11 ms·

The fact that the examples of disbelief given in such articles are always lefty pop-topics (climate change, Obama's birth certificate, death panels) is the real

The fact that the examples of disbelief given in such articles are always lefty pop-topics (climate change, Obama's birth certificate, death panels) is the real hint into why people don't examine things with pure rationality. I could lead off a similar article with "Why don't people realize that human races, to some degree, have different average intelligence stemming from genetics?" That would never be published in MotherJones, and honestly, if they had their way, I would go to prison just from saying that. So why don't people "believe" in climate change? Because they realize it's a political, not a scientific, topic. It has winners and losers to the order of trillions of dollars. Science can't compete. Sorry.

lindauer 13y ago
Do you really think the vaccine-autism thing is a "lefty pop-topic"? As far as I can tell the sets of people who deny climate change science and those who deny vaccine-autism science are nearly disjoint.
- samatman 13y ago
  You will find legions on homeschoolers in the intersection, if you go looking.
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Since you're someone who seems to belive in multiple human races could you give me a list of those races?
- sublimit 13y ago
  Human races are not a matter of belief. Look at the people around you, look at different cultures and their trends across centuries. You're one of those people who could take a lesson from this article.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    In a discussion about public ignorance of science you are telling somebody the best way to get an answer to something is anecdotal evidence from looking at the people around them? On a topic where we know people have great difficulty objectively comparing things? I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    What race is the President of the United States?
  - logjam 13y ago
    > Human races are not a matter of belief.... Oh. Then please provide the list asked for, and while you're at it, list the genes and loci you use to classify members of a "race". I mean, if human "races" are not a matter of belief but are a matter of science, that should be really easy for you and the parent commenter. Right?
    - sublimit 13y ago
      You're setting me up for a trap with the list thing - if I linked somewhere you'd simply say it was racist data and question the validity of the sources. Instead I'll go for the route of scientific analogy. If dogs have races, why wouldn't humans? After all, humans are not biologically above or separate from animals. Why would basic evolution stop applying with humans? Mind you, the existence of races doesn't have to imply inferiority or superiority between them. People seem to be afraid that would happen, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying the whole concept of race altogether. Much like the article says.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        Evolution does not work that way. It is a purely pass/fail system. Also, since the invention of boats and planes, humans have been interbreeding like crazy, so it's pretty much ceasing to matter.
        13y ago
splawn 13y ago
Motherjones does have a left bias that makes me cringe sometimes, so i see where you are coming from. Where I disagree with you is that while science can uncover issues (such as global warming or gmos) that can be politicized, that doesn't mean that the underlying questions are somehow no longer scientific. Politics can't compete. Sorry.
- dnautics 13y ago
  The society of science is inherently political. There's several issues - who controls the funding? Who controls the publication axis? Who controls academic appointments? This is the problem with reifying "science". Even the "scientific method" itself - as in the way that it is practiced - is suspect. Why are certain conventions of running null controls the ones that are accepted versus others? Why in some instances is "eliminating variables" good (I often take the position that if you can consistently measure a result under sloppy conditions that means it's robust)
  - splawn 13y ago
    This is why we gain a consensus based on repeatability of results, peer-review and the ability for a model to make a prediction.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong?
      - splawn 13y ago
        >who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Scientists are from all walks of life and funding comes from many different sources. >Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? I think this is how it works... Anyone with a paper can submit it to a journal, then the journal decides if they are going to publish or not. There are many journals with different amounts of specialization and reputation. > Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? You will find the answer to those questions in the definition of the word "consensus". > What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong? Its kind of like other communities (including this one)... the better your reputation the more seriously people take your input. If you have a better approach to understanding the universe, I am extremely interested in what it could be. I do like the idea of open journals (aaron swartz style), but i honestly don't know what the ramifications would be.
epistasis 13y ago
>if they had their way, I would go to prison just from saying that. Your post reminds me that this research seems to miss another way that people delude themselves: persecution-complexes. Once you believe that others want to do bad things to you for your beliefs, you become far more entrenched. And ridiculous exaggerations such as yours allow you to more fully insulate yourself from facts: because you're under attack and your freedom is at risk, you have to protect yourself from these terrible people, and therefore, their beliefs. >So why don't people "believe" in climate change? Because they realize it's a political, not a scientific, topic. It has winners and losers to the order of trillions of dollars. How can you possibly say it's 'not scientific' when it's entirely scientific. The responses to climate change are political, but the topic itself is minimally political. But you do enforce the point that people will cut themselves off from reasoning logically, if the conclusion is one they don't want to face. If your political buddies may be hurt, one is much more likely to fight the truth.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  >How can you possibly say it's 'not scientific' when it's entirely scientific. The responses to climate change are political, but the topic itself is minimally political. The topic becomes political the moment it has political ramifications. The bigger those ramifications are, the more of a political topic it is. The parent knows it is a scientific topic, but when it's brought up, it's likely not. When it's argued, it's likely being argued by people who arn't looking at evidence, but looking at effect.
- arjie 13y ago
  Before you get downvoted and shadow-banned for posting this, I wish to thank you for making this accurate comment. I know we will both be captured by the FBI for taking this position, but it's important to speak truth to power. Well done.
- csense 13y ago
  > persecution-complexes My favorite example of this is how the left attacks and ostracizes those who dare to oppose the gay rights agenda in any way (two examples which immediately spring to mind are [1] [2], but there are many more). It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I could go on at length about the importance of defending someone's right to state unpopular opinions even (or perhaps especially) if you disagree with them, but I hope HN'ers are smart enough to fill in the details of that argument themselves. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membershi...
Alex3917 13y ago
> Why don't people realize that human races, to some degree, have different average intelligence stemming from genetics? Because it's a truthclaim that's outside of the ability of science to test, short of jesus coming back to earth with his fairy wand to endow you with platonic (and measurable) definitions of race, intelligence, average, and genetics. Whatever definitions you choose there is going to be some difference, even if that difference is zero, but that difference is going to differ wildly depending on what definitions you choose.
- SiVal 13y ago
  "Outside the ability of science to test"? Nothing has been so thoroughly tested throughout the the world as IQ, and the measurements of climate data don't come close to IQ differences in terms of predictability. Whatever fuzziness there is in IQ measurements pales in comparison to the fuzziness in climate measurement, yet an outfit like Mother Jones would declare the former "unsettled" and the latter fully proven except to wacko right-wing "science denialists".
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    IQ is not synonymous with intelligence, nor is IQ a measurement -- it's normalized by definition. In fact IQ itself isn't even a 'thing', since there are dozens of different tests.
    - SiVal 13y ago
      And yet there is a high and repeatable correlation among all those tests indicating that they are all proxies for some real "thing". Call it by whatever name you like--g, intelligence, IQ, whatever--but there is a real "thing" that causes these proxy tests to have highly predictable results.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
adammil 13y ago
The science itself is just a set of measurements and is apolitical. The politics start when people apply their conclusions to the results.
- dnautics 13y ago
  no measurement is free of bias. why did you choose a particular instrument to take your measurements on? Why did you use a bruker NMR instead of a varian NMR? Was it because one manufacturer is german and the other is american? Why did you report your measurement in kcal/mol instead of kJ/mol? How does that affect the ability of a reader to glean insight from your report? Why did you even do experiment X at all? Was it because a reviewer told you to do it otherwise it wouldn't be published? Was that reviewer a former post-doc of a vicious competitor, who had a petty dislike for your previous advisor that had to do with the way that he answered a question she posed at a conference fifteen years ago? So in subtle (and usually insignificant but always nonzero ways) politics can creep into these "measurements".
danmaz74 13y ago
Did you read the article to the end? It addresses this point.
SiVal 13y ago
Many people don't believe in climate change for the same reason many don't believe in the findings of cigarette companies' scientists or drug company scientists or Department of Agriculture scientists: they don't trust the institutions that employ the scientists not to filter their employees' results through their own institutional agendas.
snowwrestler 13y ago
> I could lead off a similar article with "Why don't people realize that human races, to some degree, have different average intelligence stemming from genetics?" That would never be published in MotherJones Because it is not a scientific statement.

lindauer 13y ago

Do you really think the vaccine-autism thing is a "lefty pop-topic"? As far as I can tell the sets of people who deny climate change science and those who deny vaccine-autism science are nearly disjoint.

samatman 13y ago
You will find legions on homeschoolers in the intersection, if you go looking.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago

Since you're someone who seems to belive in multiple human races could you give me a list of those races?

sublimit 13y ago
Human races are not a matter of belief. Look at the people around you, look at different cultures and their trends across centuries. You're one of those people who could take a lesson from this article.
- anon1385 13y ago
  In a discussion about public ignorance of science you are telling somebody the best way to get an answer to something is anecdotal evidence from looking at the people around them? On a topic where we know people have great difficulty objectively comparing things? I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.
- mikeash 13y ago
  What race is the President of the United States?
- logjam 13y ago
  > Human races are not a matter of belief.... Oh. Then please provide the list asked for, and while you're at it, list the genes and loci you use to classify members of a "race". I mean, if human "races" are not a matter of belief but are a matter of science, that should be really easy for you and the parent commenter. Right?
  - sublimit 13y ago
    You're setting me up for a trap with the list thing - if I linked somewhere you'd simply say it was racist data and question the validity of the sources. Instead I'll go for the route of scientific analogy. If dogs have races, why wouldn't humans? After all, humans are not biologically above or separate from animals. Why would basic evolution stop applying with humans? Mind you, the existence of races doesn't have to imply inferiority or superiority between them. People seem to be afraid that would happen, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying the whole concept of race altogether. Much like the article says.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      Evolution does not work that way. It is a purely pass/fail system. Also, since the invention of boats and planes, humans have been interbreeding like crazy, so it's pretty much ceasing to matter.
      - 13y ago

splawn 13y ago

Motherjones does have a left bias that makes me cringe sometimes, so i see where you are coming from. Where I disagree with you is that while science can uncover issues (such as global warming or gmos) that can be politicized, that doesn't mean that the underlying questions are somehow no longer scientific. Politics can't compete. Sorry.

dnautics 13y ago
The society of science is inherently political. There's several issues - who controls the funding? Who controls the publication axis? Who controls academic appointments? This is the problem with reifying "science". Even the "scientific method" itself - as in the way that it is practiced - is suspect. Why are certain conventions of running null controls the ones that are accepted versus others? Why in some instances is "eliminating variables" good (I often take the position that if you can consistently measure a result under sloppy conditions that means it's robust)
- splawn 13y ago
  This is why we gain a consensus based on repeatability of results, peer-review and the ability for a model to make a prediction.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong?
    - splawn 13y ago
      >who gets to try to repeat those results? Experiments don't do themselves, and they're not free. Scientists are from all walks of life and funding comes from many different sources. >Who gets to publish results so they can be peer-reviewed? I think this is how it works... Anyone with a paper can submit it to a journal, then the journal decides if they are going to publish or not. There are many journals with different amounts of specialization and reputation. > Who sets the "consensus" about if a "model makes a prediction". Who gets to decide whose opinions are included and disincluded in this consensus? You will find the answer to those questions in the definition of the word "consensus". > What is the punishment for making an incorrect prediction? Do you get to be disincluded from "consensi" for a spell if you get it wrong? Its kind of like other communities (including this one)... the better your reputation the more seriously people take your input. If you have a better approach to understanding the universe, I am extremely interested in what it could be. I do like the idea of open journals (aaron swartz style), but i honestly don't know what the ramifications would be.

epistasis 13y ago

>if they had their way, I would go to prison just from saying that. Your post reminds me that this research seems to miss another way that people delude themselves: persecution-complexes. Once you believe that others want to do bad things to you for your beliefs, you become far more entrenched. And ridiculous exaggerations such as yours allow you to more fully insulate yourself from facts: because you're under attack and your freedom is at risk, you have to protect yourself from these terrible people, and therefore, their beliefs. >So why don't people "believe" in climate change? Because they realize it's a political, not a scientific, topic. It has winners and losers to the order of trillions of dollars. How can you possibly say it's 'not scientific' when it's entirely scientific. The responses to climate change are political, but the topic itself is minimally political. But you do enforce the point that people will cut themselves off from reasoning logically, if the conclusion is one they don't want to face. If your political buddies may be hurt, one is much more likely to fight the truth.

GhotiFish 13y ago
>How can you possibly say it's 'not scientific' when it's entirely scientific. The responses to climate change are political, but the topic itself is minimally political. The topic becomes political the moment it has political ramifications. The bigger those ramifications are, the more of a political topic it is. The parent knows it is a scientific topic, but when it's brought up, it's likely not. When it's argued, it's likely being argued by people who arn't looking at evidence, but looking at effect.
arjie 13y ago
Before you get downvoted and shadow-banned for posting this, I wish to thank you for making this accurate comment. I know we will both be captured by the FBI for taking this position, but it's important to speak truth to power. Well done.
csense 13y ago
> persecution-complexes My favorite example of this is how the left attacks and ostracizes those who dare to oppose the gay rights agenda in any way (two examples which immediately spring to mind are [1] [2], but there are many more). It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I could go on at length about the importance of defending someone's right to state unpopular opinions even (or perhaps especially) if you disagree with them, but I hope HN'ers are smart enough to fill in the details of that argument themselves. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membershi...

Alex3917 13y ago

> Why don't people realize that human races, to some degree, have different average intelligence stemming from genetics? Because it's a truthclaim that's outside of the ability of science to test, short of jesus coming back to earth with his fairy wand to endow you with platonic (and measurable) definitions of race, intelligence, average, and genetics. Whatever definitions you choose there is going to be some difference, even if that difference is zero, but that difference is going to differ wildly depending on what definitions you choose.

SiVal 13y ago
"Outside the ability of science to test"? Nothing has been so thoroughly tested throughout the the world as IQ, and the measurements of climate data don't come close to IQ differences in terms of predictability. Whatever fuzziness there is in IQ measurements pales in comparison to the fuzziness in climate measurement, yet an outfit like Mother Jones would declare the former "unsettled" and the latter fully proven except to wacko right-wing "science denialists".
- Alex3917 13y ago
  IQ is not synonymous with intelligence, nor is IQ a measurement -- it's normalized by definition. In fact IQ itself isn't even a 'thing', since there are dozens of different tests.
  - SiVal 13y ago
    And yet there is a high and repeatable correlation among all those tests indicating that they are all proxies for some real "thing". Call it by whatever name you like--g, intelligence, IQ, whatever--but there is a real "thing" that causes these proxy tests to have highly predictable results.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

adammil 13y ago

The science itself is just a set of measurements and is apolitical. The politics start when people apply their conclusions to the results.

dnautics 13y ago
no measurement is free of bias. why did you choose a particular instrument to take your measurements on? Why did you use a bruker NMR instead of a varian NMR? Was it because one manufacturer is german and the other is american? Why did you report your measurement in kcal/mol instead of kJ/mol? How does that affect the ability of a reader to glean insight from your report? Why did you even do experiment X at all? Was it because a reviewer told you to do it otherwise it wouldn't be published? Was that reviewer a former post-doc of a vicious competitor, who had a petty dislike for your previous advisor that had to do with the way that he answered a question she posed at a conference fifteen years ago? So in subtle (and usually insignificant but always nonzero ways) politics can creep into these "measurements".

danmaz74 13y ago

Did you read the article to the end? It addresses this point.

SiVal 13y ago

Many people don't believe in climate change for the same reason many don't believe in the findings of cigarette companies' scientists or drug company scientists or Department of Agriculture scientists: they don't trust the institutions that employ the scientists not to filter their employees' results through their own institutional agendas.

snowwrestler 13y ago

> I could lead off a similar article with "Why don't people realize that human races, to some degree, have different average intelligence stemming from genetics?" That would never be published in MotherJones Because it is not a scientific statement.