Denialism. Why people believe unbelievable things.

Never really understand why I get silence in response to what appears to me to be a well-thought out, logical, non-combative viewpoint. Ugh. Am I just wasting my time? Lets try again:


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.

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.

Never really understand why I get silence in response to what appears to me to be a well-thought out, logical, non-combative viewpoint. Ugh. Am I just wasting my time? Lets try again:


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.

So you are arguing for Creationism? Which method of creationism? The Judeo-Christian 6 day model? The Egyptian rising from the sea? The Fon of Western Africa believe that the creation deity was carried from place to place by a rainbow dragon. The Mayans believed that man was made from Maize because they did not have a soul when made from wood.

I understand that Intelligent Design can be an attractive view of how we got to where we are but I feel that it is the easy way out and does not answer the "how" that science seeks. Also, depending on your cosmology, it opens up the question of "why" which can then muddy the waters and obstruct research.

As I stated above, both religion and science can suffer from views of immutability. I have yet to meet a scientist who feels that they know all of the answers or are not open to new views. That being said, there are plenty of scientific theories that have been researched and tested to the point that they are accepted as fact yet some scientists continue to peel back the layers of the onion.

Never really understand why I get silence in response to what appears to me to be a well-thought out, logical, non-combative viewpoint. Ugh. Am I just wasting my time? Lets try again:


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.

So you are arguing for Creationism? Which method of creationism? The Judeo-Christian 6 day model? The Egyptian rising from the sea? The Fon of Western Africa believe that the creation deity was carried from place to place by a rainbow dragon. The Mayans believed that man was made from Maize because they did not have a soul when made from wood.

I understand that Intelligent Design can be an attractive view of how we got to where we are but I feel that it is the easy way out and does not answer the "how" that science seeks. Also, depending on your cosmology, it opens up the question of "why" which can then muddy the waters and obstruct research.

As I stated above, both religion and science can suffer from views of immutability. I have yet to meet a scientist who feels that they know all of the answers or are not open to new views. That being said, there are plenty of scientific theories that have been researched and tested to the point that they are accepted as fact yet some scientists continue to peel back the layers of the onion.

I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).

As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.

I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.

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:

Suddenly you are interesting in discussing? Funny how that happens.

I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).

As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.

I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.

I understood it perfectly. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes, and the peanut is one of my favorite foods!

I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).

As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.

I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.

I understood it perfectly. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes, and the peanut is one of my favorite foods!

Thanks.

Democritus, Epicurus, Andrew Carnegie, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, {deleted} Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...

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