the side which tries to claim the scientific moral high ground.

Remember when the 'climate change' side was actually 'global warming'?
So often we see changes in climate that are within bounds of reason for 'natural occurrences' being blamed on man-made climate change. It is this sort of thing that really supports the man-made climate change denier because so often holes CAN be poked in the other's sides arguments.

doorki

I can agree with this but I also have to point out the problem that arises for both science and religion when they become immutable. In cases when it does, it seems that science suffers because if science becomes immutable, it stagnates through the rejection of new viewpoints and evidence. When religion becomes immutable, science suffers through the denial and distrust of any scientific evidence that speaks against any aspect of religion.

So, that's a fair point, but I would add that immutability on either side is a man-made thing for the most part. In say, Christianity there are maybe a small handful of immutable concepts (Diety of Christ, God created the world...and I don't think the how is immutable, etc. etc.) but as best as I can tell NONE of those goes against whether or not it's hotter at the north pole than it should be or ocean levels are on the rise.

I agree that the immutability is completely on a personal level. As the article points out, it is not comfortable or natural for us to question our viewpoints and it is each of our personal responsibility to combat our "baser" instincts and continue to challenge and investigate.

fast_eddie_72

That was a really interesting read. Thank you for posting. That really rings true and gives organization to a lot of ideas I've had for a while.

It's unlikely that it would happen at the elementary or high school level, but I do wish we placed more value on teaching "thinking skills" at the college level. It's become very popular to criticize liberal arts universities lately because it's more difficult to make a direct correlation between the cost of a degree and future earning potential. That gets even muddier in a world where those schools are doing a poorer job preparing young people for thoughtful, fruitful lives.

Alehmer

Teach scientific method as basic logic early and often.

Oh, and science-minded people, don't get cocky and arrogant either, lest you become the people you are mocking.

I think s huge factors in this are:

1 - Confirmation bias. We all automatically search for what we already believe in what we experience and filter out what we don't. IE a liberal watching Fox or conservative watching MSNBC will already be sitting in wait, filtering for anything that shows that 'these are just biased idiots'. This is an automatic psychological function, but one that can be actively trained against. Don't let yourself sit on your high horse and not find out for yourself because someone you like said it was true or someone you hate say it's the other way.

2 - Group polarization. Get a group of like-minded people together, and you'll get a group that becomes more and more extreme. They become echo chambers where only one side is held up as true and all else is discarded or mocked, and through repetition it goes from an idea to belief to absolute fact. You can see this in almost any blog or community site, whether it be fitness (wow, there really is NOTHING better than Yoga!!) to food (can you believe those idiots out there not eating an 80/10/10 macro diet) to politics or sports or anything. It's mob mentality. And guess what has risen sharply right in line with partisanship, the specialized media where you can choose to only read conservative/liberal/religious/whatever media on TV, radio, and online.

sklarbodds

Regarding #1 - Science cannot prove that something does not exist if there is no evidence for it existing in the first place... The burden of proof is not on science. You could argue the same with an invisible unicorn. However, the claims in several religious books have been proven to be either false or metaphorical at best. I think that is why there is such debate. I can show you the Earth is more than a few thousands years old...

OK, I think it would be foolish to ask science to prove their is a God, or a magical invisible unicorn. I'm certainly not advocating an attempt to do so.

It would be silly of you to assume I believe all of the platitudes spouted out by religious individuals such as the age of the earth.

But an example of how we 'put God in a box'. For the sake of this argument, let's assume you and I both believe that A) God exists and He can do literally anything. ANYTHING.

So, in order for both the overwhelming evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and for a belief that God created the world say 6,000 years ago to be true, what would have to happen?

Well, God would have to make it appear that the earth is 4.499999 (ish) billion years old at the time of creation. How could he do that? I would guess there's a billion answers to that, but here's one...what if he made 4.49999 billion happen in a 10th of a second? Or, what if he created it in a 'done' state but put laws of the universe in place to continue evolving it?

The point is, science would not contradict God but just give us some insight into how it's done or maybe what's happened since.

Since I assume you will want to argue the validity of the age of the earth, let's not get lost in the details. I personally don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Regarding #2 - "Science is often wrong" is a pretty big statement there in itself. It is not science itself but the scientific knowledge that changes and evolves as we figure things out. The method for carrying it out has been established and it is the way we rely on for what you may think of as "science." The way we find things out IS actually by looking at facts and happenings with actual physical proof and findings. I feel your statement that it is not fact is misleading.

Maybe I should say, "scientific findings are often wrong" which has been proven time and time again by empirical evidence

But even then, at the root of it all is our 'observation' which is imperfect regardless of how hard we try. I mean, if you'd like we can get into the science of observable fact? (kidding)

sklarbodds

I can agree with this but I also have to point out the problem that arises for both science and religion when they become immutable. In cases when it does, it seems that science suffers because if science becomes immutable, it stagnates through the rejection of new viewpoints and evidence. When religion becomes immutable, science suffers through the denial and distrust of any scientific evidence that speaks against any aspect of religion.

So, that's a fair point, but I would add that immutability on either side is a man-made thing for the most part. In say, Christianity there are maybe a small handful of immutable concepts (Diety of Christ, God created the world...and I don't think the how is immutable, etc. etc.) but as best as I can tell NONE of those goes against whether or not it's hotter at the north pole than it should be or ocean levels are on the rise.

I agree that the immutability is completely on a personal level. As the article points out, it is not comfortable or natural for us to question our viewpoints and it is each of our personal responsibility to combat our "baser" instincts and continue to challenge and investigate.

Agree completely.

LiftAllThePizzas

Intertesting OP. The two things that came to mind are:
1- Priming everyone against conspiracy theories would make it easier for a real conspiracy to get much further.:laugh:

2- Many people simply lack the ability to evaluate things like evidence and use logic to determine what is or isn't true. I don't mean they need to be educated about it. I mean there are plenty of people who just plain do not have the brainpower to do it no matter how much effort you put into educating them.

Lemmy_Gonau

I believe in ALIENS!
I believe in FATE!
I believe in FAERIES!!!!

I BELIEVE I BELIEVE I BELIEVE IN LOVE. LOVE. LOVE.
http://youtu.be/E8-bMgDANEk

sure, that's all good but, do you believe in unicorn's?

sklarbodds

Teach scientific method as basic logic early and often.

Oh, and science-minded people, don't get cocky and arrogant either, lest you become the people you are mocking.

I think s huge factors in this are:

1 - Confirmation bias. We all automatically search for what we already believe in what we experience and filter out what we don't. IE a liberal watching Fox or conservative watching MSNBC will already be sitting in wait, filtering for anything that shows that 'these are just biased idiots'. This is an automatic psychological function, but one that can be actively trained against. Don't let yourself sit on your high horse and not find out for yourself because someone you like said it was true or someone you hate say it's the other way.

2 - Group polarization. Get a group of like-minded people together, and you'll get a group that becomes more and more extreme. They become echo chambers where only one side is held up as true and all else is discarded or mocked, and through repetition it goes from an idea to belief to absolute fact. You can see this in almost any blog or community site, whether it be fitness (wow, there really is NOTHING better than Yoga!!) to food (can you believe those idiots out there not eating an 80/10/10 macro diet) to politics or sports or anything. It's mob mentality. And guess what has risen sharply right in line with partisanship, the specialized media where you can choose to only read conservative/liberal/religious/whatever media on TV, radio, and online.