Denialism. Why people believe unbelievable things.

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.

richardheath

Tagging for later. A quick skim of the OP made me think of the book "Why people believe weird things" by Shermer... Well worth a read if you are intrigued by things like this!

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893

sklarbodds

1- Priming everyone against conspiracy theories would make it easier for a real conspiracy to get much further.:laugh:

Yes, this article is completely fabricated by the federal government to stop us from questioning climate change, vaccines and for some reason turkey bacon.

WendyTerry420

TLDR

doorki

1- Priming everyone against conspiracy theories would make it easier for a real conspiracy to get much further.:laugh:

Yes, this article is completely fabricated by the federal government to stop us from questioning climate change, vaccines and for some reason turkey bacon.

There is no such things as Turkey bacon. Bacon is pork, turkey is not pork, therefore no turkey bacon...unless Monsanto is involved....its always Monsanto!

WendyTerry420

This topic is in the wrong forums. Throw it into an academic forum and you might receive more desired responses (depending on what kind of response you wanted, I wouldn't know).

Yep. It's not chit-chat, not fun, not games. NEXT!

sklarbodds

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?

I forgot to add that since time is relative and can be manipulated and controlled by movement time is irrelevant...let alone to God

janesmith1

Agree with the OP 100% especially regarding this forum. Way too many people are magical thinkers. The latest diet fad, supplement, food, tea or even more dangerous stuff is always on here. I was even given a "warning" from the mod for arguing with one of the "advocates" of some silly thing..

& this is 100% true

"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. "

I think most people, and this is jmho, are more complex than just polarized sides but the polarized sides people, ie, the TRUE BELIEVERS, force people into sides.

WendyTerry420

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 politics of lies is destroying the U.S. :brokenheart:

Unknown

This content has been removed.

sklarbodds

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?

I forgot to add that since time is relative and can be manipulated and controlled by movement time is irrelevant...let alone to God

Well since religion because a subject of debate I don't expect this thread to last long. Soooo...

If you believe that the universe was created by an omnipotent deity who likes to play weird tricks on his most special chosen creation because.. I don't know..he's weird like that.. you have a real warped view of reality.

The universe exists, we are a part of it, beyond that you're just making things up.

Define weird tricks?

doorki

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?

I forgot to add that since time is relative and can be manipulated and controlled by movement time is irrelevant...let alone to God

Well since religion because a subject of debate I don't expect this thread to last long. Soooo...

If you believe that the universe was created by an omnipotent deity who likes to play weird tricks on his most special chosen creation because.. I don't know..he's weird like that.. you have a real warped view of reality.

The universe exists, we are a part of it, beyond that you're just making things up.

I have to disagree with the sentiment implied by your last statement. It seems that we should just accept the readily apparent and not look beyond that. If this was the popular thinking, science would not have progressed to where we are today.

fast_eddie_72

Remember when the 'climate change' side was actually 'global warming'?

In my opinion, climate change is the ideal example, and clearly shows how people will shift their objection rather than compromise "who they are". Global warming is still a fine way to phrase it. I believe the phrase fell out of favor, in part, due to a very effective misinformation campaign from the deniers. How many times this winter have you looked on Facebook and seen people making "global warming" jokes because it's cold. No mention of record high temperatures in Australia or even Alaska. Climate change is just a more accommodating way of phrasing it because it correctly includes more of the likely effects of global average temperature rise. Many times, those will be seen locally as sever weather events that are not particularly warm.

And the shift from "climate change" to "man made climate change" is the accommodation the deniers made when it because very difficult to deny that the temperature was, in fact, rising in a measurable way.

The people who said "it's getting warmer because we're putting too much carbon into the atmosphere" still say what they've always said. The people who first denied it was getting warmer at all have now found a new, more defensible position that doesn't require them to change their world view. Fist they denied it was getting warmer. Now they accept that it is getting warmer, but still insist they were right all along. But the fact remains - the overwhelming (more so every year) mountain of observational data confirms that the climate is changing as a result of carbon in the atmosphere.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bennettinfinity

I have an engineering degree; i have a background in data collection, data analysis, and modeling.

When your model fails to make accurate predictions, it's wrong - you have failed to account for significant variables.

If you're changing your model to fit your observations, it's wrong - you have failed to account for significant variables, but now you've shown a bias to a desired output.

And *that* my friends, is the definition of 'anti-science'.

Science is the pursuit of the truth, not an agenda.

Sinisterly

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?

I do have to admit... That at this point in time, I do believe in unicorns.
Yes.

DamePiglet

Why do people have different religious beliefs? People will believe what they want to believe. If they take comfort in what they believe, more power too them.

^ Nicely said.

that is all well and good until it starts to hurt society much like climate change deniers are.

Yep. Or when it starts affecting people's health. Like we see on the boards every day - people are extremely susceptible to the latest diet crazes, which do nothing except lighten their wallets and keep them from their goals.

I agree. Extremists are excluded from my statement.

It's not only extremists. Just plain old ignorance too. Been to the South lately? It's still kinda like the 1800 as far as racial issues. I can't take it out there. I just wanna shoot all the whites. And, I'm white. It's unreal.



Being open minded is truly a difficult thing to do. You even have to constantly question you own deeply held beliefs. While I think some people do this, many don't.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.



How can you make such a sweeping generalization, then come back with "people should be open minded"?

sklarbodds

Define weird tricks?

...what if he made 4.49999 billion (years) happen in a 10th of a second?

That.

(edited to make sense, even though it makes no sense to begin with)

So...why would that be a weird trick on someone? That makes no sense.

For instance...if I want to boil a pot of water, I'm not going to just set it out and hope it gets hot enough, I'm going to turn up the burner on my stove and set it on the maximum temperature so it happens as fast as possible.

If you were making something, wouldn't you want it to happen quickly and not take 4.5 billion years?

ComradeTovarich

Ha, you guys are going to feel really dumb when the chemicals in the vapor trails take over your mind and the reptilian illuminati wrest control of the world. Meanwhile, I'll be completely safe because I decided to buy stock in reynolds wrap. Me -1, NWO - 0.

DamePiglet

Define weird tricks?

...what if he made 4.49999 billion (years) happen in a 10th of a second?

That.

(edited to make sense, even though it makes no sense to begin with)

So...why would that be a weird trick on someone? That makes no sense.

For instance...if I want to boil a pot of water, I'm not going to just set it out and hope it gets hot enough, I'm going to turn up the burner on my stove and set it on the maximum temperature so it happens as fast as possible.

If you were making something, wouldn't you want it to happen quickly and not take 4.5 billion years?

Less-aggressive calorie deficit?

CJisinShape

The fact is, we are constantly being told what the facts are, and that we should believe them. But scientific fact keeps changing. In addition, what is observable, like humans, or simpler, an ant, has not yet been fully understood even after thousands of years of study and observation have been made. Nevertheless, the scientific community will attempt to explain the brilliance of nature by dumb accident, and string bits and pieces of ideas to support the conclusion, while being unable to observe or test these ideas.

I know I'm dating myself to admit this, but when I was in college, my professor was working on the Human Genome Project. He said that he was disturbed by the ideologues in his field, who essentially, like the article you mentioned, are blinded by their belief -- in macroevolution. He took issue with their unwillingness to admit that there are many, very large holes in the theory (enough to throw turkeys through, was the phrase he used). Where was their scientific curiosity, their empirical quest for truth?

An archaeologist finds in the sands, a broken piece of pottery. They will carbon date it back to a certain time in history and paint a picture for us about the people who made the "sophisticated" artwork. And yet, another scientist will consider a human being, for all our symmetry and beauty and consider this incredibly sophisticated art as something NOT designed? Ask an artist how difficult it is to draw hands, ask a roboticist how difficult it is to make a robot walk and not fall over. The brilliance in the earth is astounding.

George Washington Carver embraced science and faith, and was a better scientist for it. He enraged other scientists, because his method of discovery was not the scientific method, and yet he continued to make an abundance of scientific discoveries. When brought before congress to testify, they asked him where he was able to attain such knowledge. "From an old book," he said. "What book?," they asked. "The Bible," he replied. They asked, "does the Bible say anything about the peanut?" No, but it does say about the God that made the peanut.

Scientists are still making discoveries about humans and ants, although we have been studying both for thousands of years. Very sophisticated, I would say.