From the SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
San Antonio, Texas – Psychological researchers are working to understand the cognitive processes, ideologies, cultural demands, and conspiracy beliefs that cause smart people to resist scientific messages. Using surveys, experiments, observational studies and meta-analyses, the researchers capture an emerging theoretical frontier with an eye to making science communication efforts smarter and more effective.
Protecting “Pet Beliefs”
One striking feature of people who hold science-skeptic views is that they are often just as educated, and just as interested in science, as the rest of us. The problem is not about whether they are exposed to information, but about whether the information is processed in a balanced way. It manifests itself in what Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) describes as “thinking like a lawyer,” in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to “in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true.”
“We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser,” says Troy Campbell (University of Oregon).
Dan Kahan (Yale University) agrees, finding in their research that “the deposition is to construe evidence in identity-congruent rather than truth-congruent ways, a state of disorientation that is pretty symmetric across the political spectrum.”
Changing Minds
Merely talking about “evidence” or “data” does not typically change a skeptic’s mind about a particular topic, whether it is climate change, genetically modified organisms, or vaccines. People use science and fact to support their particular opinion and will downplay what they don’t agree with.
“Where there is conflict over societal risks – from climate change to nuclear-power safety to impacts of gun control laws, both sides invoke the mantel of science,” says Kahan.
“In our research, we find that people treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions,” says Campbell. “When the facts are against their opinions, they don’t necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant.”
One approach to deal with science skepticism is to identify the underlying motivations or “attitude roots,” as Hornsey describes in his recent research (American Psychologist, in Press).
“Rather than taking on people’s surface attitudes directly, tailor the message so that it aligns with their motivation. So with climate skeptics, for example, you find out what they can agree on and then frame climate messages to align with these.”
Kahan’s recent research shows that a person’s level of scientific curiosity could help promote more open-minded engagement. They found that people who enjoyed surprising findings, even if it was counter to their political beefs, were more open to the new information. As Kahan and his colleagues note, their findings are preliminary and require more research.
Hornsey, Campbell, Kahan and Robbie Sutton (University of Kent) will present their research at the symposium, Rejection of Science: Fresh Perspectives on the Anti-Enlightenment Movement. The talks take place on Saturday, January 21, 2017, at the SPSP Annual Convention. More than 3000 scientists are in attendance at the conference in San Antonio from January 19-21.
###
The most glaring fallacy is their unstated premise that all human minds work the same way. AND then, that all “information” is equal or that IT is factual because it is “scientific” or at least was put forth (produced) by a so called scientist – – OR SMART person. Never it is it acknowledged that ALL “information” comes from imperfect humans AND yes, that includes model outputs. So – –
“…their findings are preliminary and require more research. Yes, they certainly need more money to find more “facts” to support their smart opinions.
So apparently we skeptics/climate realists “resist scientific messages”. The “message” part would be what we’re supposed to take on faith, because someone in Authority says so, and they are oh so much smarter, and the “science” part would be the window dressing, to make it look like what they are pushing is actual science. And they can’t figure out why we resist? Bwa-hahahahahaha!
““Rather than taking on people’s surface attitudes directly, tailor the message so that it aligns with their motivation.”
Every sales person knows that and learned it in Sales 101.
Screw the psychobabble. I’m a skeptic of CAGW because the motives of people on both sides are transparent. Politicians love CAGW because they can tax the crap out their constituents and grow the government with the excuse that it is necessary to save the planet. That opens the money spigots of government to fund academic research which makes academics happy and accepting of CAGW. It also opens the spigots to subsidize CO2 reducing technologies which makes a lot of businessmen champions of CAGW. On the other hand there is very little motivation to oppose CAGW except that the science doesn’t smell right based largely on the fact that the proponents are behaving like true believers and that is very unscientific. Given that science is based on skepticism any one who understand the scientific method will find it easy to remain skeptical of CAGW.
This is yet another of Dan Kahan’s “one note symphony” papers. He is absolutely in love with his idea that the real reason that not every one agrees with “consensus positions” published by various experts groups (and to be truthful, he often misrepresents what those consensus positions are) is that people are “protecting identity-congruent ideas”.
He never once pauses to consider that the “consensus position” he tests with his social science studies is not the the one actually published and promoted by “experts” or that there might be some real scientific controversy, some real valid disagreement, with the consensus position, even among experts.
It is not that intellectually lazy people aren’t biased in favor of ideas that match those they already hold — they are. But this also explains the very consensus positions he thinks are sacred — which he believes “must be true” because they are the consensus. Kahan utterly fails to see that bias sword cuts both ways — consensus positions may well simply represent the collective bias of a particular field (h/t Ioanides).
I have written somewhat on Kahan over at Judith Curry’s: “Perversions of open-minded thinking on climate change”.
“Kahan utterly fails to see that bias sword cuts both ways — consensus positions may well simply represent the collective bias of a particular field…”
Unless he actually intends to take something that is so broadly and generally true as to be axiomatic, and then apply it in one highly selective instance, excluding all other cases. That happens a lot.
Any one can affirm truths. But make sure your life does not depend on their being able either to apply them correctly to any real life circumstances, or to apply true principles in equally appropriate circumstances. You will die before that happens.
Excepting good engineers, within their own field. That is a huge exception (:
Zeke ==> It is an interesting exercise to go to the Cultural Cognition site and actually read the various synopses of the studies — and see what exact question they use that is supposed to represent the consensus position on each topic. You’ll see that his questions-representing-the-consensus often do not [almost never] match the consensus position in the referenced cite.
Kip Hansen says, “You’ll see that his questions-representing-the-consensus often do not [almost never] match the consensus position in the referenced cite.”
And that’s another thing! (: Thank you Kip Hansen. There is a story of a professor who had a student check all of the references in several books to see if the original sources said what the author cited them for. He found that in most cases they did not. Some were likely second hand citations from other bibliographies.
I have been looking for the terms which are used to describe various ways that scholars and academics quote sources.
For example, pseudoepigraphy attributes one’s own opinions to an older source either by false byline or by using these sources to support one’s own scholarship.
But all of the other terms for referencing work to say what it does not actually say escape me.
This is why it’s a good idea to actually quote those sources, not just cite them.
I wonder to what extent our overly restrictive copyright laws have inhibited this practice, in combination with overly cautious in-house lawyers at publishing firms. I’ve read that publishers, via their copy-editors, tend to require that authors send persons-requests to the original source, and often to offer to pay a %50 permissnions-fee, If as book might have a dozen or more cites-to-quote, this is very inhibitory.
Roger ==> Sometimes (often) it is the other way round — the current paper quotes simple phrases from a previous paper — phrases that are actually there, but that do not communicate the concepts intended by the authors being quoted — things like quoting “unprecedented warming” or something like “may be endangered” being ‘quoted’ from a referenced paper and attaching the phrase to the current author’s own idea. This type of misquoting is far more common — along with false [incorrect] paraphrasing.
This is at Bloomberg today.
Help!!
My friends are asking questions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/hottest-year-on-record/
What is the significance of the “hottest year on record?” What if it goes down this year or next? Personally, I don’t give much credence to the second significant figure to the right of the decimal point. It would appear that there has been a progressive increase in average temperatures, but would one expect anything different after the end of a glacial epoch?
Exactly. +10
Not sure if the LIA counts as a glacial epoch.
I would point out to friends with questions that the satellite temperature records only go back as far as the time that was a low point of the cooling cycle from the 1940s to the 1970s.
If we had satellite temperature data going back to the 1920s and 1930s, we would likely see a very different picture.
I would also point to this:
The LIA is at too fine a scale to show up on an ice core graph. Its trough and peak is tiny relative to stadial and interstadial periods.
This kind of thing burns my britches! Why? Because in other research areas it is fairly well accepted that research is not all of the same quality. Even the federal government knows this is true especially when it comes to education research. See https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/.
Yes, I am skeptical about research but not for the reasons the post list. I am skeptical because research quality in all areas of inquiry is questionable with only a small fraction really worth a damn. Those that tout their own research results, the results of others, or current paradigms, would do well to remember that fact.
These kinds of ‘studies’ are coming out of the woodwork as of late. For example:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy
The author misses the obvious. It isn’t that people generally mistrust statistics, they mistrust the particular statistical numbers provided by their government!
Similarly, from what I observe on this blog, skeptics aren’t “science deniers.” Rather, they are skeptical of what the so-called climate scientists are claiming to be true. Furthermore, they don’t have to ignore certain facts, because they are able to demonstrate that the ‘facts’ are at odds with other facts or principles of science.
What we are seeing is journalists and politicians who actually have a poor grasp of science trying to rationalize some people disagreeing with them and the supposed consensus position. It hasn’t occurred to them that they might be wrong in accepting authority to frame their belief system.
How did computer model results somehow come to be viewed as real world facts by otherwise intelligent people? I have wondered about this for quite awhile.
I’m skeptical about the pseudo science fraud because I’ve been an atmospheric chemistry and radiation expert for many years, and as soon as another scientist from N.A.S.A. told me the proper law of thermodynamics to solve for temperature in the atmosphere is not in James Hansen’s, and others’ so-called ‘models’ I checked myself,
and sure enough, the proper law of thermodynamics isn’t being used to solve temperature of the atmosphere.
The hydrostatic equation is left out and in compressible fluids, the hydrostatic condition is the part of their mathematics and physics, that has their fundamentals calculated with a law of thermodynamics written specifically for, compressed fluids: atmospheric mix, gases, vapors, etc.
And as soon as I saw that believers in the ‘Green House Effect’ so-called “physics,” claims that using the power of government supercomputers it’s possible to calculate the temperature of the atmosphere using solely Stefan-Boltzmann and not the full law for solving our atmosphere, which would account for the
Hydrostatic Condition,
or in other words,
density of the volume
and that their temperature is exactly 33 degrees short of the actual temperature of the earth,
and then I checked the warming that the hydrostatic condition contributes to temperature of the atmosphere and it is ALSO
exactly 33 degrees,
and I saw the claim there is a REAL ”33 degree Green House Effect”
I knew it was fraud.
End of story,
end of anybody’s bullshit who claims otherwise,
which is why people who claim they think it’s basically real science, are all practically subterranean intellects whose every atmospheric and physical science reference, draws snorts of ridicule from every quarter.
…. +1 ..
Anthony, could you help me put this turkey straight?
I’m particularly sensitive to this line of BS because I fell for it once – for all of a day and a half, until I noticed it depends on the Adiabatic Equation (which Ivan calls the Hydrostatic Condition for some reason), and the situation is anything but adiabatic! Nice try, but yes, the Greenhouse Effect and back-radiation and the rest of it are real things.
I’ve noticed a lot of this Greenhouse Effect denialism lately on the sceptic blogs. All the same sort of thing – half digested scientific terminology, the claim to be a professional expert of long standing (unlikely in view of the non-scientific literary style!), bombastic denunciations of all who disagree…
I have to wonder if it’s some kind of monkey warfare on the part of alarmists. If this becomes the mainstream of climate scepticism (and it’s getting that way) then the rational sceptics are in big trouble.
Uncle Gus the peddlers of the pseudo-scientific, thermodynamic garbage called GHE mediated AGW are in big trouble. They send the likes of you, because the people who make money off the scam aren’t going to be caught dead, in an open debate with a real atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric radiation expert.
You have to wonder? You have to wonder what the name of the law of thermodynamics governing the atmosphere is, since you’re educated in the very schools who are also teaching you pot is like heroin, and that mankind is the source of the ozone holes over the poles.
You don’t need to wonder, go get the education to discuss the matter properly, and explain to us all why the very mathematics that give the world the proper response curves to land rockets on mars, and keep the entire aviation/avionics/flight/internal combustion/air conditioning/furnaces and ovens fields,
legally regulable, don’t work any more, and we all have to start calculating the temperatures of volumes of air, gas, and vapors, with the thermodynamic laws written to solve matter/energy relationships for other phases of matter.
I have read through a lot of the AGW/GHE claims and have personally found many violations of thermodynamic law, and although I only have a scant few hours flying an aircraft myself, I also know of the arguments A Schauer made: and find similar things when I investigate.
If I were to tell someone I understand any field of endeavor on earth, from cooking and gardening, and interior decoration, to nursing, to search & rescue, to being a part-time or even full-time pilot, a carpenter, or welder –
I am expected to be sufficiently well versed in the subject matter that I can either defend my own beliefs, or teach myself more, until I can; not simply call for the summary banning of people whose arguments – you have basically admitted – you can’t even understand.
You made claims of the mainsteam of climate skepticism to be in big trouble, because those who constitute it can explain in precise detail what they mean: they have education in the relevant fields, they have work experience in the relevant fields, and the people who actually say they think Mann-Maid warming is real,
usually can’t even discuss the definition of what warmer and colder are..
I can show this to you right now Uncle Gus. You said you doubt A Schauer is a competent chemist and radiation professional. I know there are a lot of fields that include knowledge of gas & atmospheric chemistry and radiation: air conditioning and furnaces, internal combustion – are you claiming you don’t believe A Schauer is competent to discuss air conditioning, furnaces, ovens, kilns, and combustion?
Somehow I think Uncle Gus that it’s you, who don’t have a scientific education. I can’t put my finger on why but I feel certain of it.
Do you have any college at all in atmospheric/gas chemistry? Any vocational training that even a welder or air conditioning/furnaces or automobile engine mechanic has?
Because you’re in here calling for the summary banning of people when your own obviously highly suspect, and proven compromised science, is being yanked from websites.
Not that I expect you to respond Uncle Gus because I think you’re too much a coward to respond properly or you wouldn’t be simply asking for people who you don’t agree with to be banned; and if you weren’t somewhat cowardly you wouldn’t be so disorganized and confused that you were claiming it’s scientific scepticism over your shoddy scientific so-called ‘theory’ being mocked and pulled from respectable web pages.
It’s YOUR work that’s being yanked from web pages, the work YOU believe in.
It’s YOUR shoddy science Uncle Gus that can’t stand up to merest scrutiny because even student level investigation has people refusing to associate themselves with even believing it can be true.
Tell me this Uncle Gus. Explain it and I’ll leave you alone: but if you don’t, you owe A Scjhauer an apology and everyone else whose scepticism you question, but doubtless can’t counter with intelligent retort.
In the 20th century mankind put spacecraft in to orbit which have telescopes on them: space based astronomy is very expensive and so to get around this,in the mid 1980s finally some scientists discovered how to warp the mirrors of telescopes over a timeframe, while taking photographs of an astronomical object.
They controlled this warpage of the mirrors initially using vacuum; and this presented the ability for astronomers, to warp the mirror many times, using computer algorithms, and then when it was all over, they’d make a composite photograph of those slides or frames, which created the very smallest, and most unwavering, image: and they found that immediately they were able to take photographs of the sky which removed the magnification limit of just a few hundred times in ground based astronomy, and
by the end of the 20th century,
they were taking photographs which rival those taken by space based astronomy.
But they weren’t done Uncle Gus they started making ever larger mirrors and then, arrays of them, which they put close to each other individually, and pointed at sections of the sky. They then,
using computer algorithms,
vibrate these mirrors and combine all the images the mirrors in aggregate create: and just like before, they then blend and subtract all the extra information, till they get an image, which is as clear as a space based telescope – and furthermore the magnification is huge, because – they make arrays of mirrors the size of a house.
The size of a large lot on a city block. By contrast, the Hubble telescope has an objective mirror that is 80 inches across and cost nearly a billion dollars to create right, before it was over. The first mirror on Hubble was precision ground but still had anomalies and a second mirror had to be installed: a trip to space required for both launchings.
In contrast modern ground based optical astronomy can place mirrors in arrays the size of a city block: and are currently planning telescopes with multi-phase, aggregate mirrors as I’ve described to you.
Gus this isn’t a competition to see who can sound slick, sophisticated and officious. I worked in a scientific field, water treatment, and people didn’t refer to everything in the most long winded and rarified language possible, the tendency of actual working scientists, is to put things in simpler terms rather than more complex ones, because they know analogies are very easily related by the less well versed.
Gus pay attention because I want your answer to be as clear as you can make it for me. You don’t need a discussion of adiabatic or hydrostatic or super-saturation conditions as on Venus, you just need to explain something to me, and I’ll show you why,
people who believe the way you do,
only have resort to begging to have your religion’s detractors, banned/silenced simply because they befuddle your church’s wrong, lurching, error-riddled fraud.
If these mirror arrays, have made modern ground based astronomy not just rival space based astronomy but in several ways far surpass it due to being able to create virtual objective mirrors almost the size of a city block.
why haven’t their extremely highly, technially proficient atmosheric chemistry, energy and radiation experts,
been telling the world frantically,
to please, come look at these computer algorithms they’ve been using to warp/vibrate their mirrors, till they can comb out even the most tiny fractions of the evidence – of the very light, you claim above, is growing in the night sky of earth?
Why isn’t there a single computerized, image-stabilized telescope operator/administrator/head astrophysicist, crying out to the world to please, PLEASE look,
at his undeniable evidence that the very back radiatioin you claim to believe has been growing, growing growing all this time – is actually growing ever greater, destabilizing ground based scopes – both uncompensated ones, and those early ones which were built with the more primitive image correction mirror-warping apparatus?
Why Gus, isn’t the field I studied some in, and that I still stay in touch with, it’s basic physics with mankind’s machinery pitted against it in open science worldwide – why isn’t aviation, the commercial and other aviation fiellds,
reporting their own flight computers aggregating ever more computer-recorded data, showing higher energy, therefore higher turbulence, in an ever warming sky. Uncle Gus? Answer to us all why the entire Aviationi and computer Avionics fields haven’t realized their own data is just loaded with all the evidence of this claimed, yet vociferously disputed/refuted, back radiation increase, with associated night-time temperature warming?
Why aren’t we all aware of both those fields reporting what I said to you Uncle Gus? Should you be banned or attacked by the blog owner if you can’t answer these questions, or should I be, because YOU – can’t answer these questions?
Uncle Gus: explain to us all why those in the ground based astronomy fields haven’t simply gone from telescope to telescope worldwide, and retrieved photographs of the night sky at the same time of the year, looking at the same regions – as in all the astronomy college and university classes on earth, during the entirety,
of the late 20th century, to early 21st century – why hasn’t one single professor, one single school telescope administrator, one single amateur astronomer, one single student, looking for that blockbuster, grade A paper – just gone,
and gotten photographs through the same or similar scopes, at the same sections of the night sky, on the same day/night, at the same time –
and showed them to those of us who caught these other frauds and said “Here! Here it is! Proof that the ever rising, Earth-generated night-time infrared, which causes ‘Atmospheric Scintillation’ or the effect of the
stars twinkling over your angry, resentful head “Uncle” Gus –
is creating ever more warmth-
is creating ever more atmospheric turbulence – the very turbulence that’s limited ground based astronomy to just a few hundred times’ power, for 400 years – the turbulence able to be completely removed via mirror manipulation to offset it today –
why hasn’t someone gotten the photographs that prove, the night time sky is being ever warmer, and therefore is being ever more turbulent?
Explain that Gus. I told you my qualifications for the observations I note you can’t account for. I just studied a little bit of astronomy, I watched a PBS movie one time called ”400 years of Astronomy” or something like that, to derive my question about the mirror warping and vibration.
But the question about the astronomy field not having ANY evidence of ever rising atmospheric turbulence, specifically due to the very light you tell me is growing in intensity – the night skies you swear to me you are sure MUST be growing ever warmer, ever warmer…
Why don’t any of the fields whose instruments could not hide the ever rising warmth, report ANY rising warmth?
The commercial aviation field is directly dependent on atmospheric temperature, to set how much fuel is needed to go from one point to another. Hotter air is thinner air, and thinner air, requires more power.
Do you question that I know enough about aviation to know that? I think you wish you could, but I think your main concern is the complete – the word is ‘absolute’
lack of answers your religion can present, to scientific inquiry like I just presented you.
Tell me what part of my scientific inquiry is wrong. Tell me your answers, so everyone here sees the difference between the scientific expert,
and the scientifically befuddled,
buffoon.
When you ask for all scientific debate to be stopped by the blog owner that’s an immediate sign you have something to hide, or you’d love seeing the truth destroy the foolish who ask questions easily answered.
Answer mine or your belief system is fake. There’s nothing more. I’m not asking you based on qualifications, I’m asking you based on fundamental knowledge of how, and why the stars twinkle, and how, and why, the astronomy field had to do something about it.
I’m asking you because I want your explanation why the commercial airlines haven’t shown the world their ever rising data showing more turbulent, more warm, more fuel demanding atmospheric conditions.
It ought to all be rising, right alongside the fraudulent, faked temperature records, government institutions are fabricating and publishing as real science.
In the same vein, back in 2010 the BBC had an article arrogantly asking “Why do people vote against their own interests?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474611.stm
Six years later, and they still can’t ask themselves why they got it wrong again. Pretending to know what other people should think is their own interests seems to be a habit they just can’t shake off.
When people are angry, they want to hurt someone, anyone. It is not a rational action. If a person pops up and says “you have suffered enough, it is the fault of ( insert names here) they will vote for that person out of anger. There are many cases in history where populist politicians say their voters are victims and give them someone to be angry at in order to gain power. Currently it’s Mexicans, Muslims, the EU, but it can be anyone. As the odious Slbodan Mislosovich said to his Serbian compatriots. “No one will beat you anymore, this stops now” Beware of politicians who do this. No good ever comes of it,
Well that has been the Democrats approach for decades. They tell African-Americans that all their problems are caused by whites, especially white Republicans. In return the African-Americans, now absolved from any responsibility for their situation, vote Democrat.
You mean like Hillary, in rallying her supporters, calling Trump supporters deplorable?
Or do you mean like when Obama labeled climate skeptics as “flat earthers”?
Or how about most Western politicians labeling anyone who would like to see immigration reform and reasonable border laws enforced as “racists”?
Or of course arrogant reactionary posters here, like you, implying that you know better and that anyone disagreeing with you is doing so not out of thought out positions but instead due to anger.
I have low respect for psychologists as every one I know lives in an egocentric world. And every one is respectful of my knowledge of their craft..nay, they treat me as an equal. Except I apply the scientific method to their craft and always question the status quo. While psychology is rife with surrender.
Having just completed a psychology degree (heavy on statistics), I can say with confidence that the lack of self-awareness is staggering. The academics would berate anyone with a differing opinion on climate change (yes, climate change in a psychology course) but then bang on about how they were ensuring we would come out as enquiring scientists/practitioners. There were a couple of staff with entire careers on studying the psychological impacts of climate change and how people could be deniers. The results would appear that only psychologically damaged individuals would cling to the false doctrines of the skeptic, and that these poor individuals should be pitied and helped as much as possible because they were clearly weak minded. I couldn’t voice an opinion as these people were the ones marking your work, so it was a matter of shutting up and spouting the stupidity until the final grades were handed out.
I learned many things though, one of them being stats can be manipulated to give you a result, that correlation does not equal causation (unless it’s about climate change) and that higher-education is filled with foolishness. I could only recommend a university degree for hard sciences, medicine, computing or languages. Humanities by and large has been totally corrupted by the Left.
Thank you so much for this look insight. I have to adjust my perception of the human race. And pray for the return of the enlightenment.
It was really sad to see the disgraced ex-Brtish Doctor Andrew,Wakefield, who helped launch the anti-vaccine movement with a fraudulent study linking vaccines to autism, attending one of Trumps inaugural balls. I’m aware that Trump has decided to ignore good research, fact and reams of evidence and encourage the idea that inoculations are linked to Autism, but to see this villain at one of his balls is pretty bad. What next? Chemtrail conspirators in the oval office as advisors ?
One thing that does concern me as a health professional, is if Trump is determined to reduce the number of people who have good healthcare in the US and is also discouraging uptake of vaccines, how long will it be before an outbreak of diseases we thought had been contained once more occurs? It can only be a question of time.
When one is an ideologue, one needs to frame the discussion rather badly. Tge academy of today is infested with ideologues posing as academics. As the paper this thread discusses demonstrates rather well.
Sorry but was Wakefield a personal guest of Trump? Do you even gave evidence to back up your clsim that he even attended?
Gareth, your post is a turd mine of bs. Trump has determined to reduce the number if people insured? Please do show us any evidence that his goal is to do that. Unless you are an Obama zombie who thinks fixing an unworkable broken plan is a bad thing.
You don’t read as much about it anymore, but in totalitarian countries (especially communist ones) people were sent to asylums for disagreeing with state policies and beliefs because they were obviously mentally ill.
Indeed Jbird. That’s what worries me so much about Trump condemning any media outlet which reports anything he finds less than praiseworthy. The White house press spokesman yesterday was a case in point, he was obviously lying, but told the press it was their fault for not reporting in a ‘correct’ manner. Apparently something which is a patent lie by the administration is now called an ‘alternative fact’
We all know totalitarian government of all political persuasions have done this before they were overthrown, but to see it happening so blatantly in the US, long a beacon of hope. is truly disturbing.
George Orwell must be turning in his grave.
You need to stop kidding yourself. The same media outraged over questionable stars about details of the inauguration enabled and praised team Obama for deliberately lying about laws, policy, corruption, and even the killing of Americans. The faux outrage is disgusting.
curse “smart”phone autofill.
….questionable stats….
Yeah, i would think orwell would be rolling over because of the msm rather than trump…
Oh, get off your high horse. What difference does it make to anything at all?
Are you suggesting Trump’s spokesman should get a pass on trying to sell us a load of manure?
Have these researchers considered that “open-mindedness” is not necessarily a virtue in a scientist?
Also; “Fresh Perspectives on the Anti-Enlightenment Movement”. No bias here, then…
We’ve considered you have been asked some questions you’re scurrilously and studiously avoiding. Answer the questions which have been put to you by me above, you f***ng FAKE.
ANSWER
ALL the
QUESTIONS I ASKED you to the SCIENTIFIC SATISFACTION OF MYSELF,
and the other readers.
Hornsey, Campbell, Kahan and Robbie Sutton (University of Kent) will present their research at the symposium, Rejection of Science: Fresh Perspectives on the Anti-Enlightenment Movement. The talks take place on Saturday, January 21, 2017, at the SPSP Annual Convention.
More than 3000 scientists are in attendance at the conference in San Antonio from January 19-21.
___________________________________________
More than 3000 scientists flying to San Antonio – a highlight for San Antonios tourism industry.
Hopefully a highlight for science either.
The psych ops teams have been activated.
I don’t see Kahan et al mentioning a major factor: self-interest. If he is trying to use science to tell me how I have to change my life in some way which I perceive to be to my detriment, I’m going to be resistant to his “messages” unless his evidence is overwhelming. This goes for what kind of food goes in my mouth, how much energy costs me, whether my locality bans disposable plastic bags, etc. I will look for evidence of that which keeps me comfortable.
The seeds of science skepticism????? Uh……perhaps science??