The rationale for irrationality
15 Dec '10 03:141 editI have notice that there have been a couple threads started on the veracity of "Global Warming". Several people have made the claim that because it is colder than normal outside then Global Warming can not be true. Anyone that has put 5 minutes into looking up facts on the subject would know that is actually proof of, rather than debunking, climate change (the preferred term of climatologists).
I also found it amusing that someone pointed to the East Anglia scientists as proof that all climatologist were liars and their methods were flawed, even though the East Anglia climatologist were cleared of the charges against them.
Usually in these types of cases the accuser will come up with a link to someone who is marginally associated with the field and that as a snappy title, but no real credentials or standing in the field, to back up their beliefs. I was thinking about that today when I came across this article on "backfire".
From the article linked to below:
"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/12/13/how-our-brains-threaten-democracy-the-science-behind-self-delusion/
Often in the threads on this (or any) site, posters will ignore facts or disregard them out of hand, not because they are inaccurate, but rather because the facts conflict with their point of view. While this makes for some long, and rather tedious, threads, it doesn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.
Thoughts?
I also found it amusing that someone pointed to the East Anglia scientists as proof that all climatologist were liars and their methods were flawed, even though the East Anglia climatologist were cleared of the charges against them.
Usually in these types of cases the accuser will come up with a link to someone who is marginally associated with the field and that as a snappy title, but no real credentials or standing in the field, to back up their beliefs. I was thinking about that today when I came across this article on "backfire".
From the article linked to below:
"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/12/13/how-our-brains-threaten-democracy-the-science-behind-self-delusion/
Often in the threads on this (or any) site, posters will ignore facts or disregard them out of hand, not because they are inaccurate, but rather because the facts conflict with their point of view. While this makes for some long, and rather tedious, threads, it doesn't make this a debate forum. It just makes it a pissing in the wind forum.
Thoughts?
Back to Top