7 ms·

We need to use whatever arguments are effective to steer people and governments to good policy as long as we know those arguments are supporting a cause that is

We need to use whatever arguments are effective to steer people and governments to good policy as long as we know those arguments are supporting a cause that is scientifically backed. Some people don't get and don't want to get scientific evidence. If there is a plausible causal chain from global climate change to that suffering polar bear we should be using that polar bear to convince people climate change is real and bad. Most people don't have the patience for or interest in scientific arguments and we have to convince most people that this is a problem not just hacker news.

wbhart 9y ago
There is no way for the general public to distinguish between arguments presented in this way that are genuine, and ones that are pseudoscientific. It's never ok to knowingly present information which is unscientific, to achieve a political end. It can be discredited and may do more damage to the cause than good. In this particular case, polar bear populations are not observed to be in decline, so it's a poor argument to make, which can easily be discredited with real data.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ritchiea 9y ago
  I strongly disagree with you. There is research in social psychology showing it is difficult for most people to reason from technical, statistical arguments. One thing I have noticed reading political essays recently is that the emotional impact of scientific, technical and statistical arguments can be bolstered with fitting specific anecdotal evidence. Logic is often not enough to change people's views or motivate them to change. This applies to the most logically minded of us as well.
chrischen 9y ago
That’s called propoganda. You advocate using propoganda to justify a cause you have predetermined to be scientifically backed. Why not just use the scientific backing directly?
- ccalvert 9y ago
  Those who understand Climate Change and love science should not cede the ground to those who disagree with them without a fight. Most people don't understand science at the same level as many of the participants in HN. They are not bad people, and they are not necessarily ignorant people. But they don't base their decision-making process on scientific principles. Someone needs to reach out to these people and help them understand the world we live in. Ten minutes on Fox News and similar sites should convince anyone that Climate Change deniers understand how to influence people and do all they can to advocate for those who profit from policies that harm our world. We have to use the available tools to counter their arguments.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    You’re denying the people of their right to be treated as an intellectual equal. If they don’t understand it is their loss. You can bet against them in the capitalist system. Sell them houses near coastlines. If they’re truly ignorant and you are in fact backed by science and facts, then you can profit off of them. But if you can justify doing this for people you consider not worthy of the facts because they probably can’t understand it, then you can justify it with anyone. This is the same rationale for why the FBI or law enforcement want more power. People don’t understand that thy are the GOOD guys and they won’t abuse their power. If the good guys—the people backed by science in this case—lose their accountability to actual science by being good at propoganda and manipulation, why even bother with science? They’ll become bad guys soon enough when they finally realize the facts never mattered. When propoganda is spewed from both sides the only way to tell is to have facts based on reality that people can independently verify. That’s the whole point of backed by science. If you deny people the option to independently verify then you deny them the ability to find out who’s right and who’s wrong. At that point are you any different from the bad guys?
- socialist_coder 9y ago
  Because a large portion of people in the world are not swayed by logical arguments. So, if you want to be an effective communicator, you need to talk to them in a way that works.
- 9y ago
nocoder 9y ago
This is not right. If ends justify means then we are in for a world full of strife and tribalism. This will make it difficult for people to trust anything. This is how we have ended up in this highly charged outrage porn filled world where everything and anything real or fake is being used to influence and recruit people towards one ideology or the other. This in the long term does more harm than good even for the people who think they are on winning side. It is more than ever important to be genuine and real and not do or say anything just so that we can win an argument, however right we might think we are.
stmfreak 9y ago
Using bad science to influence gullible people is a great way to end up with terrible policies.

wbhart 9y ago

There is no way for the general public to distinguish between arguments presented in this way that are genuine, and ones that are pseudoscientific. It's never ok to knowingly present information which is unscientific, to achieve a political end. It can be discredited and may do more damage to the cause than good. In this particular case, polar bear populations are not observed to be in decline, so it's a poor argument to make, which can easily be discredited with real data.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ritchiea 9y ago
I strongly disagree with you. There is research in social psychology showing it is difficult for most people to reason from technical, statistical arguments. One thing I have noticed reading political essays recently is that the emotional impact of scientific, technical and statistical arguments can be bolstered with fitting specific anecdotal evidence. Logic is often not enough to change people's views or motivate them to change. This applies to the most logically minded of us as well.

chrischen 9y ago

That’s called propoganda. You advocate using propoganda to justify a cause you have predetermined to be scientifically backed. Why not just use the scientific backing directly?

ccalvert 9y ago
Those who understand Climate Change and love science should not cede the ground to those who disagree with them without a fight. Most people don't understand science at the same level as many of the participants in HN. They are not bad people, and they are not necessarily ignorant people. But they don't base their decision-making process on scientific principles. Someone needs to reach out to these people and help them understand the world we live in. Ten minutes on Fox News and similar sites should convince anyone that Climate Change deniers understand how to influence people and do all they can to advocate for those who profit from policies that harm our world. We have to use the available tools to counter their arguments.
- chrischen 9y ago
  You’re denying the people of their right to be treated as an intellectual equal. If they don’t understand it is their loss. You can bet against them in the capitalist system. Sell them houses near coastlines. If they’re truly ignorant and you are in fact backed by science and facts, then you can profit off of them. But if you can justify doing this for people you consider not worthy of the facts because they probably can’t understand it, then you can justify it with anyone. This is the same rationale for why the FBI or law enforcement want more power. People don’t understand that thy are the GOOD guys and they won’t abuse their power. If the good guys—the people backed by science in this case—lose their accountability to actual science by being good at propoganda and manipulation, why even bother with science? They’ll become bad guys soon enough when they finally realize the facts never mattered. When propoganda is spewed from both sides the only way to tell is to have facts based on reality that people can independently verify. That’s the whole point of backed by science. If you deny people the option to independently verify then you deny them the ability to find out who’s right and who’s wrong. At that point are you any different from the bad guys?
socialist_coder 9y ago
Because a large portion of people in the world are not swayed by logical arguments. So, if you want to be an effective communicator, you need to talk to them in a way that works.
9y ago

nocoder 9y ago

This is not right. If ends justify means then we are in for a world full of strife and tribalism. This will make it difficult for people to trust anything. This is how we have ended up in this highly charged outrage porn filled world where everything and anything real or fake is being used to influence and recruit people towards one ideology or the other. This in the long term does more harm than good even for the people who think they are on winning side. It is more than ever important to be genuine and real and not do or say anything just so that we can win an argument, however right we might think we are.

stmfreak 9y ago

Using bad science to influence gullible people is a great way to end up with terrible policies.