Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - article in National Geographic

There is a great article on science denial in the recent National Geographic that helps to explain why Conservatives and Liberals have such opposite views on basic scientific facts. Whether it's the health problems caused by tobacco, or whether climate change is caused by humans, or seatbelt use reduces automobile deaths, there are those on the "conservative" side who always fight any change that might upset the status quo. It is not that they are unintelligent, rather they believe it will cost them more in the long run..

Excerpt: ""The "science communication problem," as it's blandly called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe--and why they so often don't accept the scientific consensus. It's not that they can't grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to ten. Then he correlated that with the subjects' science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views--at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that's because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.

Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more "egalitarian" and "communitarian" mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it's up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they're likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a "hierarchical" and "individualistic" mind-set respect leaders of industry and don't like government interfering in their affairs; they're apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to--some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.""

The entire article is here, and is worth reading:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text

On 3/16/2015 6:38 PM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
There is a great article on science denial in the recent National Geographic that helps to explain why Conservatives and Liberals have such opposite views on basic scientific facts. Whether it's the health problems caused by tobacco, or whether climate change is caused by humans, or seatbelt use reduces automobile deaths, there are those on the "conservative" side who always fight any change that might upset the status quo. It is not that they are unintelligent, rather they believe it will cost them more in the long run.

Excerpt: ""The "science communication problem," as it's blandly called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe--and why they so often don't accept the scientific consensus. It's not that they can't grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to ten. Then he correlated that with the subjects' science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views--at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that's because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.

Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more "egalitarian" and "communitarian" mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it's up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they're likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a "hierarchical" and "individualistic" mind-set respect leaders of industry and don't like government interfering in their affairs; they're apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to--some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.""

The entire article is here, and is worth reading:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text

Dude

this was figured out hundreds of years ago and described by Hume:

The greater part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and
dogmatical in their opinions; and while they see objects only on one
side, and have no idea of any counterpoising argument, they throw
themselves precipitately into the principles, to which they are
inclined; nor have they any indulgence for those who entertain opposite
sentiments. To hesitate or balance perplexes their understanding, checks
their passion, and suspends their action. They are, therefore, impatient
till they escape from a state, which to them is so uneasy: and they
think, that they could never remove themselves far enough from it, by
the violence of their affirmations and obstinacy of their belief. But
could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange
infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state, and
when most accurate and cautious in its determinations; such a reflection
would naturally inspire them with more modesty and reserve, and diminish
their fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against
antagonists. The illiterate may reflect on the disposition of the
learned, who, amidst all the advantages of study and reflection, are
commonly still diffident in their determinations: and if any of the
learned be inclined, from their natural temper, to haughtiness and
obstinacy, a small tincture of Pyrrhonism might abate their pride, by
showing them, that the few advantages, which they may have attained over
their fellows, are but inconsiderable, if compared with the universal
perplexity and confusion, which is inherent in human nature. In general,
there is a degree of doubt, and caution, and modesty, which, in all
kinds of scrutiny and decision, ought for ever to accompany a just reasoner.

Anti-vaccination veganidiot global warmers latest tact; aligning non-belief in global warming with denial of the big bang, the Apollo mission, etc. B.S.

On 3/16/15 6:38 PM, Uncarollo2 wrote:
There is a great article on science denial in the recent National Geographic that helps to explain why Conservatives and Liberals have such opposite views on basic scientific facts. Whether it's the health problems caused by tobacco, or whether climate change is caused by humans, or seatbelt use reduces automobile deaths, there are those on the "conservative" side who always fight any change that might upset the status quo. It is not that they are unintelligent, rather they believe it will cost them more in the long run.

Excerpt: ""The "science communication problem," as it's blandly called by the scientists who study it, has yielded abundant new research into how people decide what to believe--and why they so often don't accept the scientific consensus. It's not that they can't grasp it, according to Dan Kahan of Yale University. In one study he asked 1,540 Americans, a representative sample, to rate the threat of climate change on a scale of zero to ten. Then he correlated that with the subjects' science literacy. He found that higher literacy was associated with stronger views--at both ends of the spectrum. Science literacy promoted polarization on climate, not consensus. According to Kahan, that's because people tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their worldview.

Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more "egalitarian" and "communitarian" mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it's up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they're likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a "hierarchical" and "individualistic" mind-set respect leaders of industry and don't like government interfering in their affairs; they're apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to--some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.""

The entire article is here, and is worth reading:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text


Thanks.

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 5:38:34 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

The entire article is here, and is worth reading:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text

I thought the map of a curved but topologically flat Earth in the article was
interesting, and Googling led me to learn that three copies are currently known
to exist; one in a museum, a better one someone discovered and donated to the
Library of Congress - and a third one mentioned by a commentator in a forum
discussion.

John Savard

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 5:38:34 PM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 quoted, in part:

they're apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what
accepting them could lead to--some kind of tax or regulation to limit
emissions.

That rather understates the real problem.

From what one sees in the discussion of this issue, it appears that to properly
address global warming, we have to basically go back to nature - getting by on
a *lot* less energy, and getting the energy we do use from the sun and the wind.

And one of the _early_ consequences of the democratic world opting to dismantle
industrial civilization... would be its capacity to resiet conquest by Russia
and China and so on.

That, of course, is not an excuse for denying scientific evidence of the
problem. If we're all doomed, that would be a fact, and ignoring it won't make
it go away, even if what to do about it is unclear.

However, as it happens, there is a reliable source of abundant energy which is
already proven in practical use. Some isotopes of heavy elements, such as
Uranium-235, are _fissionable_, and may be used in a nuclear reactor to produce
large quantities of heat which may be used to generate electricity.

While supplies of Uranium-235 are limited, and difficult to separate from more
common isotopes, the most abundant isotope, Uranium-238, may be turned into
fissionable Plutonium-239 by being exposed to the neutrons available in
abundance in a nuclear reactor. As well, Thorium-232 can be turned into
fissionable Uranium-233 in the same fashion, and Thorium is a very common
element in the Earth's crust.

Thus we do not need to wait for the successful development of hydrogen fusion
power to have a convenient and compact source of abundant energy.

That's what people need to know - that they have acceptable choices available.

John Savard

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 11:38:34 PM UTC, Uncarollo2 wrote:
There is a great article on science denial in the recent National Geographic that helps to explain why Conservatives and Liberals have such opposite views on basic scientific facts.

The so-called 'scientific method' often substitutes for science but even the term 'science' itself is too loose to provide a meaningful look at what went wrong at several different levels and how contemporaries have to pick up the pieces after a few centuries where predictions can be passed off as fact.

The eclipse will happen on the Equinox this coming Friday, that much is a fact, however it is a timekeeping prediction made within the calendar framework hence the usefulness of this type of prediction has its limitations and certainly not extended to experimental science where predictions have an entirely different meaning. The 'theory of gravity' was an attempt to dissolve the boundaries between predictions/hypotheses at a celestial scale with the same terms at an experimental level hence the usefulness of both systems separately was lost.

The same people who scream 'denial' can't handle basic cause and effect linking planetary motions to terrestrial science and geometry . Not once has anyone affirmed that the 'average' 24 hour day substitutes for 'constant' rotation via the Lat/Long system so despite the article containing a reference to a flat Earth, empiricists have their own version of this and it is truly dismaying.

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 8:53:25 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
Anti-vaccination veganidiot global warmers latest tact; aligning non-belief in global warming with denial of the big bang, the Apollo mission, etc. B.S.

Agreed. Climate skeptics who nevertheless believe in evolution, big bang, Moon landing, vaccinations, etc., seem to be the warmingistas' worst nightmare.

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 11:28:09 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

From what one sees in the discussion of this issue, it appears that to properly address global warming, we have to basically go back to nature - getting by on a *lot* less energy, and getting the energy we do use from the sun and the wind.

And one of the _early_ consequences of the democratic world opting to dismantle industrial civilization... would be its capacity to resiet conquest by Russia and China and so on.

That, of course, is not an excuse for denying scientific evidence of the
problem. If we're all doomed, that would be a fact, and ignoring it won't make it go away, even if what to do about it is unclear.

For those who claim that disaster looms the "what to do about it" should be abundantly clear... they should voluntarily cut their own CO2 emissions to the bone. There is no reason to take seriously a warmingista who, for example, owns and drives a car, or even a bicycle.

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 7:38:34 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

The entire article is here, and is

NOT

worth reading:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text

There, fixed that for you.