Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The "Scientific Impotence" Excuse

Posted by Soulskill on from the happens-more-often-as-you-get-older dept.

chichilalescu writes "I've had the feeling for a long time that people refuse to listen to scientists. The following is from an article on Ars Technica: 'It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren't happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict. A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology [abstract here] takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence" — the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly.' The study found that 'regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted [the subjects'] existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened."

6 of 892 comments (clear)

  1. Religion by Peach+Rings · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't need a psychology degree to tell you right now what the problem is: religion. Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking. And if you accept rational science then you're doing something morally wrong.

    1. Re:Religion by BlueStrat · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs.

      Including... science.

      Except science isn't an ideology.

      Except that many DO make "science" an ideology, particularly when attempting to use science as a hammer to force another ideology upon a skeptical populace that will result in worsened economic conditions and reduced freedoms for that populace.

      Strat

      Why is this modded "Troll"?? I'm genuinely curious.

      It's not like this hasn't happened many times in the past, and will most likely continue in the future.

      Is it now heresy to suggest that politicians politicize science and so do ideologically-driven scientists?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Religion by BlueStrat · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      The people who complain loudest about politicization of science usually are in reality complaining that science isn't politicized in the way they'd like it to be.

      So, anyone that complains (which I did not...I merely noted the existence) about politicized science or scientists is automatically wrong & biased?

      "You disagree with me, so you are automatically wrong and should be silenced, and your opinions, research, & facts ignored!"

      Gotta love circular arguments!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:Religion by BlueStrat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because it's a transparent shot at climate change science, implying that it's all a conspiracy.

      A "transparent shot" only if one feels so extremely insecure in their position such that in their paranoia they see a threat or criticism in any mention of human fallibility in regards to scientists or their results.

      I feel like the cop that's pulled over someone for a broken tail light, only to have them start screaming that they weren't the one that killed that girl, that the handgun under the seat is for hunting, and that the tarp-wrapped bundle in the trunk is NOT a dead body.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. The stupid! It burns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    That kind of crap only happens in the US. Other civilized countries actually embrace science, rather than shun it.

  3. Re:Most people... by yellowstone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... aren't intelligent enough to assess the quality of their own thinking.

    Oh, but thankfully, you are free of this terrible malady! Please, please, mister smart person... tell us again how the science is settled, the time for debate is over?

    --
    150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).