Stephan Lewandowsky tried to make climate skeptics look stupid (by not even bothering to sample them, but impugning their beliefs as irrational from out of population samples), this study turns the tables on his execrable work and suggests that climate skeptics are both analytical and rational.
- Analytic thinking is not sufficient to promote skepticism toward various unfounded beliefs.
- Analytic thinking and valuing epistemic rationality interactively predict skepticism.
- Cognitive ability, rather than analytic cognitive style, seems to account for these findings.
From the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
The moon landing and global warming are hoaxes. The U.S. government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. A UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.
Is skepticism toward these kinds of unfounded beliefs just a matter of cognitive ability? Not according to new research by a University of Illinois at Chicago social psychologist.
In an article published online and in the February 2018 issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, Tomas Ståhl reports on two studies that examined why some people are inclined to believe in various conspiracies and paranormal phenomena.
“We show that reasonable skepticism about various conspiracy theories and paranormal phenomena does not only require a relatively high cognitive ability, but also strong motivation to be rational,” says Ståhl, UIC visiting assistant professor of psychology and lead author of the study.
“When the motivation to form your beliefs based on logic and evidence is not there, people with high cognitive ability are just as likely to believe in conspiracies and paranormal phenomena as people with lower cognitive ability.”
Previous work in this area has indicated that people with higher cognitive ability — or a more analytic thinking style — are less inclined to believe in conspiracies and the paranormal.
Ståhl and co-author Jan-Willem van Prooijen of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam conducted two online surveys with more than 300 respondents each to assess analytic thinking and other factors that might promote skepticism toward unfounded beliefs.
The first survey found that an analytic cognitive style was associated with weaker paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs and conspiracy mentality. However, this was only the case among participants who strongly valued forming their beliefs based on logic and evidence.
Among participants who did not strongly value a reliance on logic and evidence, having an analytic cognitive style was not associated with weaker belief in the paranormal or in various conspiracy theories.
In the second survey, the researchers examined whether these effects were uniquely attributable to having an analytic cognitive style or whether they were explained by more general individual differences in cognitive ability. Results were more consistent with a general cognitive ability account.
The article notes that despite a century of better educational opportunities and increased intelligence scores in the U.S. population, unfounded beliefs remain pervasive in contemporary society.
“Our findings suggest that part of the reason may be that many people do not view it as sufficiently important to form their beliefs on rational grounds,” Ståhl said.
From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior, according to Ståhl.
“Many of these beliefs can, unfortunately, have detrimental consequences for individuals’ health choices, as well as for society as a whole,” he said.
###
The study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917306323
Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational
Abstract:
Why does belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and various other phenomena that are not backed up by evidence remain widespread in modern society? In the present research we adopt an individual difference approach, as we seek to identify psychological precursors of skepticism toward unfounded beliefs. We propose that part of the reason why unfounded beliefs are so widespread is because skepticism requires both sufficient analytic skills, and the motivation to form beliefs on rational grounds. In Study 1 we show that analytic thinking is associated with a lower inclination to believe various conspiracy theories, and paranormal phenomena, but only among individuals who strongly value epistemic rationality. We replicate this effect on paranormal belief, but not conspiracy beliefs, in Study 2. We also provide evidence suggesting that general cognitive ability, rather than analytic cognitive style, is the underlying facet of analytic thinking that is responsible for these effects.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
General observation –
Within the “climate change” discussion, skeptics appear more apt to think for themselves while “alarmists” show the need to be told what to believe.
A skeptic will look at the claims “the science is settled” or “97% of Climate Scientists say” or “we must act now” and say “wait a minute, what about this?” while an “alarmist” believes and repeats those things without giving them any thought.
In my experience it is totally possible to find the behaviour that you describe for alarmists among the skeptic group. There are very rational skeptics and also those who will just repeat whatever they heard from someone else who claimed to be a skeptic.
Yes, there are skeptics who are skeptical for bad reasons, i.e. reasons other than careful analysis.
But there are also warmistas who know that CAGW is a SPOC.
There are strands of opinion among skeptics which can only be labelled ‘conspiracy theories about climate change’
for example the ‘Agenda 21’ meme, or the ‘communists switched to AGW after the fall of the Soviet Union’ or even ‘climate scientists only publish to get funding’.
As opposed to (for example) a critical examination of the locations of stations contributing to the surface temperature record. (which is surely rational skepticism, even if the result would show you there’s no problem with said surface temp record)
And yet the FACT is that AGW leaders have come out, in public, and said things that DIRECTLY INDICATE the socialist agenda behind the AGW farce.
And remember it was out esteemed host that started looking at the quality of surface station sites, which showed massive issues with the surface station non-data…
So you are, AS ALWAYS, yapping from a point of mindless LIES and MIS-INFORMATION
Nylo – I was speaking generally.
Just the term “skeptic” implies one who questions.
Griff
“There are strands of opinion among skeptics which can only be labelled ‘conspiracy theories about climate change’”
But of course, AGW couldn’t possibly be a conspiracy.
Despite you knowing that, for example, there was 12 years of no major US land fall hurricanes before 2017, but the moment there was a sniff of one, the BBC and the Guardian (to name but two) were crawling all over it implying (if not, stating) global warming was to blame.
And you know full well that’s rubbish because the IPCC themselves tell you there is no relationship between hurricanes and AGW. So just who do you believe, the BBC or the IPCC? You have also seen credible evidence on here, independent of both, that catastrophic weather events demonstrate an inclination to decrease as atmospheric CO2 has risen over the last 40 years.
You need only listen to BBC radio where, daily, indeed, hourly almost, there are snide comments made about right wing politicians, principally Trump; a snigger following mention of his name, a ‘meaningful’ pause, a sigh, or an open ended question crafted to suggest “I know what I’m talking about on Trump……and you are an idiot to contradict me”. It is insidious. They may be right, but the BBC is supposed to be impartial and is clearly not.
But you swallow it all, hook line and sinker despite considerable evidence there was a conspiracy of silence over the likes of Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter, amongst many other questionable incidents within the BBC. And we know from numerous reliable accounts that the BBC is a left wing organisation, as most public bodies are, and to cross the Rubicon to truth risks expulsion, ask David Bellamy amongst others.
You also know full well the Guardian is largely occupied by freelance journalists, paid a pittance, desperate to have a story published to make money. Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them by submitting articles contrary to the Guardians very ethos, socialism?
Contrary to the popular perception of a conspiracy, numerous people gathering together to agree on a particular course, It only takes access to one influential person at the top of each organisation for a conspiracy to propagate. It does so by putting people in fear of their jobs or reputations if they contradict their superiors. It doesn’t even mean they have to agree with it, they just want to turn a blind eye and get on with their lives.
The Third Reich was an open, left wing conspiracy. From his early days in politics, everyone knew what Herr H. was doing, but he managed it by influencing people in high places that they would be wealthy and secure, or dead. He used a carrot and stick with the population, conform or die. Having already been through WW1, much of Germany didn’t agree with Herr H. but they were given no choice.
Conspiracies are real, but more likely to come from the top rather than from individuals.
So what about Christina Figueres’ announcement that climate change was the opportunity to change global politics? What about The Club of Rome’s stated intention to use climate change as a means of population reduction? These are powerful, influential people with access to anyone at the top levels of government and media.
Agenda 21?
The governor of Alabama banned any and all sustainability projects of the UN from being enforced in the state. It’s a law, Senate Bill 477, passed unanimously. “It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities — just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for,” said Justice Gilpin-Green about the win in Alabama. “Rep. Terri Proud, a Tucson Republican and proponent of the bill, said in a mass email to her supporters that the non-binding declaration “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil.”” http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/04/26/bill-aimed-at-stopping-united-nations-takeover-of-u-s-advances/
New Hampshire was working on a similar measure. I have no idea how far it got but the mere fact they were trying indicates Agenda 21 is of considerable concern.
In Arizona, 2012, the bill prohibiting any UN sustainability passed in the Senate and was heading for the House. I have no idea what happened there either but, again, it’s sufficient credible evidence to identify Agenda 21 as a real problem.
“or even ‘climate scientists only publish to get funding’”
Like it or not griff, that’s a fact of life, particularly in non government funded US universities. Even the UK university my wife works for as head of department pushes like crazy to get funding for research projects (unrelated to climate science) and climate change is the passing bandwagon of the moment. Just look back at the papers presented on this site over the past year. Many of them are barely credible as climate science documents in any way other than inclusion of a reference to it or stitching it into a barely related subject.
But all this just passes you by in your blind allegiance to conformity. You are one of the people who would have supported Herr H. by your complacency and self interest.
Global Warming fanatics seem to use Global Warming (which does have a scientific basis) and Climate Change (which is local) and Weather (which is again local) interchangeably.
There is no scientific basis for claiming that extreme weather events this year were caused by a 0.01C temperature change last year.
Furthermore, the claims are made after the fact.
The hurricanes this year? Even a broken climate model is right once ever 12 years (/sarc).
There is no way to test the climate models after the fact claims, with the alternative hypothesis that it was caused by butterflies flapping their wings in Tokyo.
When coherent arguments are made that knock AGW out of orbit (it’s so easy it’s ridiculous), Griff never replies. He is just an agitator. More accurately, he is a regurgitator. Endlessly parroting the catch phrase false assertions of AGW mainstream B.S. They have a fairly simple strategy. Ignore the truth utterly and attack from all sides with barrages of phony papers about how the oceans WILL BECOME acidic and the EARTH WILL WARM and the SEAS WILL RISE and LIFE WILL BE EXTINGUISHED. All of these canards are proven nonsense. But they engage us in whack-a mole. Truth is irrelevant, which means they can produce an endless supply of B.S. phantoms for us to fight.
We have to get smarter. Cut funding for the U.N. and university eco programs and social “science” programs. We need to call out The New York Times and Huffington Post as agents of Socialism and create a coherent social banner for those who believe that the path to the Left is destructive and false.
The canards are proven nonsense? 50% of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef died in the past two years due to hot water caused by AGW and CC. Sea level is rising. The ocean is becoming more acidic. These are just facts. Amazing to me that you use the word “truth”. You ignore the truth.
[?? ?? .mod]
Tripp Funderburk “50% of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef died in the past two years due to hot water caused by AGW and CC.”
Interesting, and a bit redundant, to specify both CC and AGW. I think it needs a bit of NFL.
“Sea level is rising.”
Except where it is falling:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9439040
At any rate, I’ll heed your advice and move my house a few millimeters higher. You should do likewise.
“The ocean is becoming more acidic.”
I look forward to making pickles merely by dipping cucumbers in the sea.
“These are just facts.”
I’ve often wondered what is a “just fact”. Perhaps it is claiming that 8.1 ph, which a chemist would say is alkaline, is really an acid.
Some say that there are no facts “out there”, because every thing is actually an observation, ie. a method of seeing which yielded a result. (The nonduality of experience and observer).
I like this as a rational tool, because whatever someone claims, we can ask, ok, what did you see, how did you see it, and how did you analyse what you saw?
For example, there is a neurosurgeon who has written books about his near death experience, and he details why he thinks the experience could not have been generated by his physical brain. And the point is, not to take his conclusion as a new belief — gee, NDEs are real! — but to remain open to the possibility and always bear in mind what his reasoning was, as to why he thinks it could not have happened in his brain. That way it can always be questioned. Whilst also remaining open to the possibilities which it suggests.
Skeptical, but open.
I think the Ferengi had a Rule of Acquisition: “hear all, trust nothing.”
And I can accept AGW in terms of, computer model runs which are doing the “seeing”, and I can remain skeptical of what such tools can accomplish about the future (not a lot one might guess).
I can also recall one distinctly paranormal event but I always bear in mind the specifics of how and why it seemed that way — all the details matter and remain open to question.
AGW has all the hallmarks as a popular movement of being about an religious/ethical drive — and I gather Al Gore is aquatinted with some psychology models which detail the basic DNA of religious belief and group conformity — what Gean Gebser called the “mythic-membership” stage, and of which, society usually has some large percentage of people who are at that level. In the West this stage was generally dominated by Christianity but AGW can fill that stage just by adopting a similar structure, in the language and culture, of the movement.
We think we are criticising AGW by calling it religious, but the people leading it probably take it as a compliment — “mission accomplished!”
“We think we are criticising AGW by calling it religious, but the people leading it probably take it as a compliment — ‘mission accomplished!'”
Well said.
I can’t account for it. The field of education is filled with what amounts to educational malpractice and entrenched administration that keeps known to be ineffective interventions in place sending any and all professionals who swim against the flow down the road. Worse, some of these interventions are so outlandish they could easily be material for Saturday Night Live. Yet even PhD’s allow and some even encourage such practices. It is so bad I have been yelled at when trying to interject scientifically defensible argument from peer reviewed research against this insanity. Boy could I write a book.
Please do.
Doctor’s can lose their right to practice. How can professors be protected by tenure against malpractice against the principles of education?
Although my understanding of the paper was a little fuzzy, they had me interested up until this point.
When you START a study with the assumption that climate skepticism is a conspiracy theory you show the rest of the paper is trash.
Of course, being that this came from warmistas, they start with the conclusion that they are correct and anyone who believes anything else but what they believe is wrong.
Like everything from warmistas regarding skeptics, there is a strong undercurrent of psychological projection.
For a “science site”, this far more resembles a relilgion bashing and bad behaviour site. Just once, when discussing rational beliefs, I would like to see atheists not prance about, chest thrown out declaring their superiority and religious people to leave religion out of science and logic discussions. Psychology CLEARLY states religious beliefs are not mental illness OR delustions in and of themselves, but no one cares about this. Science cannot prove itself, so it’s taken on faith to be “true” just as much as religion. Yet, reality is not what we are interested in. Rather, it’s jump in and pound the people who don’t believe like you do (the authors of the paper should study that phenomena—that study might be useful). It’s disgusting. It’s unscientific and rude. Yet it goes on and on and on and on and on. Science is dead in most of the internet world and there’s a huge tombstone on this site any time “rational” thought is discussed. There’s NO rational thought. NONE.
Sheri – When someone cannot defend their position, they turn to one of two strategies – or both. These two are: name-calling and change-the-topic.
This is pretty much what all of the atheists end up with when faced with a good argument. Reviewing the many you tube debates of a Christian versus an atheist makes this evident.
“This is science; everybody knows this; don’t question me further.” Wow, impressive.
Yes, I see that all the time in other areas and comment sections. It bothers me—no, I’ll be honest, it irritates me mightly—when a “science” site becomes a continual argument over religion. If people want to discuss their religious beliefs, there are blogs out there.
You’re right, “this is science…..” is not impressive.
As an atheist who believes that humans have a set of natural morals as a social species, I have never had to resort to name-calling or subject-changing. Religion has noting cogent to say about science, being perforce lacking the use of the scientific method. And, science has nothing to say about religion, as faith does not submit to the scientific method. Evolution as an example: evolution says nothing about the origin of life, never has never will. Religious people do not realize that their religious view of the world does not have to agree with the scientific. We evolved. Without the principles of evolution all of modern medicine would be gone and nonfunctional.
higley, what is the source of the natural morals of which you speak? Do they come from society itself or from enlightened humans?
That’s going to be tough because CAGW has reached cult status.
Sheri, you should take a moment and read read your above post, in terms of being rational. It is not as rational as you think.
You miss a major aspect of science and religion. People have “faith” in religion—an unfounded belief in something. As a scientist, I have no “faith” in science, I have confidence in it knowing that I can be constantly skeptical, seeking reproducible results, evidence, and rational connections.
Atheism is quite different from religion, although people think there is a need to deny the possibility of a god. My take on atheism is that there simply is no need for a god. As a social species we have evolved with an innate set of morals that can be codified into ethics. All social species have a code of ethics. Religion simply codifies these natural social morals into a religious dressing.
Religion then serves two purposes. First, it helps our young learn the rules faster than by trial and error and being chastised or beaten up by offended adults, as occurs in a wolf pack to pups and adolescent wolves. Religion also serves to help people remember the morals. Finally, religion gives many some solace regarding their own mortality and how to emotionally rationalize the death of loved ones and also having faith in oneself when trying to make a life for yourself.
An atheist is not by definition devoid of morals. As an atheist myself, I have no good name for it, but I think the human race has a set of morals, which many would call Christian principle–they are indeed the same. An atheist has the potential to be a more moral being than a religious person, as such an atheist would be devoid of the trappings and biases all religions possess. I see no need to dress my morals up in religious garb.
As a scientist, there is no conflict with religion as science describes the real world and religion deals with the spiritual side of humans. It is a mistake when religious leaders think that they can dictate science form their faith. Science is based on established and reproducible facts and principles.
Whether there is a god or not does not matter as this possible god does not mess with the laws of nature, as in miracles. As a scientist, I could easily accept that I am studying the laws of god or, rather, the laws of the universe that he might or might not have created. There are some things we cannot know.
higley7: I suppose it depends on how one defines religion. If it’s belief in a higher being, then atheists lack religion. If it’s belief in a being or process that gives meaning and order to your life, then science may qualify. If religion requires a higher being, what of those who worship nature? Is that religion? I am asking because I don’t see my comment not being rational. Perhaps you use the first definition and I use the second one.
You are using the argument that there is no need for God. But need does not determine reality, so far as I know. It’s interesting to me how you present your case—it is what I do if I am explaining science without referring to God. I don’t believe atheists are devoid of morals, but they have to get the morals somewhere and bottom line, it’s still an arbitrary choice, perhaps based on utility. You do illustrate very well that science and God are in no way mutually exclusive. Perhaps what I find most interesting is your statement “there are some things we cannot know”. Many times when I bring that up, a “scientist” will lose it and vilify me for saying we just can’t know. It’s reassuring to find some in science understand.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I agree with much of what you said.
higley, your belief system about the source of morals is vague. Did we, as humans, create these morals ourselves? Are we good or evil? As society evolves, do our morals evolve? Why are one set of morals better than another? If one set of morals is just as good as another set of morals, how do we know who is immoral?
Higley7
A good summary
As higley suggests, morals derive from the natural social interplay that determines how we all get along in society. If we behave according to standards, we can expect to be treated according to standards. This is why sociopaths and even many psychopaths observe the rules of normal social behaviour. They understand that they cannot manipulate people without first showing that they accept the value of these rules, when in reality they intend only to use them to acquire advantage.
Normal people just fall into a pattern of give and get, without being overwhelmed by greed or failing to understand the natural rights of others.
If psychology were an actual science I might pay closer attention to what they say. Every flavour of opinion can be found therein. If ever there was a reason to be sceptical, it is that psychology and psychiatry exist and speak with authority when they should water their wine with much humility. Psychiatry in particular is almost as dangerous as what they treat.
“There’s NO rational thought. NONE.”
Prove it.
BC: you win the thread.
Only because he’s irrational!
“Jan-Willem van Prooijen of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam”
Makes my brain hurt trying to pronounce that. Still, it’s more pleasant than saying Stephan Lewandowsky.
There’s a feel-good story out, about a man at a check-out at Wal Mart having nothing but a pocketful of loose change, being nervous, and miscounting, and the beautiful, kind, loving and patient cashier calming him, and helping him count it. https://www.yahoo.com/news/walmart-cashier-mississippi-helps-calm-192332297.html
The problem is. there is amost no way to corroborate the story. Even if the cashier were to step forward (which they haven’t), it could still be made up. These types of stories make the rounds on social media continuously. The usual motivation is a religious one, but the thing they have in common is that they make people feel good, so they want to believe them.
Now, this particular story could be true. But we have no way of knowing, and that in itself is part of the tell. So I remain skeptical, for which all the Believers out there gushing over this story would probably like to lynch me. So yes, there is a lot of irrationalism out there.
And yes, I do find my own lack of faith disturbing. Perhaps I should check in at the next Skeptiholics Anonymous meeting.
Go ahead Bruce. But that will require faith that they can help you. I’m not so sure, myself. What have they done for you lately?
I did not bother watching the video…I will take your word for it.
But I have been in checkout lines and seen people who could not pay for something they evidently needed or wanted.
The proper thing to do it insist on helping them out.
The last time this happened, it was in a Walmart, of all places.
A woman was buying cupcakes for her kid, a little girl IIRC.
She turned out not to have enough money.
The little girl got her cupcakes.
IMO, people should not congratulate themselves for being decent people, or doing the right thing…it oughta be automatic.
Sadly, that is not the case.
Agreed. We now “reward” what is really just being a decent human being. We’ve apparently gone so far to the dark side that decent is rare and is used as “news”.
Hey Menicholas! Are you going to be in a Lexus dealership any time soon? just askin’
IF you live in the southern US, you see this kind of thing all of the time.
The term “Conspiracy Theory” was coined by the CIA to marginalize people who did not believe their lies.
The problem the warmunists are having is that as the government and the media keep publishing more and more lies, sooner or later people tend to not believe a word they say.
Yep. And if someone is using ‘conspiracy theory’ as a pejorative, it’s a sure sign they lack in the cognition department.
a ‘Cognition Switch’, if you will…
How did that saying go from “Even Cowgirls Get The Blues”?
I believe in nothing, everything is sacred.
I believe in everything, nothing is sacred.
All institutional thought becomes dogma, as we see with the whole global warming/change orthodoxy which parallels organized institutional religions. It just becomes faith based and everyone is free to pick their own way to hell, at least in a western democracy. A skeptic has to continually fight off alarmists with facts, which are not listened to anyway but the alarmist position just has to be stated as authority, stomp your feet, wave your arms and make a declaration. Just like organized religion, which if you even think about it for 3 seconds, how could more than one ‘true’ religion be the only true one religion. Absurd. Perhaps this is good for simpletons, but it is not critical, logical thinking. Believe whatever you want, but don’t dare call me a heretic because I don’t believe like you.
Just like science has now done about anyone who questions climate change. Or the big bang, the age of the universe or questions the present orthodoxy how this all started from some some infinitesimal small point and there was nothing beyond that. Notwithstanding, that this whole premise may be overturned someday easily as a simple illusion, like a mirage, when we understand much more about things in the future. The religionization of science is exactly why we have this stupid CAGW threat always hanging over our head, just like hell is always around the corner for the unbeliever.
Great analogy to optical illusions!
I never thought of that analogy, but have always intuitively known there was something very unscientific about ad hoc explanations for physical phenomenon that are widely accepted for no other reason than that they have not been found to be flatly wrong, or no one has thought of anything better…yet.
Things like dark matter because the rotational rate of galaxies seems wrong, accelerating cosmic expansion because of anomalous findings when examining distant type 1A supernovae, cosmic expansion because of red shifted light from immensely distant objects, cosmic strings and ‘branes and evaporating black holes and yadda yadda yadda…
Sure, any and all of the prevailing explanations could be exactly right.
Or not.
Will any of the things that are, at present, widely believed to be true, be found to be categorically false at some point n the future?
One would have to think we have passed some unique cusp in history to think that nothing that a whole lot of smart people currently think is true, turns out to be false.
One reason is…people are not all that great at coming up with the correct explanations for physical phenomenon on sparse evidence, or based on what seems intuitively obvious.
It was obvious to everyone in the world for a long time that when something was on fire, some substance was leaving the object that was burning, and at the point of exit was turning into flame. IOW, fire was inside of some materials and burning released it.
I should have said that second sentence more carefully: What is unscientific is believing that anything must be the case too wholeheartedly, unscientific to close one’s mind to the possibility of alternate explanations or paradigms.
There are a lot of different sorts of evidence for an expanding Universe, and running the movie backwards leads to certain conclusions.
But there have been many examples of beliefs that were overturned which had tons of reasons to think were true.
menicholas: IMO, ‘belief’ itself is unscientific. Conclusions from evidence derived via logic… yes. Belief in their truth… not so much.
I understand what you are saying, but the word belief applies to simply what is in one’s head upon reaching a conclusion.
I cannot think of a way to say the following without tripping over semantics.
I believe warmistas as wrong.
I know a whole bunch of them are deliberate liars.
I am pretty sure a lot of others are just deciding what to believe based on what someone else told them is true.
This study bothers me for all the same reasons articulated in the comments above. Namely, that a skepticism in CAGW is predicated on a lack of, as the author’s term it, “epistemic rationality”. (I take it, by this term, that they mean simply rational knowledge…sigh…it’s so wearisome dealing with pseudo scientific disciplines who derive internal merit through the creation of redundant, obfuscatory, and useless vocabulary.)
At any rate, since it wasn’t clear to me if the paper was describing skepticism about CAGW as an unfounded belief, or the actual belief in CAGW as unfounded, I decided to skim it to find out what they were really saying. Here’s what I came up with…for all who are interested:
The paper states, “To measure conspiracy beliefs, we assessed participants’ levels of belief (1 = definitely not true, 7 = definitely true) in nine well-known conspiracy theories.”
The list of “conspiracy beliefs” was not directly reproduced in the paper, but was cited as a reference from a previous paper: “Connecting the dots: Illusory pattern perception predicts belief in conspiracies and the supernatural,” Van Prooijen, Douglas, & Inocencio, in press.
So I tracked that one down, and in the supporting documents found the Word file with the following:
“Existing conspiracy belief scale:
There is often debate about whether or not the public is told the whole truth about various important issues. These questions are designed to assess your beliefs about some of these subjects. Please indicate the degree to which you believe each statement is likely to be true.
(1 = definitely not true, 5 = definitely true)
– The US government deliberately conceals a lot of information from the public
– Ebola is a man-made virus
– The US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks
– The US government covered up crucial information in the aftermath of J. F. Kennedy’s assassination
– The science behind global warming has been invented or distorted out of self-interest
– Various wars in the Middle East were launched by oil companies
– The moon landing was a hoax
– The HIV/aids virus has been genetically engineered to wipe out certain sectors of the population
– Evidence of unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial visitors is being suppressed by the government”
So, there it is. Demonstrable evidence that our skepticism of CAGW is conflated with conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs.
Interestingly, the paper does discuss the idea that individuals with scientific understanding will fit data to their beliefs…but…this is a bit like discovering the wheel. They’ve essentially just confirmed that confirmation bias exists. What a finding! (And this passes as novel scholarship?)
At any rate, my reaction to this ties in directly with something I’ve been thinking about for a while, that is, how to explain the difference between this skepticism and other, less rational, beliefs. For me it’s extremely apropos since I have a dear college friend who’s been amicably engaging with me on climate change. (He’s a believer…but he’s also a doctor, and has a highly scientific mind. AND, other than this, he’s a near perfect match ideologically to me, so it’s sort of an interesting case study.)
At any rate, the key difference to this, and the one that seems to be completely misunderstood by the hordes of journalists, media personalities, non-hard-science university professors, and average FB users, is that the DATA IS ALL OUT THERE FOR REVIEW!!! That’s the point I’ve been trying to make to my friend. Reasonable people disagree about this because they have the scientific understanding necessary to review the publicly available data, and have come to different conclusions. The only reason that more people haven’t done so is that they lack the requisite scientific training. And if you take this to it’s logical conclusion, it’s easy to see why skeptics are treated the same as conspiracy-theorists by the true-believers (let’s call them “tb’s”).
The tb’s, lacking the ability to analytically review the data themselves, are completely blind to the possibility that others might actually be able to do so. And since it’s impossible for them to conceive of the idea that it’s actually possible to understand the science and form different conclusions from the data, they’re forced to believe, by default, that skeptics are forming beliefs in the same manner that conspiracy-theorists do.
This is further complicated by the dishonest manner in which climate scientists have conducted themselves with regards to the science: Hiding data, refusing to release information, telling the general public that they couldn’t possibly understand climate science because it’s too complicated, and etc. As though climate science is the singular branch of knowledge unattainable by the average joe. Sure, you might understand quantum electro dynamics, you might be a professor in an engineering discipline, you might be an economist trained in stats, you might be able to design complex electronic circuits or design sophisticated modelling algorithms… but you’ll NEVER understand climate science. Only we can!
Meh! Makes me sick!
And THIS is the heart of our issue. Somehow, we have to help people understand that this branch of science is knowable. And simply because a tb lacks the training necessary to make a critical review, it does NOT mean the skeptic does also! And if they refuse to accept our word for it when we tell them it’s possible to understand, well…actually…I’m not sure what then. If a tb believes the climate-gnostics, and refuses to pull their head out of the sand, I guess…move on to the next. As has been stated many times before, they’ve chosen this as a matter of faith, and made it their own personal religion. They’ll back their self-appointed priests and you’re simply a heretic. Move on to the sympathetic listener…ignore the barren fields and spread your seeds on fertile ground (to borrow a metaphor).
Sorry for the rant.
rip
Very nicely said. To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, everyone is entitled to an informed opinion (informed being key). To crystallize the difference between believers and rational skeptics it is important to identify which group is forming their opinion based on the data and which is formulating their opinion based on the popular press.
rip: I like your rant! I made me realize we need a way to explain climate change in a way that is easier to understand by most people. I write a children’s blog on climate and it’s actually difficult to take complex issues and explain them at 4th grade level. Yet, in a way, that’s the only solution to the problem of those who could understand, but don’t. The tb (love that abbreviation) will never change their minds. We need to reach those who believe, but can learn. Thank you for very eloquently pointing that out. You pretty much made my day with this.
Thanks!
I love the challenge of explaining scientific concepts to kids. When I do it with my own, I’m forced to boil the issue down to it’s most fundamental nature. That in itself often leads to a deeper understanding than I had previously. Good for you for doing the same!
And thank you for the kind words.
rip
Wait a second…are they assuming all of those statements are untrue?
The government does not conceal information?
There was no JFK cover-up or whitewash?
Thank you rip. I too was disturbed by the last two paragraphs of Anthony’s article but couldn’t find the words to express my discomfiture. I was led by the lede (no pun intended) to think that this study refuted Lewandowsky but I think these studies actually support his position.
“So, there it is. Demonstrable evidence that our skepticism of CAGW is conflated with conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs.”
Can skepticism be called a conspiracy theory? Skeptics just point out that advocates have not proven their case. I don’t think that requires a conspiracy.
Rip,
redundant, obfuscatory, and useless vocabulary = academic erudition
Rip,
“The US government deliberately conceals a lot of information from the public.”
The existence of an elaborate classification schema, and governmental organizations to vet individuals for security clearances, and agencies to expose and prosecute violations of security laws, is prima facie evidence that the statement is necessarily true.
When one has the power to withhold information from the electorate, along with it comes the potential for corruption of a process that is justified on the basis of preventing our enemies from learning things that could allow them to harm us.
The problem is, because of the classification of information by an anonymous bureaucracy, we can’t determine to what extent information is withheld, and whether information is inappropriately classified to cover up incompetence, malfeasance, illegal activity, or partisanship.
I used to work inside that system. From the Reagan to the Bush II administrations (including Clinton), the national security system was very protective of their system and kept the politicians from classifying decisions that were purely political. The system only works when all have confidence in it. That seems to have changed with the Obama administration, but as I retired before he came to office, that is only an outside looking in (with a good deal of what “in” looks like) analysis. It appeared that the Obama administration was attempting to convert every element of the government to a party apparatus. That was very worrying and I am not sure that the Republicans are that interested in dismantling it.
I agree wholeheartedly, Clyde. It’s obviously true, but it’s also trivial (not your observation…the statement). (Rare indeed is that which is both true and non-trivial.) Of course the government withholds vast quantities of information…as Owen points out, though, we have a right to expect that it’s done so in an apolitical way.
I think the really clever bit is the not-so-subtle insinuation that if you believe the government’s anything other than a benevolent force, you’re psychologically aberrant. Unfortunately, this does seem to be a prevailing attitude in at least half of the populace.
Well…come to think of it, half of the populace seems to think the civil side of government can do no wrong, and the other half feels the same way about the military. Funny and ironic that each of our respective angels is the other’s demon!
rip
You might also note that the degree to which one is sceptical of a proposition (or set of propositions) is likely to be proportional to the degree that the proposition is in conflict with one’s more precious prejudices.
Objectivity is relatively easy when one doesn’t particularly care about an issue. As soon as one has ‘skin in the game’ the rationalising commences.
Skeptical –
I have found this to be very true, personally. I have now reached the general operating procedure of accepting that when I’m most inflamed, impassioned, or otherwise emotional about something…I’m most likely wrong. So, in general, I try to avoid decisions, discussions, and heaven forbid, sending emails, when emotionally charged. I credit this practice for my continued employment. 🙂
rip
Ripshin you gave a very good summary of the situation I think.
I also believe a lot of intelligent people who would otherwise look at the data, don’t want to, because of fear of the social approbation shown to climate skeptics. They are afraid that if they look at the data honestly they would turn into climate change atheists! i.e. non-believers and suffer being outcast from polite society for being antisocial.
I have a similar experience with my older sister. Valedictorian in her class. Completed undergrad and medical school. Practicing physician and of course she accepts the AGW narrative.
The challenge is that doctors (and others in STEM professions) are trained to accept 3rd party research. Whether it is drug treatments, pathologists, or other experts; it is impossible for a physician to personally validate all the results they rely on from the broader profession.
The 97% meme is extremely powerful to this highly educated constituency and they believe “scientists” adhere to a higher ethical code, because they do as individuals.
As McIntyre, Steyn and others have exposed the corrupt and nefarious cabal of snake oil salesman posing as climate scientists, interested parties started to see through the fog.
The compliant media has not excoriated these fraudsters, and continues to publish absurd claims like “Boston snow caused by Global Warming”. They also shield the lack of credibility from broader coverage allowing folks like your friend and my sister to be insulated from the shoddy research holding up the house of cards.
Unfortunately, we have to wait until Gaia freezes vast areas before the failure of the AGW
Theory is laid bare.
This is a really good point. And further complicated by the fact that our passion is not shared by many. That is, I always joke with my friend that he’s free to tell me to stop talking about climate change whenever he wants, because I realize that he doesn’t share my passion for it. It’s just not that interesting to him, or to many other people (relatively speaking).
And frankly, I don’t blame them. If my passion were directed towards a more “valuable” subject…I’d be frickin’ king of the world…”soaking it up in a hottub with my soulmate.” As it is, not much more that personal satisfaction from this subject…I don’t even get to alleviate the pain and suffering of my fellow man as do your sister and my friend. Oh well. It is what it is. This is my interest and “imma do me.”
rip
Once again, Bigfoot gets snubbed. I am dissapoint.
There is a February 2018 issue already?
Of course that’s not really what the paper said, they are your garden-variety soft-scientists without any high analytical cognitive abilities of their own, that subscribe to the dogmatic belief that skepticism of CAGW is belief in a “conspiracy theory.” If they were around 60 years ago they would have likely been ice-picking the frontal lobes of anyone the deemed abnormal and if they were around 100 years ago they would likely have been telling anyone that they deemed physically unfit as humans that they were not allowed to have children.
God is the ordering principle consequent to the second law of thermodynamics.
I have often wondered about entropy (the second law), the evolution/development of all life forms, and God.
Anthony,
Your title is: “Skepticism ‘requires high cognitive ability, strong motivation to be rational”
Their paper concludes more like: “Skepticism of unfounded beliefs requires high cognitive ability as well as strong motivation to be rational”
The article states:
“From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior, according to Ståhl.
‘Many of these beliefs can, unfortunately, have detrimental consequences for individuals’ health choices, as welll as for society as a whole.'”
The study may demonstrate that climate change skeptics are highly cognitive, anylitical thinkers, but it also seems to conclude that they may not be as “motivated by logic and reason” as climate change “acceptors.” (Whatever the crap you define that as)
In the end, we’re back to semantics…what definition are they using for “climate change skeptic”? The article implies it’s synonymous with “global warming hoaxers”. And neither one of those terms as stated applies accurately to the vast majority of readers here, although Lew and others might think otherwise.
I am sure glad the deplorables are analytical and rational!
Yeah, the Deplorables elected the only rational man on the planet, among world leaders.
Well, OK.
Maybe he is simply the only one who is not either looking for a handout or is a simpering ninny.
I fear that you are right.
Nonsense. If he was the only rational person, who’d be left to elect him?
But even that’s wrong. It’s not clear he’s rational, nor is it clear those who elected him are. He’s certainly not the best person for the job. You make far too many assumptions with this claim.
“Nonsense. If he was the only rational person, who’d be left to elect him?”
I did qualify it by saying “among world leaders” because I think there are a lot of rational people out there, just not many of them are running for Office.
Bartleby: “But even that’s wrong. It’s not clear he’s rational, nor is it clear those who elected him are.”
It’s pretty clear to me. The irrational thing to do would have been to elect Hillary.
Bartleby: “He’s certainly not the best person for the job.”
And who would be better in your opinion?
Bartleby: “You make far too many assumptions with this claim.”
Maybe, but I would like to see who you think is more rational or better for the job than Trump.
Did we read the same study? Their claim is that skepticism in an unfounded belief requires analytical skills. They classify skepticism in climate change as one such unfounded belief therefore skepticism in exactly what you believe requires analytical skills not the other way around.
Now I understand what you are saying in that our skepticism in their unfounded theories requires analytical skills but that is not what this study is saying.
Yes, I think all the regulars here understood that.
Many of the comments have discussed that very thing.
It’s nice to read the thought of another person who wasn’t baffled by this bullshit 🙂
It boils down to this, so pay attention.
1 – Religion feeds the irrational part of the brain.
2 – Science feeds the rational part of the brain.
3 – You have to have both parts fed in some way to keep yourself balanced.
4 – CAGWers were not brought up in any kind of religious beliefs, not even paganism, ergo, their thought processes are out of balance. They’re having brain f**rts.
5 – Using pop figures like Algore, that bow-tie fellow, bodaprez, and some silly group exercises like mindless screaming at the sky feeds the irrational part of the brain, hence CAGW is somehow turned into a religious experience, including that grinning, idiotic high that occurs with a religious experience. It is called an epiphany. It happens in converts to any belief system of any kind, period. A psychologist did a study on this response by interviewing people, especially teenagers, who had converted to Daesh’s brand of Islam.
Same thing: they get a high, called an epiphany, that satisfies an empty place in their emotions.
You see it in people who go to rock concerts, for example. They’ll tell you how “good” they feel afterwards. When these people want to criminalize and punish those who do not agree with their views, it has become a religious order, period. (The Pope should shut his yap and stay out of it.)
6 – The rational part of your brain tells you they are silly, uninformed, ignorant, etc., but this has corrupted a branch of science, which is supposed to be logical and orderly, into a religious experience. All the logic in the world won’t deter them from their goal, which is to convert you, the unbeliever, to their belief system. This is not how science works, but it is what they are turning it into, just like conspiracy theorists turn a horrifying event like the 9/11/2001 hijackings into government conspiracies, with no thought for the pain they bring to the families who lost people in those crashes.
I think that should logically explain the whole thing.
Sara, it follows then that all Exxon need do is hold a series of group rallies that involve a charismatic speaker, inspiring music, and lots of jumping and shouting. The tide of opinion would then turn against CAGW and the planet would be safe from religious zealotry (at least for a time).
Unfortunately, it seems real scientists have trouble engaging that tactic, while false messiahs like Algore and Adolph dote on the stuff. Oh well.
You just nailed it, Bartleby. And I think the Warmians, like conspiracy theorists, want the “bad stuff” agenda instead of the “real stuff” agenda, because it gives them someone to blame for something.
Now they just need to study the teen and millennial mind in context with Bernie’s utopian claims and the survey results of being indifferent to communism.
I don’t believe that skepticism of (or gullibility to) all conspiracy theories is a measure of cognitive ability. Cognitive ability, and a knowledge of the proven truths of science gives a person the means to evaluate a conspiracy theory with facts to discern whether it is true, false, or “somewhat true” (there are lots of gray areas in nature).
For example, there are some conspiracy-mongers who claim that people within the Federal government are trying to poison people by releasing toxic chemicals from planes, and claim that the contrails sometimes seen behind jets are actually toxic chemicals, or “chemtrails” (they are really mostly water vapor that sometimes forms ice at those altitudes).
I have worked for 16 years modeling the dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere, and releasing toxic chemicals at high altitudes is one way of ensuring that ground-level concentrations are low, which is why the EPA forces manufacturing plants to release pollutants from tall smokestacks. Any toxic chemicals released at 30,000 feet altitude will be extremely dilute by the time they reach the ground, and have no effect on life on earth. Anyone wanting to poison people would be far more effective by releasing toxic chemicals in a subway station than releasing them from planes, which is why I find the “chemtrail” theory extremely far-fetched.
But someone who has not studied the dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere may be more likely to believe such a theory.
The problem that skeptics of AGW theory face is the media conflating AGW skepticism with skepticism about the Holocaust (a known historical fact) or the moon landing (another known historical fact), or somehow claiming that AGW skepticism is “unscientific” because some scientists believe it to be true. Some millenials born after 1975 or so may try to deny the moon landing, but their parents believe it because they watched it on TV. I was born after the Holocaust, but I believe it happened because my parents saw photos of the concentration camps, and told me about them.
As for skeptics of AGW theory being “unscientific”, science is supposed to be about forming theories and testing them against empirical evidence. If the climate models that were run in 1990 or 2000 have over-predicted the temperature rise through 2017 by a factor of 2 or 3, any clear-thinking person can discern that they are unreliable for predicting future temperatures. This is why the media and the AGW scaremongers try to hide these differences from the public, and/or “adjust” (fudge) past temperature records to try to prove the models correct.
yes – but what about the recorded temps from 1990 to the present day?
which show an actual recorded increase?
There are many recorded increases and decreases in temperature Griff. It’s cause that’s at issue. Proponents of the AGW hypothesis never fail to overlook this, or to conflate natural variation with human activity. This is the essential nature of the debate though, which is what frustrates AGW skeptics to the point of distraction; it’s like arguing with a brick.
Or a broken record.
Griff,
Once (if ever) you understand the difference between accuracy and precision, you will also come to understand that we don’t know as much about temperature trends as you currently think. Also, once you understand (if ever) the difference between process models and validated computer models, you will understand how little we understand about how the global environment works wrt temperature, precipitation, etc. If you ever get to that point, then we can have a rational discussion about any “actual recorded [temperature] increase.”
Sometimes the “crazy” conspiracy theories turn out to be true.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/10/27/jfk-files-cia-plotted-kill-castro-stage-bombings-miami/
Being an atheist and CACA skeptic works fine for me.
With very low solar activity, you can expect long periods of dry and freezing weather during the winter.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00946/9gs5vx60dn9w.png
Amazing how that albedo from snow cover over all of Canada really cools most of the entire continent. And it all basically started in very early November this year, at least 2-3 weeks earlier than our recent normals. Ok, it is an early fall and just a La Nina watch so far, but will probably be a full on La Nina by March. Let’s not assume that the last 30-40 years of very minor warming can’t end, and we slowly cool/drift in the other direction either for the next 30 years. Isn’t that just natural variability?
Even though cooling, substantial and undeniable cooling, would almost surely be quite detrimental to human interests, at this point I am not only thinking that is what is most likely, but hoping it happens, and the sooner the better.
Is there any way that global cooling to a temp lower than the 1990s can be reconciled with warmistaology?
“Is there any way that global cooling to a temp lower than the 1990s can be reconciled with warmistaology?”
No, I don’t think so, because we are not dealing with a logical premise to begin with. Or that the little bit of warming we have gotten since the depths of the LIA has been entirely beneficial, it being the coldest period on record since the YD events 12,900 years ago. I really have no idea what the alarmists are crying about, or what magical temperature they would like to take us back to, if they could. We have had it pretty good the last 40 years, which has enabled us to grow to 7.5 billion people.
I think it does cool slowly over the next La Nina shorter period, which maybe continues or reverses the Pause especially if SC 25 is as weak as some think as soon as it flips over too. And if the PDO and AMO goes negative then everything is lining up for the natural variability to turn downwards for a fair amount of time. While this may be a time for scientists to really understand the sensitivity of CO2 and the effect humans have had on the planet, my fear is that then the Warmistas would say “see, look, our attempt at mitigating carbon into the atmosphere is working and we need to keep it up, if not do more”. They won’t be happy until we are in another LIA, and the economy is shattered. Then we will really have to pour on the coal to survive.