6 ms·

> coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism We stop trying to ascribe malicious motives to their actions and try to have genuine conversation with the

by jjcon 5y ago

> coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism We stop trying to ascribe malicious motives to their actions and try to have genuine conversation with them. If they aren't convinced after that then we have more work to do.

cde-v 5y ago
Hanlon's razor
hallway_monitor 5y ago
Thank you. The phrase "disingenuous skepticism" is difficult to imagine. If someone believes masks don't work, or that a vaccine could have risks, they are skeptical; they haven't seen evidence that convinces them otherwise. It's interesting how much time and effort is spent trying to win people over to another way of thinking or opinion.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  I also think misconceptions about Occam's razor are to blame. It's a good heuristic for choosing which hypotheses to test first, but a lot of people seem to misuse it as a heuristic for which of two propositions is more likely to be true, which is unfounded and very often leads to incorrect conclusions. It's basically on par with "there's no smoke without fire". People tend to assume that if they cannot prove P and cannot prove ¬P, then ¬P must be assumed to be true. This is of course not correct at all, and most propositions can be rephrased so that Q=¬P and ¬Q=P. If there is no evidence either way, then neither P nor ¬P is supported, and we should remain uncertain.
- bduerst 5y ago
  I don't know how many of these conversations you've tried to have, because the confirmation bias is very real. We're not discussing skepticism of nematode behavior, but of the politicization of a pandemic, which makes it opinion. You can't reason with someone out of an opinion who didn't reason themselves into it to begin with. Rational bad actors abuse this notion that they have the right to play, to be heard, to have a discourse; when in reality they're repeating the same disinformation ad nausea to profit for themselves.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  >>The phrase "disingenuous skepticism" is difficult to imagine. I find it easy to imagine and indeed can pinpoint many observed instances. A lot of "I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking questions" ARE in fact saying something, quite strongly, with minds made up and no curiosity or eagerness to learn, but are being disingenuous. It's not skepticism: they are not awaiting or hoping for data or facts or claims, rational discourse or healthy discussion; their mind is not open to change; they have an objective, they are aiming to persuade and recruit, or sow doubt. To the point that when a user made an innocuous comment in this thread and ended it with "not a criticism, just an observation:)" we all assumed he was in fact disingenuous and was criticizing, because that's the current (unfortunate!) norm for that form of statement. A lot of cult-like institutions or groups understand, consciously or subconsciously, that their views are not agreed upon and appreciated. So they have devised disingenuous ways of promoting them. From naming ("Discovery Institute" is hard-core creationists, "National Vaccine Information Center" is hard-core anti-vaxx group etc), to appearances (websites are full of stock photos of people in white lab coats and charts, to appear science-y), to discourse (again, the frequent, "I'm not SAYING anything, I'm just ASKING"; "I'm not AGAINST vaccines, I just have QUESTIONS on the timing" - all pulled from distributed talking points),disingenuous skepticism has become the norm, I'm sad to say... and thus trivial to imagine. edit: All forms of discussion like this ultimately converge to definitions; so to be explicit and hopefully drive us to point of mutual understanding, to me, skepticism implies seeking facts, data, truth; openness to change your mind; genuine looking for mutual objective truth and agreement. As such, there's disingenuous skepticism aplenty in this world of ours :-/
  - ohwellhere 5y ago
    This is exactly right, and what the original comment was describing I believe. Although I wonder if the subject is muddied as the adjective may be applied to the wrong noun. Their _skepticism_ is likely genuine and sincere, but their _engagement_ is not in good faith and is disingenuous. One problem, I think, is that it the communities are self selecting. Skeptics who engage in good faith on well understood topics become converts; all who remain over time in the community of skeptics are those who do not engage in good faith. It's a worthwhile question to ask why they don't engage in good faith, which I think has a more complicated answer than either straightforward ignorance or malice.
- mcguire 5y ago
  How much evidence would it take you to come to believe that masks work or that the risks of vaccines do not outweigh the risks of the disease? And what do you do if the answer is "No amount of evidence"?
UncleOxidant 5y ago
Right now at this moment my 60 year old SiL is holed up in her apartment with covid. She refused to get the vaccine. She believes that there are lizard people who live beneath the earth's crust, etc. She found a "doctor" to prescribe her ivermectin - the "doctor" does not allow vaccinated people into their clinic for whatever bizarre reason (sPIkE pRoTeenZ no doubt). We asked her to take a pic of her oximeter reading and send it to us - it read 91. We told her she should get to a hospital where they could give her some oxygen, but she refuses (doesn't want to be in "the system"). She is the poster child for disingenuous skepticism and it's impossible to have a "genuine conversation" with her because she's so infected with conspiracy theories (including the Q conspiracy).
- jjcon 5y ago
  > She is the poster child for disingenuous skepticism She doesn't seem at all disingenuous to me, what actions make you doubt her genuinity? To me it sounds like she may have some mental health issues to work out and that is an entirely different beast than this conversation.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    Why do you believe that “mental health issues” (very non-specific) is an entirely different beast? My family experiences suggest that information silos (my personal diagnosis of one of the root causes of disbelief of reproducible scientific findings) can and do create mental health issues similar to the parent’s SiL.
- iammisc 5y ago
  There is good reason to not want to be in the system. During COVID, both my aunt and grandmother were abused during their hospitalizations (not for COVID). The experience left my aunt feeling she'd rather have died than endure what she had to, and after hearing her experiences, I think that would have been a perfectly rational decision to make had she known what was going to happen. Why are we so upset when people decide to refuse treatment?
  - 5y ago
mcguire 5y ago
Do you attribute malicious motives to the skeptics employed by tobacco companies?

by jjcon 5y ago

cde-v 5y ago

Hanlon's razor

hallway_monitor 5y ago

Thank you. The phrase "disingenuous skepticism" is difficult to imagine. If someone believes masks don't work, or that a vaccine could have risks, they are skeptical; they haven't seen evidence that convinces them otherwise. It's interesting how much time and effort is spent trying to win people over to another way of thinking or opinion.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
I also think misconceptions about Occam's razor are to blame. It's a good heuristic for choosing which hypotheses to test first, but a lot of people seem to misuse it as a heuristic for which of two propositions is more likely to be true, which is unfounded and very often leads to incorrect conclusions. It's basically on par with "there's no smoke without fire". People tend to assume that if they cannot prove P and cannot prove ¬P, then ¬P must be assumed to be true. This is of course not correct at all, and most propositions can be rephrased so that Q=¬P and ¬Q=P. If there is no evidence either way, then neither P nor ¬P is supported, and we should remain uncertain.
bduerst 5y ago
I don't know how many of these conversations you've tried to have, because the confirmation bias is very real. We're not discussing skepticism of nematode behavior, but of the politicization of a pandemic, which makes it opinion. You can't reason with someone out of an opinion who didn't reason themselves into it to begin with. Rational bad actors abuse this notion that they have the right to play, to be heard, to have a discourse; when in reality they're repeating the same disinformation ad nausea to profit for themselves.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
>>The phrase "disingenuous skepticism" is difficult to imagine. I find it easy to imagine and indeed can pinpoint many observed instances. A lot of "I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking questions" ARE in fact saying something, quite strongly, with minds made up and no curiosity or eagerness to learn, but are being disingenuous. It's not skepticism: they are not awaiting or hoping for data or facts or claims, rational discourse or healthy discussion; their mind is not open to change; they have an objective, they are aiming to persuade and recruit, or sow doubt. To the point that when a user made an innocuous comment in this thread and ended it with "not a criticism, just an observation:)" we all assumed he was in fact disingenuous and was criticizing, because that's the current (unfortunate!) norm for that form of statement. A lot of cult-like institutions or groups understand, consciously or subconsciously, that their views are not agreed upon and appreciated. So they have devised disingenuous ways of promoting them. From naming ("Discovery Institute" is hard-core creationists, "National Vaccine Information Center" is hard-core anti-vaxx group etc), to appearances (websites are full of stock photos of people in white lab coats and charts, to appear science-y), to discourse (again, the frequent, "I'm not SAYING anything, I'm just ASKING"; "I'm not AGAINST vaccines, I just have QUESTIONS on the timing" - all pulled from distributed talking points),disingenuous skepticism has become the norm, I'm sad to say... and thus trivial to imagine. edit: All forms of discussion like this ultimately converge to definitions; so to be explicit and hopefully drive us to point of mutual understanding, to me, skepticism implies seeking facts, data, truth; openness to change your mind; genuine looking for mutual objective truth and agreement. As such, there's disingenuous skepticism aplenty in this world of ours :-/
- ohwellhere 5y ago
  This is exactly right, and what the original comment was describing I believe. Although I wonder if the subject is muddied as the adjective may be applied to the wrong noun. Their _skepticism_ is likely genuine and sincere, but their _engagement_ is not in good faith and is disingenuous. One problem, I think, is that it the communities are self selecting. Skeptics who engage in good faith on well understood topics become converts; all who remain over time in the community of skeptics are those who do not engage in good faith. It's a worthwhile question to ask why they don't engage in good faith, which I think has a more complicated answer than either straightforward ignorance or malice.
mcguire 5y ago
How much evidence would it take you to come to believe that masks work or that the risks of vaccines do not outweigh the risks of the disease? And what do you do if the answer is "No amount of evidence"?

UncleOxidant 5y ago

Right now at this moment my 60 year old SiL is holed up in her apartment with covid. She refused to get the vaccine. She believes that there are lizard people who live beneath the earth's crust, etc. She found a "doctor" to prescribe her ivermectin - the "doctor" does not allow vaccinated people into their clinic for whatever bizarre reason (sPIkE pRoTeenZ no doubt). We asked her to take a pic of her oximeter reading and send it to us - it read 91. We told her she should get to a hospital where they could give her some oxygen, but she refuses (doesn't want to be in "the system"). She is the poster child for disingenuous skepticism and it's impossible to have a "genuine conversation" with her because she's so infected with conspiracy theories (including the Q conspiracy).

jjcon 5y ago
> She is the poster child for disingenuous skepticism She doesn't seem at all disingenuous to me, what actions make you doubt her genuinity? To me it sounds like she may have some mental health issues to work out and that is an entirely different beast than this conversation.
- thephyber 5y ago
  Why do you believe that “mental health issues” (very non-specific) is an entirely different beast? My family experiences suggest that information silos (my personal diagnosis of one of the root causes of disbelief of reproducible scientific findings) can and do create mental health issues similar to the parent’s SiL.
iammisc 5y ago
There is good reason to not want to be in the system. During COVID, both my aunt and grandmother were abused during their hospitalizations (not for COVID). The experience left my aunt feeling she'd rather have died than endure what she had to, and after hearing her experiences, I think that would have been a perfectly rational decision to make had she known what was going to happen. Why are we so upset when people decide to refuse treatment?
- 5y ago

mcguire 5y ago

Do you attribute malicious motives to the skeptics employed by tobacco companies?