4 ms·

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

11 points by atakan_gurkan 15y ago

losethos 15y ago
Throw the Jew in the well.
jasonkester 15y ago
I've never been to this website before, but reading the article it seems like they have a chip on their shoulder about global warming: "A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger (PDF), in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. That seems to be a strange example to use, since Climate Change can probably be described as "The most contentious argument about a totally ambiguous data set in the history of mankind". It polarizes people so strongly by nature of the fact that the same data can reasonably be read to support either conclusion. By grouping people who the author considers to be on the other side of that issue with people who ruined their lives chasing aliens, it just reads like they're trying to justify calling the opposition in their little fight crazy.
- nhaehnle 15y ago
  Perhaps the main reason that the article uses that particular example is that there is a striking difference between climate scientists and the general population. The general population thinks that there are contentious arguments about climate change. Climate scientists don't think so. Yes, there's always discussions about the small details, but that's why they're scientists. There is no contention about the big picture among climate scientists. Then again, it is true that the article doesn't follow its own advice, which is given at the very end: to avoid emotional confrontation, in order to give the facts a fighting chance. If the author honestly wanted to convince someone, it would have been much better to start of with less emotionally charged topics, and then perhaps sneak in climate change towards the end.

11 points by atakan_gurkan 15y ago

Throw the Jew in the well.

I've never been to this website before, but reading the article it seems like they have a chip on their shoulder about global warming: "A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger (PDF), in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. That seems to be a strange example to use, since Climate Change can probably be described as "The most contentious argument about a totally ambiguous data set in the history of mankind". It polarizes people so strongly by nature of the fact that the same data can reasonably be read to support either conclusion. By grouping people who the author considers to be on the other side of that issue with people who ruined their lives chasing aliens, it just reads like they're trying to justify calling the opposition in their little fight crazy.

nhaehnle 15y ago
Perhaps the main reason that the article uses that particular example is that there is a striking difference between climate scientists and the general population. The general population thinks that there are contentious arguments about climate change. Climate scientists don't think so. Yes, there's always discussions about the small details, but that's why they're scientists. There is no contention about the big picture among climate scientists. Then again, it is true that the article doesn't follow its own advice, which is given at the very end: to avoid emotional confrontation, in order to give the facts a fighting chance. If the author honestly wanted to convince someone, it would have been much better to start of with less emotionally charged topics, and then perhaps sneak in climate change towards the end.