The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - Mother Jones

[onehandle]

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. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.

Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, "Sananda," who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. The group was led by Dorothy Martin, a Dianetics devotee who transcribed the interstellar messages through automatic writing.

Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Some of Martin's followers quit their jobs and sold their property, expecting to be rescued by a flying saucer when the continent split asunder and a new sea swallowed much of the United States. The disciples even went so far as to remove brassieres and rip zippers out of their trousers—the metal, they believed, would pose a danger on the spacecraft.

Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed. First, the "boys upstairs" (as the aliens were sometimes called) did not show up and rescue the Seekers. Then December 21 arrived without incident. It was the moment Festinger had been waiting for: How would people so emotionally invested in a belief system react, now that it had been soundly refuted?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

[Motown_Johnny]

1. I don't believe it

:sarcasm:




Come on, you know someone was going to do it!

[hobbit709]

2. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

[blondeatlast]

5. It isn't stupidity. read the whole thing; there's a lot more going on

and it's got a lot to do with human frailty.

[hobbit709]

7. I read the whole thing.

and while I'm as opinionated as anyone, present me with facts and I'll change my mind.

Just believing something is so doesn't make it so and if you still believe afterwards then you're not too bright in my book. But then I never believed in imaginary sky wizards of any kind.

[texshelters]

12. Right

kudos to you.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[G_j]

3. On climate change, the GOP is lost in never-never land

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x915143

[blondeatlast]

4. That's gonna piss off a certain segment of DU big time.

Really interesting article on a problematic dynamic. k/r

[hfojvt]

6. Well I see a flaw in this

"Modern science originated from an attempt to weed out such subjective lapses—what that great 17th century theorist of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, dubbed the "idols of the mind." Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail."

Because, according to what they are saying about stubbornness in the face of contradictory evidence. "Peer review" comes from a set of people. A set of people who have been taught the "conventional wisdom" amd are just as likely to cling to their pet theories as anybody else. Why isn't it likely that peer review will just weed out most ideas that do not conform to the conventional wisdom?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. With more people involved, the probability everybody is taken in by the bullshit tends to zero.

To be exact, more people involved AND peer review AND institutionalized skepticism.

The bullshit may not go exactly to zero, but it's enormously reduced.

[Newest Reality]

10. Rupert Sheldrake

Wrote a book about the problems with an assumption of objectivity and such. Not wanting to go into the worthy arguments about that and the question of bias, here is a quote:

"The illusion of objectivity is most powerful when its victims believe themselves to be free of it. Along with a laudable sense of honor, a tendency to self-righteousness has been present in experimental science right from the outset." - Rupert Sheldrake

I have no objection to science and it has its rightful place in our reality and, as Ken Wilbur noted, there are categories of knowledge and insight that various disciplines are appropriate for in their own right.

[Odin2005]

18. Sheldrake is a kook and Wilbur is an arrogant gasbag.

[Spike89]

20. maybe you're thinking of the "soft" sciences

True scientific peer review involves presenting the procedures used in an experiment so that the peer reviewers can replicate the experiment. For instance, if scientist (or science team) 1 says, "We've found a method for cold fusion!" they then turn over their notes to reviewers who attempt to replicate the original experiment, if it can be replicated, it "passes" peer review and becomes a scientific fact. If it cannot be replicated in those other laboratories, the reseach goes on.

Peer review is also a term used in the soft/social sciences, and indeed, it is much more prone to the conventional wisdom error.

[Overseas]

9. Great article!

I am fascinated by this process.

How people can become determined not to change their minds. No matter what.

[rustydog]

11. Wow, I see where I need to open my eyes, look deeper into myself

And change debating tactics!
avery good read, Thanks!

[rfranklin]

13. They are Borg...debating tactics are futile...

This passage illustrates why:

Northwestern University sociologist Monica Prasad and her colleagues wanted to test whether they could dislodge the notion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were secretly collaborating among those most likely to believe it—Republican partisans from highly GOP-friendly counties. So the researchers set up a study (PDF) in which they discussed the topic with some of these Republicans in person. They would cite the findings of the 9/11 Commission, as well as a statement in which George W. Bush himself denied his administration had "said the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda."

One study showed that not even Bush's own words could change the minds of Bush voters who believed there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
As it turned out, not even Bush's own words could change the minds of these Bush voters—just 1 of the 49 partisans who originally believed the Iraq-Al Qaeda claim changed his or her mind. Far more common was resisting the correction in a variety of ways, either by coming up with counterarguments or by simply being unmovable

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

[texshelters]

14. Great article worth a full read and

I can see where biases begin. I guess having older siblings correct me numerous times helped me learn how wrong my assumptions could be.

The question is, how can you break through those that won't even look at credible evidence? Giving up while Republicans kill us with cuts and bombs is NOT an option for this "Libtard".

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[RagAss]

15. I read the article...once again it's all about ego.

[logosoco]

16. The begining of the article made me see something I have been

wondering about (probably off topic a bit but it really jumped out at me!)...on May 22, the folks who have been telling us it's "the end" (or whatever it is they think) will say that their "power from believing" that will make it NOT happen...they actually prevented it from happening by believing it.

I am not always sure just what I believe, but from some of the things I have seen, I would hav eto say I believe anything is possible! But I am not religious in any sense, nor am I smart enough to be a "scientist."

[NashVegas]

17. Emotional Problems Aren't Resolved By Rational Means

Sorry "right-brainers," but emotional skills *are* important.

[Odin2005]

19. There is some interesting research on this topic involving stroke patients with brain damage.

Some people who had a stroke damage their right parietal lobes developed a curious phenomenon called hemispatial neglect, they will completely ignore anything on their left side, if you put a place of food in front of them they will only eat the right half of the plate. And, interestingly,

Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran hypothesized that rationalizing things to fit what we already believe takes place in the left hemisphere, while changing one's beliefs needs input from the right hemisphere, which forces a belief change if experience does not match expectations.