Slashdot Mirror
The Motivated Rejection of Science
Layzej writes "New research (PDF) to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found that those who subscribed to one or more conspiracy theories or who strongly supported a free market economy were more likely to reject the findings from climate science as well as other sciences. The researchers, led by UWA School of Psychology Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, found that free-market ideology was an overwhelmingly strong determinant of the rejection of climate science. It also predicted the rejection of the link between tobacco and lung cancer and between HIV and AIDS. Conspiratorial thinking was a lesser but still significant determinant of the rejection of all scientific propositions examined, from climate to lung cancer. Curiously, public response to the paper has provided a perfect real-life illustration of the very cognitive processes at the center of the research."
Lefty professors ask a loaded question rigged to produce the result they wanted, anyone suprised? Good way to prove our point that science has been politicised to the point a lot of us take a default position of "BS!" on any pronouncement from the white labcoat set that has the slightest whiff of politics.
We notice that all of the mentioned 'science' issues are tied to public policy positions of the left and that the 'scientists' are working outside their areas of expertise when they push policy solutions to the problems they 'find.'
We doubt AGW because we have been given very solid fact based reasons to. We see hacks like Mann protected from the consequences of his fraud with the 'Hockey Stick" and nay, even rewarded for it. Cleared from all wrongdoing by the same corrupt institution that turned a blind eye to Sandusky and covered his crimes until they exploded into the newspapers. And both for the exact same reason, they were stars who brought in the sweet sweet cash money.
The whole HIV/AIDS thing got wierd because it is a complex and murky thing and yet anyone with an eye willing to open it could see that it was totally politicized. It was the only disease in human history to get a bizarre sort of 'rights' attached to it. Whole lines of research were simply forbidden as career ending. Consipracy theories almost always pop up in vacumns of fact, especially when it is pretty obvious that facts are suspected but being supressed.
Democrat delenda est
What do they know about anything??? This study just proves what I knew all along - the scientists are all in collusion with each other AND the government to take my gas and my guns and my cigarettes!!!
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
This "story" is just one big ass troll isn't it? Seriously, bunch of socialist shrinks deem people who believe contrary to them are crazy. This isn't news.
SHOCKER!
Once upon a time the capitalist system, a tremendous advance over the feudal system of property that preceded it, drove an unprecedented expansion of scientific and technical progress.
Now capitalism is in its imperialist epoch of terminal decay, dragging humankind into a new dark ages. Only the proletariat can save humanity by smashing the power of the bourgeoisie and inaugurating the socialist future! Workers to power!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
When a certain in-duh-vidual started claiming there was mercury in vaccines & even RFIDs, I pointed-out that mercury was removed years ago. I also politely asked for proof of the RFIDs.
At first the guy said I need to do my own research, and I said I already did, but I've found nothing. Then he blew up and started calling me nasty names & other bullshit.
These conspiracy persons have more problems than just lack of faith in scientific research. They have emotional/anger management issues. Of course that also means I won the argument..... he never did provide proof that vaccines have RFIDs in them.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Seems obvious to me we're talking about a group of people who are willing to believe what they are told to believe or give in to ideas because one makes them feel better or less uncomfortable.
It kind of describes a lot of people, but primarily, it describes the religious faithful.
I do not "reject" science as my socialist detractors may claim. Rather, I merely withhold my currency from the marketplace of ideas in order to incentivize the production of science more in line with today's consumer preferences!
So at least people are consistent with their skepticism to non-proofs.
Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot!
Disagree? See you proved my point!
Or:
This story is the globalists trying to justify their lies with the only thing they can: BS.
So, does that mean that Conspiracy Theorists are more likely to get Cancer? This could be significant, folks! IOS. [::I am the descendent of a mutineer, and I'd like to post a vote for "Make 9/11 International Speak Like A Mutineer Day"?::]
I am elated that this immediately stunk to all ./ posters thus far in this thread. What a Freaky Friday storyt!
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Really? He had to do a study to conclude that people who believe in the free market reject attempts to replace it with a state-run economy?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Very good point, IMO.
Randtards are 'tards. Whodathunkit?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
From one of the linked articles:
"More than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussions of climate science completed a questionnaire"
I'd agree that it is probably a fairly good representation of those deeply involved in the debate, who read those blogs and are willing to take time to do the survey.
How much it says about the general populace is a different question. And notably one the researchers don't try to answer.
This is a classic example of taking a study about a sample of a limited population and broadly generalizing it in the submission write-up for slashdot.
"Global warming" as the term is generally used is not science. It's a political program. It's true that measured temperatures are higher than the last hundred years or so. That's a fact. But the "why it's happening" is not science, it's conjecture (I deliberately don't use the word theory, because I respect theory). IMHO it's not useful to lump belief or disbelief about global warming in with distrust of vaccines. In any case the root is the same--a growing distrust of authority, especially governmental authority, as government less and less appears to be capable of solving the big social and economic problems of our time. Combine this with the dismantling of public education and what other outcome could you expect?
Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence? You have already made up your mind that these researchers are just colluding with other scientists to make a political point that deniers of science are conspiracy nuts.
But you have no evidence at all. How many of you have already run off and read the paper yet... thoroughly? And yet, here you are condemning it. Wow! Good way to prove the authors point but announcing a conspiracy when you see science you don't like (but haven't read). Their work has just been beautifully f*$king demonstrated here in the comments section of /.
What other people think of me is none of my business
correlation is not causation.
This "study" is heavily polluted by republican propaganda. Did these test subjects come to these conclusions under their own accord, or were they influenced by right leaning media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).
People feel the need to identify with social groups, and therefore may be influenced by others in their social group. In my opinion, it's why people align along party lines. In other words, I suspect the cause is social, not neurological, as implied above.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I didn't see this coming.
So let me see if I have this straight:
People who are prone to believe the government is a fundamentally malevolent organization, bent on deception, destruction, and evil... those people ALSO believe that the government should be prevented from meddling with the economy, and they also doubt the veracity of claims by government agencies and government-funded scientists that man-made global warming is happening?
Well - I NEVER! I just can't believe that a group of people so mistrustful of the government in every other area of their belief... would ALSO mistrust the government when it comes to things like economic policy and global warming!
Please also note, before you tards invert the relationship - as I know many of you are rushing to do right now - that "belief in free markets" correlating strongly to "climate change skepticis" among respondents to a survey posted on climate-skeptic blogs does not mean that "every person who believes in limited government intrusion in the markets is a retarded climate change denier."
This research (and how it has been reported to the public) is an example of an ad hominem attack (in this case, an attack against free market "ideology").
Many people have a severe fear of losses in social positions, income or status. This applies to climate change issues just as it applied to the civil rights movement. In 1950 the white population was hostile to other races advancing due to a fear that a loss of power would result. Gradually the white population has learned that people of another race doing a bit better really does not threaten them much at all.
Now with climate science it becomes obvious that vast changes in lifestype will almost certainly become compulsory. The era of the MacMansion has decayed. The era of large engined cars is ending. Obviously people in the auto industry will feel fear of job losses and people in the construction industry face even greate fears. After all how can you build spiral staircases for smaller more efficient homes. How about those fancy showers with a dozen spray heads and a booster pump to gain enough pressure to consume all of the water needed to push them as well as a hot water heater so large that only three of them will do?
And it just keeps multiplying. Build a well insulated home and only tiny AC units will be needed. Build a car that weighs only 1000 lbs and a lot less tires will be sold. Build electric cars or hybrids that can plug in and gas stations will take a huge hit. Extract hydrogen and the oil industry will collapse.
So the investor class and the working class all have great fears of loss of dominance. That is why things move so slowly.
9-11 trutherism is all about science! Fire can't melt steel. See? And Sheriff Joe is all about science when he proved that Obama's birth certificate was a fake. And OJ was found not guilty because of science! Do I need to go on?
To believe that science is right and at the same time that man didn't land on the Moon would be a contradiction. No surprises here.
You're talking about people's religious beliefs running contrary to scientific fact. Emotional versus rational thinking.
That's what Dawkin's, Shermer, and Armstrong don't seem to get - religion isn't about rational thought: it's about feelings. And most humans will trust their feelings over that facts - they are emotionally attached to their World view. They let their feelings overrule what their head says. That's why you have paleontology Ph.D.s throw everything they learned out the door so that they can still believe in the literal truth of the Bible (Dawkins talks about him in his "God Delusion" book) - the science is wrong not God's word. That paleontologist is hardly ignorant - especially about Evolution - but he still chucked everything out the door.
And that's where most unbelievers don't understand, they are trying to state a rational argument for an emotional one. And that's where the believers fail miserably - they try to stand toe to toe with science and try to challenge facts with a book of fairy tales and myths.
There will never be an agreement. The only thing that can be done is just keep hammering folks with the data and eventually some will come around and the rest are doomed. to believing in their stories. But if that give comfort to them, if their delusions don't harm anyone else, then who gives a shit. But it's when they start trying to legislate their irrationality on others - like teaching "Intelligent Design" or "the controversy about Evolution" - is when they need to be stopped.
It's fine for yo to believe in Santa Claus, but don't you dare try to force those beliefs with law - like teaching Creationism in school.
"Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other
established scientic ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking
causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy
theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon
landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientic
ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets."
So it is just about one scientific issue that the right politicized.
I predict exactly zero rational discourse will be inspired by this study, on either side.
The conspiracy theorists, of course, have been quick to spin counter-theories about this work.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyCCCresponse1.html
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyVersionGate.html
mt
than open your mouth and remove all doubt, eh jmorris42?
In pdf research paper file: 1. Isn't this a stereotypical jump towards conclusion of this paper? Is N = 1377 and then 1145 enough? Why didn't he mentioned the sample size in his abstract? 2. Why there is no graph or table? 3. Are not the believes of "no link of CO2 to climate" and other subject hold some truth behind? 4. Why the weak researcher cannot prove their point in simple words to public just like all we believe and understand and see the moon, sun, days and nights? 5. Is the idea of free-market economics not part of science, are there no observations and scientific facts on the other part. Are all variables covered and counted that resulted in linking climatic change to CO2 emission. 6. As per stereotypical view adopted in this paper, i cannot find any link between scientific believes and the topic name ' Motivated rejection of science' 7. Isn't this paper like a = b, and b = c hence x = y By answering these points this paper can prove its self.
Kooks reject climate science, therefore all who reject climate science are kooks.
In 4th grade I learned that that piece of "logic" doesn't hold water.
Yes, I think what they did find were religious people but did not call them that.
The "invisible hand" of the free market is code for their god(s).
Their god(s) are too powerful to allow humans to affect climate. And, if climate change is real, it is just their god(s) punishment for the non-believers.
These folks look back at the dark ages and think it was paradise since in spite of the disease, starvation, and general misery, the church ruled supreme.
I am absolutely in favor of science, and I keep a very open mind to new scientific achievements. I even try to keep up with science, at least as much as I can from my "armchair".
YET I do not support government-funded science. In fact, I don't believe in government at all. (I am "athiest" with respect to political power, if you will.) Therefore I am fully in favor of free-market economics -- REAL capitalism, not the crony capitalism which passes for capitalism today. The kind of capitalism that has never truly existed on this planet.
So here we have sombody who fully supports science, and in fact holds a genuine interest in it, yet at the same time, fully supports free-market economics, and in fact holds a genuine interest in that as well.
So how do they explain me? I must be a serious anomaly to this study. Maybe even a data point to be thrown out.
Phase II of the study will analyze the discussion on Slashdot to confirm the hypothesis.
To me, this falls into the category of scientific studies by mainstream scientists, just reaffirming the mainstream science disbelief in any form of conspiracy out of hand, and basically just going with the mainstream scientific opinion. Any scientific law, if it's believed by the majority of scientists, is going to look obvious, right? Well, the problem is, that shit gets turned over A LOT. Like, say, now we know there is non-darwinian evolution going on in a major way, something that was a conspiracy/nutjob theory for like 100 years. AND the majority of people I talk to about it are either really surprised or think I'm a nutjob because they think they know genetics and biology. And frankly, they just have an old version and are not up to date. And there are conspiracy theories that are in fact true, though I will grant you that mostly what he used in this study were in the stupid conspiracy theory category. If any of them are true, very few people are actually going to have the evidence. Ie. most people who poo-poo it are not in fact qualified to do so. Same goes for their proponents.
Conspiracy and scientific THEORY. The idea being absolute belief in any theory is stupid. Theories get disproven. Believing that all conspiracy theories are wrong or that all mainstream scientific theories are right is equally stupid. I do think he's finding some interesting stuff, but it bothers me how typical this is, that these holy scientific theories are right, and we are going to go ahead and move into the psychology domain in order to prove ourselves right. That you're sick of you don't believe in science or you believe in conspiracy (I'm pretty sure that's now in the DSM). And like has happened so often in the past, they miss the small small section of the population who actually knows what's going on. Because if somebody actually knows what's going on in a scientific sense, like fully understands what's going on, they're probably going to have a different theory than the mainstream one. I mean this is by definition. We're basically wrong about everything, and we refine this knowledge, turn over old theories, make new ones, etc. You give me any domain of science, I will bet you that someone will have a theory that better describes what's going on and can prove it, and they exist sometime between the past few hundreds years and a few hundred years from now. If they're in the present, it's pretty damn likely that they're not going to be believed easily. And so most people will put them in the category of nutjob or so. Am I saying everyone who has a different theory is right? Of course not. But unless you have really seriously studied the domain of the problem, ran experiments, collected evidence, etc., you're basically just parroting the mainstream consensus on it. Which is wrong ridiculously often, and usually in hindsight. If global warming is wrong, our scientists will know it in a couple decades. And then we'll do the same shit we've always done and say "Oh. Well, now, we have the truth." And every time I see this debate, I think about how funny it would be if this does come true. Because it sure won't be the first time the vast majority of scientists on this planet were wrong about something. So please don't forget that, science. Same with you, conspiracy theory.
I edited this a bit, and it's not making a lot of unified sense :) but f' it.
It is interesting to me how the topics are chosen to determine what is rejection of science and what is not. For example this week another study came out that organic is not healthier than conventional, yet the anti-free market people reject that science as bogus.
I reject the idea that CO2 is going to cause global warming, but accept lung cancer is caused by smoking and AIDS by HIV. I ignore the creationists, but accept that they are free to believe what they want to on that, but evolution all the way for me.
I have also been an R&D engineer for more than a decade. Somehow the idea that because I accept free-market principles instead of central planning indicates that I am anti-science is total bullshit.
Of course since this is a peer-reviewed paper I could be labeled as anti-science for not accepting this paper, but that is something I am willing to risk.
No. I have looked into the HIV/AIDS thing enough to be willing to bet that if it isn't the entire story it is pretty close to it. But when the banhammer came down in the 1980s on any dissent (the science is settled! Settled I say!) there was still some room for doubt.
You mean, the AIDS denier Peter Duesberg? This guy: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf
This 1980s "ban" on dissent you mention-- you mean the one that allowed him a major article in 1989, "Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation" in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences? That "1980s" ban?
Pretty ineffective "ban" I'd say, since he continued publishing his theories well into the 2000s, long long after they were thoroughly discredited. Turns out, the science actually was settled, and, well guess what-- the scientific researchers really did know what they were doing.
Duesberg has the unique distinction among wackos, though, that his rhetoric of "HIV doesn't cause AIDS so go ahead and have sex even if you're HIV positive, it won't hurt anybody (but don't take those antiviral drugs!)" actually did result in killing large numbers of people.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If you're a Socialist, you find data on problems which apparently require Socialist solutions to be very convincing and meaningful. If you're a Free Marketer, you find data on problems which apparently require Free Market solutions to be very convincing and meaningful. Don't confuse yourself into thinking that the Socialists are "more scientifically minded" than the Free Marketers: oil shortages, food shortages, mass starvation, global cooling, the hole in the ozone, The Population Bomb, The Silent Spring. Those were all phony manufactured crises from the 60's, 70's and 80's that were exposed before they could "make much social progress" with them.
The issue of Climate Change is WAY BIGGER than supposed rising tides and erratic weather, people. It's a fundamental battle between global political agendas. (All that being said, I'm a Free Marketer who is not a Climate Change denialist; I will fight against Socialist solutions to the problem though)
Most people develop ideologies and belief systems around emotions. Logic is only used secondary to justify and reinforce the initial belief. This is done by being selective with logic and facts, any thread of logic or point of data that agrees with initial belief is focused upon and reinforced. Any thread of logic or point of data that contradicts the initial beliefs is dismissed or a straw man argument is created to knock over it. People will construct scenarios to reinforce their belief and dismiss contradictory evidence, oftentimes these scenarios while possible, are highly unlikely.
It's the emotional seed at the core of an ideology that makes them so hard defeat, regardless of how much factual evidence you throw at someone they will find a way to select out logic and facts so they twist and bend to the belief. Even otherwise intelligent and educated people are capable of doing this. Emotions are powerful at clouding perception.
Therefore you often must fight ideologies and belief systems through use of emotion before engaging in factual debate.
A true scientist would never be selective with their logic or data, they must account for everything even if it contradicts their theory. This is why science evolves faster than emotional beliefs, it changes to fit the facts available rather than dismissing some of them.
What I mean is, that the research is defining and categorizing the symptoms, but underlying all of this (conspiracy theories, aversion to science, what-have-you) is paranoia. In my mind, the real question is, "why are people so susceptible to paranoia" and "is this susceptibility more prevalent today than in the past? (or does it just seem that way?)".
My hypothesis is that people spend more time reading snatches of this and that on the web, and simultaneously lack the ability to discern between those things that are factual, and those things which are not. Perhaps, when we see it displayed so neatly and convincingly on our computer screens, it looks "published" and therefore must be real/true -- it contains "truthiness". The problem is compounded by filter bubbles which funnel to people only those things they want to read, ignoring alternate points of view and research.
Proverbs 21:19
I think that point was covered indirectly. Free market capitalism is a religion.
Let's ignore things such as that different blogs were offered radically different versions of the survey to post (and the primary determinant of the differences seems to be whether the survey was being offered to a blog supporting AGW or denying it), though that by itself probably invalidates the results.
The main concern remains that out of a survey, of 1100 people only 3 skeptics strongly accepted, the conspiracies, and of these two were highly suspect (it's worth reading through the discussion). If this was just a paper in a journal, nobody would care. But again we see science by press relase, and pre-press release (Corner Guardian article). Do you really think it justified the heading of the paper, and the Telegraph newspaper headline? This is what drew attention to the paper, and this is what annoyed people.
Given the low number of skeptical respondents overall, these two possibly scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses, this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite.
The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.
I daresay Lewandowsky must have cheated on his exams on experimental design and statistics as a student.
PS Lewandowsky's choice of a title is, and should be, far more damaging to his reputation as a scientist than the other flaws in his paper. The title of the paper smacks of political activism and sensationalism, not professionalism.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
As a self-declared "religious person" I can say with utmost certainty that you are wrong. I do not simply believe what I am told or give in to ideas because they make me feel better or less uncomfortable.
You claim God doesn't exist because there's no evidence to support his existence. I claim that God exists because I've had spiritual experiences that lead me to believe so. That completely invalidates your "no evidence" hypothesis, and now if you expect me not to believe in God, you are the one arguing that I should discount the evidence because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Note that I would never use this reasoning to try to prove to you that God exists. I recognize that my evidence is personal and subjective, although I would argue that to a certain degree it is repeatable (i.e, anyone can experience the same things if they're willing to put forth the effort). I am merely asserting that a belief in God is perfectly rational. I would even go so far as to claim that at least in my case, my belief in God is more rational than your disbelief in God, because yours is based upon faulty premises which I have pointed out above.
Note also that I have a strong scientific background, and I believe in both evolution and climate change. I see no conflict between religion and science, unless we're talking about a "young earth" creationism, which is mostly out of favor with modern creationist beliefs anyway.
It was actually Earvin "Magic" Johnson who was declared HIV positive. And yes, he has remained AIDS free. While I personally find this miraculous to the point of incredulity, I'm willing to believe he has a good combination of genetics, a fantastic health regimen, and lots of money for experimental drugs to stave off full-blown AIDS. For the record, there are recorded cases of people who live with the HIV virus and never show symptoms without taking ANY special medication.
HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, has been traced back to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), which has been traced back to feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), which has been traced back to bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). Some web hits.
If I understand things correctly, retroviruses tend, over time, to evolve to be less than fatal to the host. That's just basic selection pressure -- if a virus kills its host, it's lost its home; meanwhile, the selection pressure on host is to not be killed by the infection. At the extreme, quickly lethal diseases tend to burn themselves out, thereby self-limiting, much as seen with the Ebola virus, for which breakouts flare up, then ebb again as infected people die too quickly for the disease to spread. FIV tends not to be fatal to large cats, much as BIV tends not to be fatal to cows, water buffalo, and their ilk. I think SIV has similarly evolved to a more stable and less fatal plateau. There are already reported cases of people who test positive for HIV infection but who remain asymptomatic, even individuals without access to the broad array of medical treatments that Magic Johnson can avail himself of. At least one genetic mechanism has been identified that confers a resistance to certain types of HIV infection; it's possible that Magic Johnson has this particular mutation, or perhaps some other genetic quirk that helps his body keep HIV from running rampant.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
As a cynical absurdist, I call it free thinking - a skeptical view of programming until it has been examined for the inevitable bias contained within anything humans do. To determine why something is done will help one interpret the real intent and purpose of a publication, movie or any other programming. To imagine that there is anything that does not contain bias is ludicrous.
Unsaid here are two related things: many reject "science falsely so-called," the malarkey put forth as "THIS IS SCIENCE!" when it has zero evidence behind it but lots (and lots) of suppositions; then there are the multiple times such "scientists" have outright lied to promote their favorite notions. In summary, these folks who prefer free markets are the folks WHO REMEMBER. Leave aside your insults and merely chew on that fact for a while.
Cranky educator.
Many will question science.
Praise Bob, I certainly hope so. Scientists question science. That's how science works.
The problem is when people just flat-out reject science, without questioning whether the science is sound or not.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
And what kind of person rejects the correlation between homosexuality and AIDS, or race and intelligence, or race and crime?
In *many* ways, belief in the power of a free market is religion. That is why they talk about the "invisible hand of the free market". It's just another god for people to get all irrational about, except this one tells them greed is a virtue, rather than a vice so it has become very popular.
Religion = Conspiracy. Now what was your point?
Conspiracy fact: On 9/10/01, the Pentagon's comptroller announced their auditing team had uncovered $2.3 trillion which was unaccounted for.
Conspiracy fact: On the morning of 9/11/01, a plane crashes dead center into the Pentagon's west wall, killing most of that auditing team and severely injuring the rest (the DIA's Financial Management staff).
I've been doing voluntary political activism for forty years, and I still have yet to see any mythic "free market" anyplace.
Notice how people now always use 'conspiracy theory' with very negative connotations. Many 'conspiracy theories' are derided in their time, yet later turn out to be true. Any well-read historian ought to be able to rattle off several true conspiracies without really thinking about it: the Balfour Declaration, the origin of cannabis prohibition, the ultra secret, the list goes on. Really, anytime people secretly conspire to get their own way it is a conspiracy. This happens all the time. Yet the phrase 'conspiracy theory' now has very negative connotations, often affiliated with mental illness, violence, and unreliability.
I wish to suggest that the phrase 'Conspiracy theory' has been tainted to uselessness. Does anyone who knows anything about the topic believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman? Yet stating anything to the contrary makes one a 'conspiracy theorist', with all the implied negative stereotypes. This is very convenient to Information Warfare professionals (I personally know quite a few), because is provides an excellent way to discredit someone who is trying to expose truthful material about a real conspiracy. Here is a manual that describes how information warfare disinformation specialists operate. I can't tell whether the phrase 'conspiracy theory' was deliberately or accidentally poisoned, but either way it is very convenient to disinformation types.
grand parent post:
Anyone that rejects AGW, vaccination of children, evolution, the earth not being the center of the solar system, or any other of the misguided beliefs the right seems to cling to is, quite simply, ignorant.
modded 50% insightful, 40% negative.
parent post:
While I agree, it's important to note that the left can be equally stupid. Most of the "People are allergic to WiFi" and/or "Vaccines are dangerous" and/or "My naturopath can cure cancer" fools are on the left.
modded 100% offtopic.
Slashdot moderation is broken.
The mod system isn't perfect, but give it time -- the scores on posts tend to move around quite a bit on controversial threads, especially when they're still pretty fresh.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
In the science of praxeology, they don't claim to know the mechanisim of what makes humans tick. They just presume that the mechanisims behind human behavior is too complicated to prefectly predict in many areas, and then work from there. Even though this is not hard science, you can still make extremely usefull predictions about human behavior in society and in large groups, and what kinds of social structures favor optimum desired outcomes.
Anyhow, the point is that praxeology implies free markets for optimum economic success, and public benefit, and many of the AGW proposals addressing global warming fly directly in the face of this. So obviously something is screwed up somewhere. Especialy when they say that disaster is immenent, and that we need to have insane taxes, regulations, and global government right this second to fix it. Also, predictions about AGW fly all over the place ranging from 1 degree in 100 years to a catistrophic heating event in the next decade. Also, every time a new discovery is made ... like the amount plankton plays a role in the oceans, like methane generation in the soil ... their computer models go to hell, and they all go running back to redo them and recalculate. Even with people screaming loudly that the debate is closed. Also, why does the UN have a pannel on climate change? This is not a science orginisation, it is a political one ... at times there seems almost to be a desparate push as in, fuck it all to hell right now we must have a big co2 tax, or something similar this minute.
You dismiss 'conspiracy persons'. What about the case of people who have direct evidence of real conspiracies, but can't reveal it because of censorship and justified fear of persecution? E.g. Is it a 'conspiracy' when a military organization suppresses evidence of war crime behavior? What about someone who acquires evidence of war crime behavior, what are their options? Your attitude plays into the hands of those who routinely conduct real conspiracies ...
We doubt AGW because we have been given very solid fact based reasons to.
Let's see: nineteen different institutions on four continents are running global circulation models ("climate models") that show the relationship between human-generated carbon dioxide and temperature. They must all be conspiring to cover up the truth, right? And also to cover up some error in the original 1967 Manabe and Wetherald calculation, the prediction of which fits the data taken over the last fifty years. I know of five different groups doing global temperature measurements, using everything from ship-based measurements to balloons to satellites. They're all in cahoots too, I assume?
Yes, so far I'd say it does look like people-- you-- who reject the findings from climate science tend to also subscribe to conspiracy theories.
We see hacks like Mann protected from the consequences of his fraud with the 'Hockey Stick" and nay, even rewarded for it. Cleared from all wrongdoing by the same corrupt institution that turned a blind eye to Sandusky...
You mean, cleared from all wrongdoing by the eight corrupt institutions. You are aware that there have been eight different investigations of the alleged wrongdoings purportedly revealed by the stolen emails from the CRU at East Anglia, and that all of them said that there was no fraud? So your conspiracy includes the National Science Foundation and the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Yep, you're indeed a data point confirming the study: people who reject the findings from climate science subscribe to conspiracy theories.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Science isn't a popularity contest. It isn't a case of saying "Well most people agree with this so it must be right!" Science is about evidence. When someone questions the veracity of a theory, you respond with the evidence, not with "Well most people agree with me!"
Now it's fine if consensus is how you want to deal with your beliefs, it is a valid way to do it. However don't go and then try and talk science. Science is NOT about consensus. It is a process for knowing about the universe.
"Leave it to Slashdot commenters to provide free evidence for the study!"
Two very big indicators -- the title and the very first, opening sentence of the abstract -- very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased:
"NASA faked the moon landing -- Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
Even among hardcore "conspiracy theorists", disbelieving in the moon landing is a rather extreme view. The immediate impression I get is that this isn't about correlations with "conspiracy theory" at all, but with extreme conspiracy theory. Which weakens their argument a good deal.
Extreme conspiracy theories of the kind mentioned ("The CIA killed Martin Luther King, Jr." and "NASA faked the moon landing" are not representative of conspiracies or conspiracy theories in general. Real conspiracies can and do happen. If you don't "subscribe" to at least "one or more" of the less extreme conspiracy theories that are out there, you are probably not a very rational person.
Then there is the first sentence of the abstract:
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate..."
The very first sentence of the paper is demonstrably false, and indicates a lack of understanding of the very science they cite. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the paper.
Last but far from least, their "study" was actually a survey of a self-selecting segment of the population that represents only a very tiny percentage of the total, and not at all likely to be representative. To anyone who ever studied statistics in school, that should be a giant red flag.
There is often a third way to win an argument:
You bring a larger number of your audience over to your point of view than your opponent does.
If someone insists on having an argument rather than a discussion that pretty much means that there is no way they are going to change their mind anyway, and the only reason to talk to them at all is if other people are already listening to them and falling for what they are saying.
I'm a big free market economy advocate. I don't doubt there is global warming, I just doubt it's anthropogenic. Can we really do anything about it? There have been many articles written recently about increased solar flares, etc. It's much more likely Sol is causing global warming.
Most of the radical environmentalists I know are watermelons -- green on the outside and red on the inside. They use global warming or environmentalism as an excuse to push their Marxist/communist views.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
I hate conspiracy theories. They are the product of lazy mental processes and magical thinking. Having said that, I also reject the alarmist view of AGW theories. They are not based on proper scientific principles. If anyone comes along and claims to be able to predict the behavior of a chaotic dynamic system with multiple complexly and poorly understood inter-linked forcings, to hundredths of a degree over decades of time, based on an error-filled and faulty measurement system, they are lying, straight up. So, there's that. I think Ayn Rand used to refer to "reports" such as these as a "package deal". They slip the unscientific (climate change) in with the scientific (HIV, evolution, and so on), and gets you to make the leap that because most of these other things are science, the AGW stuff must be science too. It isn't, and lots of scientists who are not prone to conspiracy theories or magical thinking agree.
Here is the actual paper. The methodology does not strike me as reaching a representative population:
Visitors to climate blogs voluntarily completed an online questionnaire between August and October 2010 (N = 1377). Links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science
science stance but with a diverse audience)
Absolutely. 'Killing in the name of' explains a fair chunk of all human misery.
I remember CFCs well. We eliminated them from our manufacturing in the UK, but we weren't allowed to report it in the company newspaper because the US end of the operation was still arguing that it couldn't be done, and we (and our Swiss technical partner) weren't allowed to be first.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I am a strong believer in free market economics. But I also believe that man is at least partly responsible for global warming and I am much less of a conspiracy theorist than most of the tin-foil hat crew here on /.
I think some people forget, or have not considered, that there are four major levels to the global warming discussion:
1) The fact of global warming, meaning that the average surface temperature has been increasing outside of known cycles. This is a question of fact, of observation, and though it is a complex one (average global temperature is not an easy thing to measure) it is solid. The only thing that can be questioned on this is if someone can find an error with the methods.
2) The theory of man made global warming, that the primary or exclusive cause of said warming is the increase atmospheric CO2 (also measured, which is easier to measure) that is caused by human emissions. Like any theory, this is always up for debate. If a better or more complete explanation can be found then it'll be replaced. That doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it could be, theories can always be wrong. You don't prove them true, you repeatedly show they aren't false.
3) The judgement/claim that this will be a net bad thing for humanity. This is based off of various theories, hypothesis and claims of what may happen due to this warming. Any change will have good and bad parts for humans, that's just how it goes, so someone can look at what they believe is likely as a result of the change and make a judgement that overall the change will make things worse.
4) The policy/politics position that the correct thing to do about this is to drastically cut CO2 emissions, institute cap and trade, and increase government control of industry. This is a policy view, not a science one. Science doesn't dictate what we must do, only helps us understand the world we live in. We then decide how to act on that. Nor is it the only proposition for what to do (other than do nothing, which is a valid option though perhaps a suboptimal one).
Well here's the thing: People can agree with some but not all of that. Someone can agree that the Earth is getting warmer, and that CO2 is likely the prime cause, but reject that it will be worse for humanity. Or they could agree that it will be worse for humanity but reject what to do about it.
However it seems many people want to lump it all together. A situation of "You have to accept that the Earth is getting warmer, the evidence is extremely solid. Once you accept that, everything else follows logically, you can't question the proposed solutions, they are science!" As such if someone rejects any part, they accuse them of being anti-science and blind to the observations.
> Conspiracy theories are no different than religion. You have True Believers who will continue to espouse their belief no matter how much evidence you provide to the contrary.
It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Your logic seems to imply there's no such thing as a true conspiracy. What do you have to say about the real conspiracies?
I find if funny how dunning incompetents aren't able to realize that they have already exposed themselves as nut jobs and continue to bury themselves even further.
What we percieve to be science and knowledge is just our way of trying to make ourselves feel special and important and as a way of trying to make ourselves believe we arent the subject of god.
All of our "Science" is given to us by god, without him we wouldnt know anything. We dont actually learn or know anything, we just have what god gives us. So the idea of humans having science at all is highly incorrect, we just use it to try and give ourselves self importantance and individual meaning when we infact have none because we do exactly as god wishes us to.
So you can keep lying to yourself about science because in the end we will both be dead, only difference is Ill enjoy eternal bliss in heaven with god because I dont try and destroy him with made up science and so called facts.
There is a 3rd way to win: convince the people who are undecided to ignore the crazy person.
You really can't win everyone over, especially if you are trying to debate them on individual issues rather than the deeper philosophy that drives them to distrust society, and accept crazy over scientific theory. But you can do your best to direct those who are undecided away from their crazy world view.
I think the quote from "Thank you For Smoking" nailed it:
In general, I think conspiracy theorists tend to have some deep issues that you can't really address at a surface layer. If I had to guess, it's the theory that we tend to blame our faults on external factors. "I'm a good, hard working person. I should be successful, but I'm not. Why? Someone must be working against me. The man is keeping me down! It's a conspiracy."
So you support a carbon tax, then? A true libertarian would admit that's the purest form of a free market solution you can find: correct the market distortion introduced by a negative externality by sending a price signal that internalizes the costs. Then let the market respond freely to that price signal to find the most cost-effective solution.
P.S. Your historical revisionism about "phony" past environmental problems is delusional.
Your argument seems to dismiss all the real, verified conspiracies. That is the primary purpose of disinformation. Here's one example:
The 'official' 911 story is unequivocally at least part fabrication. This has been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, 'what really happened' is very hard to discern. The 'disinformation specialists' released lots of kooky theories through many different channels: 'no plane hit the Pentagon', 'robot space aliens kidnapped and replaced the crashed planes', et cetera. Some real investigators assembled the 'best evidence' to attempt to determine what probably actually occurred. When the topic came up in the media, the 'best evidence' people had to sit next to the 'no plane hit the pentagon' disinformation believers. Then, by dismissing the anti-scientific 'whacko' theories, the 'best evidence' people were also dismissed by association. It's a very clever and successful COINTELPRO approach, and it is visibly successful on the Slashdot crowd. Here is one description of how the disinformation process works.
There is a large segment of the scientific community that hold that science and faith are mutually exclusive; which it isn't. Your comment is based on this assumption (which one could argue is why the research leaves it out). But this group of people are willing to believe what they are told to believe or give in to the idea (that faith and science are mutually exclusive) because it makes them feel better or less uncomfortable.
Remember - Hillary Clinton - Conspiracy Kook Cheerleader... As I re-call, history has it that it wasn't a Vast Rightwing Conspiracy but her husbands inability to keep his pants zipped. Easy to get those two confused.
Think Hillary trusts science? You know, like that DNA test that proved her Conspiracy Theory wrong.
There are serious questions about the research, including sampling problems and multiple versions of questionnaires. There's little point in discussing "findings" when the research itself is dodgy. For a summary of the concerns being raised, see Anthony Watts' blog - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/stephan-lewandowskys-slow-motion-social-science-train-wreck/
The obsession some warmists (certainly not all) have with "proving" that skeptic views are somehow illegitimate are creepy. What do they want - re-education camps? And the harping on "consensus" as if it's relevant to the scientific process is absurd. If Einstein and many other luminaries of science had abided by the consensus views of their times, we'd all be much worse off (but then again we might not be spending time in the interwebs),
Summary:
"those who subscribed to one or more conspiracy theories OR who strongly supported a free market economy..."
Article:
"people who agreed with free market economic principles AND endorsed conspiracy theories"
Who the hell are they talking about?
1. People who advocate free markets AND simultaneously believe conspiracy theories.
2. The sum total of (people who advocate for free markets REGARDLESS of their other views) + (people who believe in conspiracy theories REGARDLESS of their view on free markets)
???
I am a proponent of free market economics and a libertarian, yet I also acknowledge the link between carbon dioxide release and climate change. Same with tobacco and cancer, and HIV and AIDS. So this study is bogus in my mind. I suspect most people answering this questionnaire probably don't know what free market economics means. Likely they are Republicans or Democrats who are really crony corporatists instead.
News at 11.
The operative word is ideology which is "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, etc." Once you subscribe to an ideology, you tend to be close minded to alternatives. Contrast that against the scientific process that uses hypothesis, evidence, and theory to drive belief and action. A true scientist would constantly test existing theories against new evidence and reformulate new hypotheses and theories to support the new evidence.
The free market is one of those funny ideas. Free markets are good at reconciling supply and demand. Unfortunately, free markets can form into oligopolies and cartels which are sub optimal at resolving supply and demand. There is a difference between supporting free markets and having a free market ideology. I support a free market and expect government regulations to keep the market free. I also expect the government to solve social issues that the free market is unable or unwilling to solve.
It's kind of like Darwinism. Scientific evidence supports the theory of natural selection and evolution. I can go in my back yard watch animals behaving in a Darwinian manner. I subscribe to Darwinian theory, but I am not a Darwinian ideologist. I don't believe people have to behave that way. I believe as a society we can do better than that.
Not that scientists don't fall into ideologies around a particular sciences. It sometimes takes a crafty politician (and scientist) to convince a scientific body accept a new theory.
Debate skills are almost orthogonal to logic/reasoning skills.
The purpose of science and peer review is to convince people doing science that propositions match the real world - that they are reproducible by knowledgeable practitioners.
The purpose of rhetoric, sophistry, and debate skills is to convince the majority of voters/jurors that propositions are right. No connection to the real world is needed.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
trying to apply the true Scotsman defense will work on slashdot?
so we don't have to look at you.
We've descended to the point of addressing political dissent or disagreements over science as some sort of psychological issue.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're saying that as if Jesus was actually some concrete real person rather than just an amalgam or composite.
You merkins sho' are crazy.
Oh, oh. You've just touched the third rail of faith and religion as an acceptable subject for psychological study.
Its one thing of my dog talks to me and tells me to do something. If my god does so, its protected speech.
Have gnu, will travel.
for exactly the same reason, as you are identical to him.
I didn't follow this from the summary: who doesn't think that HIV causes AIDS? And why would they think that? Do they not think that the Flu virus causes the Flu, or is it only HIV that they're singling out?
I do not simply believe what I am told or give in to ideas because they make me feel better or less uncomfortable.
You clearly do as you yourself proceed to demonstrate:
You claim God doesn't exist because there's no evidence to support his existence.
No. Reality doesn't work that way. You claim that a magical invisible fairy does things and I laugh at your dipshittery. Provide evidence for your delusion.
I claim that God exists because I've had spiritual experiences that lead me to believe so.
So you had a delusion not a "spiritual experience". Plenty of people do. In fact due to the advancements of human knowledge we as people know where exactly in your brain to stick an electrode in order to induce further such delusions. This is neither novel nor interesting.
That completely invalidates your "no evidence" hypothesis, and now if you expect me not to believe in God, you are the one arguing that I should discount the evidence because it doesn't fit with your world view.
No, apart from not being novel or interesting, your delusion and your sad pathetic clinging to such does not constitute evidence. It's a delusion. As your brain is an organic construct it sometimes misfires. Were there some perfect magical fairy who deigned the system, then you'd not be susceptible to such systemic failures. As you are, perhaps you should be less arrogant and at least try to learn from your failures.
I recognize that my evidence is personal and subjective, although I would argue that to a certain degree it is repeatable (i.e, anyone can experience the same things if they're willing to put forth the effort)
Your evidence is thus not actually evidence. At least not for the nonsense you're trying to sell based upon it. You can repeat it and much more strongly by submitting yourself for medical research. Zap that part of your brain and you have a religious delusion. That is where the evidence leads. not toward some magical fairy in the sky. The effort has been put forth and your cowardly clinging to retarded delusions does nothing for you. Against you it makes you an object of ridicule and mockery.
I would even go so far as to claim that at least in my case, my belief in God is more rational than your disbelief in God, because yours is based upon faulty premises which I have pointed out above.
I'm sure that you would do that. It's stupid, arrogant and delusional, but you've done nothing to argue against your desperate desires to put those characteristics of yourself above any actual virtues you might have.
Any beliefs in a god are necessarily less rational than the rejection of such. Apart from the douchebaggery of solipsism, we know our universe is here. How it got here is an open question which many very smart and dedicated people are working very hard to try to answer. Claiming that some magical fairy made it all does nothing at all to answer that question. All it can ever possibly do is create an even more difficult to answer question, "Where did your magical fairy come from", while failing to address the original question in any way shape or form.
Therefore, belief in a god in any guise s completely irrational. It adds nothing and subtracts much.
Note also that I have a strong scientific background
Of failure? That much is clear.
The climate-science deniers are just the tip of the iceberg. There are numerous other crackpots that will twist anything and everything just to keep their messed-up view of the world intact. These people are beyond any capability for actual understanding and are on the very extreme left in the classical Dunning-Kruger graph. The only thing that can be done, is to make sure they never get any kind of power or remove them from power immediately. Unfortunately, there are a lot of followers that are not really any less mentally incapable and hence democracy can lift the most astounding idiots into power.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The OP is NOT a troll. There ARE actual problems with AGW as a theory or at least to the extent it has an effect. True scientists not only WELCOME debate but they ENCOURAGE it. Science is not about being right or wrong. Science is about discovery and understanding the world. Most often theories need to be expounded upon and details need more exploring to fully understand something as complex as the weather systems of the entire Earth. Furthermore many people actully fully grasp that climate change is happening and that over the average it is tending towards warming. The disagreement is on how much people affect that AND on what does that mean next. It is when policy is rammed through under the guize of BIG GOVERNMENT that people take a step back and first ask science if it has actually proven that the policy is needed. Many many models of climate change have been absurdely wrong but we don't talk about those? Why? Because they make people look silly? That's a little childish in itself. We should look at the failed climate models and see WHY they were wrong. THIS should be what is in the public eye.
being intelligent, moral, rational. It doesn't really matter, since the opinions of people like you are not relevant to any adults.
The internet has done one thing very very well, propagate stupidity faster that passes off as science or news.
There is a local radio station that has a PSA about how to be "greener", and the majority of the suggestions and "facts" claimed in the PSA are just plain wrong.
For instance they claim that driving 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone uses 20% more gas. This is fundamentally stupid because there is no correlation to an increase in speed by X% matches the increased rate of fuel consumption.
Another gem, apparently Canadians throwing out plastic garbage bags results in millions (plural) of tonnes of landfill waste a year. The average plastic grocery bag weighs 6 grams. There is therefore 166666666667 bags in 1 million metric tonnes (169341166667 in a long tonne). THis breaks down to each Canadian throwing out over 4500 bags a year. I personally do not do that much shopping.
Also I can't stand the idea of "mythmatics", the idea that large numbers are scary so we should reduce those numbers to be green. Yes 1 million tonnes is a big scary number, however consider how much of ALL garbage is thrown out. Statistics Canada suggests the average Canadian throws out 1 tonne of garbage a year, which means the total impact of even throwing out 4500 plastic grocery bags is only 2.7%. However I doubt the average Canadian even throws out 1/10 of that many bags a year, meaning that really less then 0.3% of total landfill waste is from plastic bags.
Throwing out plastic bags is the biggest non-issue compared to the rest of the weight of garbage that is thrown out.
Most of this is regurgitated stupidity from the internet based in little fact and a lot of hyperbole. People read about it online and then re-broadcast it without investing any amount of time verifying it.
The problem is that the internet has become very good at showing content that looks factual, even makes sense if you think about it, but is based on no facts, no science, and is ultimately wrong, but then gets propagated over and over again until it basically becomes urban myth.
A lot of "Green" science is mired in this kind of social disinformation.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
However it seems many people want to lump it all together. A situation of "You have to accept that the Earth is getting warmer, the evidence is extremely solid. Once you accept that, everything else follows logically, you can't question the proposed solutions, they are science!" As such if someone rejects any part, they accuse them of being anti-science and blind to the observations.
There ^^ is where it starts. You've got politically motivated people, who don't realize they are politically motivated. They believe they are acting in the defense of science by insisting that anyone who disagrees with them on any one of those 4 postulates is some kind of anti-science moron. So they label, they berate, they attack anyone who does not think as they do because "Science" (however they personally define that) is on their side and "Science" cannot be wrong. Take notice, everyone, this is how religions start.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
You goddam jesus freaks are all in collusion to take away my freedom and my sanity.
Until the day comes when you can prove this "jesus" guy even actually existed, you'll have to pry my freedom and sanity from my cold dead hands.
Coz that's where I keep 'em... Banks can't be trusted, because of all them Jew bankers who run the world.
Subject says it all.
I'd like to see a study to test the hypothesis that anybody who puts more than 3 non-acronym words in one paragraph in ALL CAPITALS is likely to believe in one or more conspiracy theories.
Because the teabagging party has a large section of anti-vaxxers.
very strongly indicate that this paper is anything but unbiased
It is natural for scientists to take climate science as a given truth, since it is science, and the consensus is accepted as scientific by every major scientific organisation in the world.
You see, the truth is not in between scientists and "skeptics", which is why scientists talk about *denial*, because that is was it is -- scientifically speaking.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Yet another warmist attempt to educate the masses, regardless of the data.
The paper is based on an amalgamation of several different surveys, that weren't sent to the people he claimed they were sent to - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/07/lewandowsky-thinks-failure-to-get-or-find-email-is-conspiracy-theory/
The fact of the matter is that the paper did *not* observe what it claims to observe, and was so shoddy and filled with methodological errors, it shouldn't have gotten past the first glance of peer review.
A black stain, once again, on the soul of warmists.
And Nazi Germany: Lutherian Christian. You get to keep those.
PS You forgot all the other religions. Including the killings in Africa, all the muslim terrorist attacks, etc, etc.
Here are some examples.
We must choose between the earth and the free market.
Capitalism = the free market
Capitalism is the best system ever made.
Capitalism not the earth is the source of our good fortunes.
We don't want to destory our good fortunes.
We don't want to destroy capitalism.
We must destroy the earth.
Wait! We all come from the earth.
We are all screwed so forget about it.
Vote Romney.
Romney = capatalism
Obama = socialism
Socialism is the opposite of capitalism
Don't vote Obama
Vote Romney
Ok maybe we should recognize the earth.
The earth is the most successful planet that we know.
Evolution is the process that made it successful.
Darwinian evolution = natural selection = evolution.
Darwinian evolution picks winners over losers.
We must pick winners over losers in order to be successful.
The Republicans and Romney are best at succeeding and are all winners.
Humans should follow the Darwinian model.
We must pick the winners too.
We all agree with the Republicans.
We must pick the Republicans.
No one but the Republicans should be allowed to exist.
We all agree with ourselves.
Society use your Sciences
This study is making the leap that rejection of the popular scientific consensus (i.e. climate change) is rejection of the scientific method. By the same token Galileo also suffered from a "motivated rejection of science" for not believing in a geocentric universe which all the top minds at the time agreed was just common sense.
:D
I'm not siding against climate change, but I think the peer review process and having independent researchers challenge ideas is an extremely important part of advancing our knowledge. I'm not sure why this study seems to believe "science" is the process of a committee making judgments and everyone following them.
Perhaps if you get a degree in psychology then you think of "science" as a form of "understood magic" and that "wizards" (scientists) should not be meddled with
Should I state it in some other language for you to understand better? Because I can if you want to, 5 more languages I can do it in.
religious mantras repeated in other languages are still just that - religious mantras. they don't take on more meaning or value just by being translated. just as jesus and buddha are still jesus and buddha regardless of what language they are discussed in, your religion is still just a religion regardless of what language you recite it's mantras in.
...because it seems to listen to climate scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#Global_warming "The Economist supports government action on global warming, declaring its view in a December editorial before the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference that the risk of catastrophic climate change and its effect on the economy outweighs the economic consequences of insuring against global warming now."
Just because a bunch of cooks deny your claims doesn't mean they are right.
Numerical models of the planet are hypotheses only, not science.
Science requires experimental verification.
Also, some of those who don't believe in a free market are also brainwashed. A free market is the morally correct thing. A wants to trade with B. Who is C to stand in the way?
Only a complete asshole would want to discredit someone who believes in a free market by trying to link him with those who don't believe that smoking causes cancer or that HIV leads to AIDS.
I claim that God exists because I've had spiritual experiences that lead me to believe so.
I've had visions, heard voices and music from nowhere, and had profound revelations, however I do not call them spiritual experiences because (a) I'm an atheist, and (b) I was on LSD at the time. I was perfectly aware of my brain chemistry, can you say the same?
That completely invalidates your "no evidence" hypothesis
No it doesn't, because you haven't shown that you've eliminated the possibility you could be mistaking self-hypnosis or even temporary psychosis for something supernatural. Prove those are impossibilities, and you're a step closer to proving your improbable hypothesis of an invisible man who watches everything everyone does; if you're not even prepared to consider those possibilities you're rejecting the scientific method in favour of your personal beliefs.
I recognize that my evidence is personal and subjective, although I would argue that to a certain degree it is repeatable (i.e, anyone can experience the same things if they're willing to put forth the effort).
I can recreate the effect of being on LSD if I put in the effort, all that proves is anyone can voluntarily alter their state of consciousness; it does not prove that it's truly something divine, that's merely your perception, and perception is about as far from tangible evidence as you can get, especially where altered consciousness is concerned.
I am merely asserting that a belief in God is perfectly rational.
A friend of mine was committed to a psychiatric hospital after the lock of hair on his forehead told him to attack the people who were reading his mind. As far as he was concerned the voice was real, and his belief in it rational to him (and millions of people have experienced something similar without any effort whatsoever, so that too can be called repeatable, or at least not unique). What makes your purely subjective "spiritual experience" better evidence of God than my friend's purely subjective "psychotic episode" evidence of a talking lock of hair? Again, it comes back to your perception; I can't perceive a difference, and I fail to see why your perception is somehow more valid than mine since you have not provided anything tangible to support it.
And it should be noted that there's photographic evidence that the lock of hair actually existed (even if it didn't talk); that makes my friend's belief slightly more credible, since God is notoriously camera-shy.
Note also that I have a strong scientific background
Your entire argument is essentially "I believe my experience was real, therefore the experience is evidence of my belief", which is merely circular logic, not actual evidence, so I can only conclude your scientific background is a degree from Monster Cable in subjectivism.
Blank until
And I thought science was to weed out "claptrap" or "psudoscience"by an honest discussion of the ideas. I suppose if the sun were not in the sky, if we did not have radioactive elements under our feet, and oxygen in our air, or carbon in our foodstuffs to process the chemical of life we would not have counterpossing ideas. But I do not get, is the constant changing of the terminology of "climate science and the airheads that propose to elimenate carbon dioxide from our planet".
1. Carbon dioxide is as good for you as some salt. And plants love it. You should too. Its also found in the atmosphere in the water vapors, could the scientists be confusing the water vapor in the air with the effects of long and short wave radiation that has been proven with water vapors, no awnser from the papers that I have read.
2. that big yellow ball in the sky, is a variable star. Guess what variable means. Not constant state. Remember, historically, there have been ice ages on earth, and ancient societies tell us of droughts, and of flames in the sky. Not sure what the flames mean, but the rest sounds like hot and cold. And some have proposed that times of magnetic reversals, mean cold oceans. But the counter is poising some fine arguements of the subject, the counter, is being vetted just more often then the other papers from the principles.
3. It has been only the "scientists" who are the principles who are being listened to from what I have seen. Others who say you are wrong on your interpetation of this data point, are listed as "crazy" dolts. You folks that are complaining of the dolts, who are educated in other fields, should stop, and at least listen to what that person has to say, don't waste a good teaching moment. You are talabaning them, you are bullying them, you are not being the teacher, but the asshat that all the students of life hated. Don't do that, it's not nice, its not civil, and honestly, if there was a way to bring the principals, who changed the datapoints to justice for their killing people thru their injustice. But that is another story
Have you seen the study that says people who write papers like that one, and people who support them, show a tendency toward child molestation and cannibalism?
Have they stopped beating their wives yet?
All sarcasm aside... do people like this really believe that anybody with more than a few functional brain cells take this stuff seriously? After a while, papers like this end up being like political conventions: a bunch of dog-whistling to a political base without any concern for objective truth. As long as the serious scientific communities do not stand-up and ridicule this crap, they participate in the undermining of public faith in science.
There is actually no link between tobacco and lung cancer. There are no scientific studies to support this. However, what has been widely known for five decades, is the process of *mass production* of tobacco makes it cancer causing. No studies show organic tobacco to contain carcinogens.
The name of that journal jumped out at me for some reason. I had to follow up to learn why it unsettled me so.
Not having been provided a link to the journal, I sought it online. It seems that it is one of many published by the 'Association for Psychological Science'. Each of these journals has a dramatic cover depicting a side view of a male head either receding or projecting in six increments.
I was unable to find this article but pleasantly surprised that I could access some other articles in full text. The subject and content of the articles is about what one might expect- a serious statistical analysis of some perceived phenomenon followed by a conclusion.
I have my own ideas of what science should be. Someone comes up with a theory and then proceeds with all his might to try to disprove that theory. Then all his friends and enemies try to disprove the theory. If they should all fail, then there is hope that something has been learned. Many areas of 'science' seem to fail this test.
I love the concept of psychology and the occasional insights that come of the discipline. I've studied it off and on for over 50 years, through a number of fashionable deviations. I'm sure there is hope for some good result due to the millions of people who dedicate themselves to this interest.
It's just that I really struggle with the concept of science being so closely associated with the exploration of psychology. Can we really use the word science, the same word that we use for physics and chemistry, in relation to psychology?
...omphaloskepsis often...
"Climate science" brought skepticism upon itself, since so many scientists tortured existing facts and invented others to deceive others.
Seems obvious to me we're talking about a group of people who are willing to believe what they are told to believe ...
People, mostly believe the first thing they hear. To some extent this is good: Children learn don't kill, don't steal, obey authority. And to an extent it is bad: Children learn masturbation is wrong, some sky-god will punish/protect their lifestyle. Further problems occur in science and politics: Science changes as hypothesis and theory are disproved. Politics change as military and economic alliances begin or end.
Tell that to Keith Richards. That man should be dead already.
Congratulations. You now have a study that has successfully concluded that half the country, (the republican half) tend to be skeptical of climate science, and tend to prefer free markets. I'm sure the data could just as easily suggest that those who believe in gun ownership also oppose abortion. This is hardly a breakthrough and should not be considered legitimate data for any purposes other than political ammunition, I suspect it's original intent. To take this and conclude that people who believe in free markets, reject science, reject empirical evidence, and reject reason is utter nonsense. If you want an academic, intellectual, and scholarly tome on free markets, pick up any of Thomas Sowell's many books. There is volumes of historical and factual evidence to suggest that free markets are very functional, indeed still far superior to the layers and layers of government bureaucracy we have today whose negative consequences we so quickly ascribe to, laissez faire capitalism. You can't have one system that constantly squelches competition, protects and bails out massive mismanaged corporations, and then blame capitalism.
A theory is something that makes testable claims, testable predictions. Those claims don't necessarily have to be tested, just testable. Hence why there can be theories of differing levels of support. Sometimes a theory will make testable claims (like general relativity) that cannot be tested at the time the theory is made.
A hypothesis is a logically consistent explanation for something, but one that doesn't make any testable claims. String "theory" would be an example of this. It isn't a theory. It is a nice bunch of math, internally consistent, and may well be right. However it isn't a theory because it doesn't make any testable claims, it cannot make any predictions. At such time it'll become a theory.
The core of theories (meaning scientific theories in this case) is their testability.
Seems obvious?
What people reject isn't "climate science", what they reject is the imposition of draconian economic measures based on scientific results combined with a particular value system.
I don't give a sh*t whether the oceans rise by a few feet or whether polar ice caps melt. They have done so in the past, and they will do so again in the future, it's not going to affect me, and humanity is going to be able to cope. The IPCC report (i.e., the consensus of hundreds of experts) itself says that we can deal with such changes without big problems. Furthermore, I think the free market is far more effective in reducing carbon emissions than any kind of government intervention; the government programs on climate change won't even achieve what their intended goals are.
Yes, free market "ideology" correlates strongly with the rejection of draconian measures on climate change, but that does not amount to a rejection of science, it amounts to a rejection of centralized economic decision making. No apologies about that.
Well, I checked skeptical science, and their "basic" version is: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.". Gee, are you going to argue that 98% is nearly all, and 97% isn't.
Oh wait, there is an intermediate tab!!! Let's see what it says. There's *another* study, (Doran 2009) that says *greater* than 95%. Well, if 98% is "nearly all", then >95% is clearly *not* "nearly all"
And if you go to wikepedia's page on scientific opinion on climate change, you will find *more* studies. All showing the same thing. I actually opened up and read one of them.
So no. "Nearly all" is just wrong. You are wrong. Live with it.
You don't believe any another other wack-job conspiracies do you?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I hope you put some of your *genius* in a time-capsule for posterity. Right now you think you'll be vindicated. You should write an essay about how right you are, and how much you'll be vindicated when the capsule is opened. Do it for posterity. Your grand-children can read it before they visit your grave.
I was pretty shocked to read the low level of response posted in the article "Confirming the Obvious" by Stephan Lewandowsky. He uses very disparaging phrasing and stoops to name calling in his article in an attempt to discredit his detractors. Why has name calling become a standard tool of attack? This may be (sadly) accepted as normal in the field of politics, but is it normal in science?
The purpose of science is to move the body of knowledge forward. It's done with work using a certain tested approach we call the scientific method. I think it's unbecoming for someone who publishes work in science to call critics and skeptics names. The work is either accurate or it is not. The work is either supported by the data or it is not.
And no, I did not argue that 98% is nearly all, and 97% is not. What I argued was that given the criteria stated in the link to Skeptical Science that I was referring to, then the "domain of experts" is quite a bit larger than their narrow sample. Statistically, if the group they cited is 95%, it is almost certain that the broader domain of experts is a good bit LESS than 95%.
If you actually read the study that produces the 95% figure (Doran 2009), you'll see what the broader domain of experts say -- all the way down to those on the blogsphere.
I am not interested in more studies. Get a f*cking clue here, dude. I am not arguing with you about climate science. What I was criticizing were THE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PARTICULAR PEOPLE TO WHOM I WAS REFERRING.
Learn to read then. The wikipedia page I linked to links to a whole bunch of studies that show: NEARLY ALL climate scientists agree with the consensus opinion.
If you want to get in a general argument about climate science, go elsewhere.
The cognitive bubble is of professional interest to me -- as a scientist. As such, I fully appreciate the many ways ignorance protects itself. So... I have no interest in debating climate science with you, and never did.
On the other hand, it is indisputable that NEARLY ALL climate scientists agree with the consensus position. Given that 10% of people will agree to anything in a survey (yes, I have a degree in statistics as well as psychology), Doran 2009 also shows that NEARLY ALL scientists agree with the consensus full stop.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It sounds like you don't understand the "no true scotsman" fallacy, or what makes it fallacious. It is a fallacy because it is circular--i.e. in the statement "No true scotsman doesn't eat haggis," eating haggis defines one as being a scotsman. It purports to be a assertion about the real world that potentially could be true or false, but in fact it is a tautology that no real-world evidence can refute. The statement can be made non-fallacious by defining a true scotsman by an independent criterion that does not depend upon eating haggis. So, for example, "Nobody born in scotland does not eat haggis" is not an example of the fallacy, even though it is likely false.
So the study cited is not an example of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, because the criterion for being considered a climate scientist is independent of the answer to the survey question (as demonstrated by the fact that there was a very percentage of climate scientists who were not convinced of the reality of AGW; there can be no counterexamples at all to a no-true-scotsman assertion, because it is tautological)
That seems to me a pretty good definition of anthropogenic global warming. If you want to move the goalposts, you should conduct your own survey.
If this is really substantially misleading, one would expect that several of the 75 (out of 77 surveyed) highly published climate scientists who answered "yes" to the question would have stood up to say, "I answered YES to the question, but I don't really think that anthropogenic global warming is a major problem." So where are they? Or is the conspiracy keeping them quiet?
Peiser was obliged to retract his major criticism because it was shown not to be true (which seems to be fairly typical of Peiser)--he falsely claimed to have replicated the study and gotten different results. If he said anything that actually was true and meaningful (which would be very out of character), what was it?
Because the vast, vast majority of conspiracy theories are derided in their time and later turn out to be false; often irresponsibly so. Giving examples of conspiracies through history is the worst kind of confirmation bias.
No, they wouldn't. If they are doing scientific studies, they carefully measure and calibrate their samples, estimate the sampling error and uncertainty, and gauge from that. They don't just pull a percentage out of the air and call it good.
From this statement, I can only gauge that you are too incompetent to judge your own incompetence. Then again, you are denier *cough* skeptic *cough*. And as today's linked peer-reviewed academic article demonstrates quite aptly: AGW denial is comorbid with a number of other cognitive handicaps.
Gee, you don't work for one for those right-wind "think" tanks to you?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The problem is that scientists are human and are for sale a lot of the time. When you look at the shoddy work done by some very bright people you have to conclude that they started with a conclusion and adjusted the facts to "prove" their point. Then refuse to make their data, methods & code public so others could replicate their work. They relied on other "scientists" who held similar views to them to back them with more shoddy science. That isn't science.
The earth has been warming for 18,000 years since the last glacial maximum. That is fact.
It was warmer in the Holocene maximum 6,000 to 8,000 years ago than it is now. That is a fact.
The earth warms and the CO2 levels increase after the warming and drop after the cooling. That is a fact.
So maybe people don't believe the scientists. That is a good thing because science is NOT about believing, it is about proving and answering all questions. For those who don't agree I suggest a short lesson on the scientific method. Mann, Bradley & Hughes did not follow it and neither have lots of other scientists in a lot of fields.
But when the facts don't back your position attack those who don't believe. Never answer the question "why should we believe it if it is science?".
The puritans tried a communist approach. It didn't work out.
http://books.google.com/books?id=frvc45t2pLUC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=puritans+communism&source=bl&ots=FWGU5CHvTi&sig=CdC2pe3VrP3kfruce8KmFHNkg48&hl=en#v=onepage&q=puritans%20communism&f=false
The same happens with unemployment. People generally stay on unemployment until it runs out. It is not the best but passable and passable rewards the lazy.
This article is clearly Satan's work and I don't believe a word of it.
Oh, wait a minute - It's just change to 667. Maybe it's true after all.
42 hidden comments
...tells me that Earth is progressively cooling like ever, massacres produce droughts and indeed conspiracies exist and have successes, which is consistent with Capitalism since it is also a formally thought out and logical framework. And tobacco just pick a few butts around and you ll see the difference in brands is not only tobacco, because you surely always buy the same brand and your friends buy similar brands so you would not notice when it comes radiated or manured... No point in exposing here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/replication-of-lewandowsky-survey/
I wonder how the survey will turn out when not done by shoddy scientists :)
and that is any AGW, not just CO2.
Well, why don't try and find an AGW theory that doesn't involve CO2. Gee, that will be like half of them.
That is, quite literally, Statistics 101 material.
I have a degree in stats, and have worked for a market research company in the past. It doesn't matter how you study your population and calibrate -- you cannot change the inherent randomness in how people respond. As a rule of thumb, you can ask anybody anything, and get a positive response at least 10% of the time -- even for the patently ridiculous.
Jane Q Public, I think you are truly stupid, and in a clever way.
Keep some of your writings from this year, and look at them in 10 years time, and you will know what I mean.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It's called Oppositional Defiant Personality Disorder and you can read about it here. For people not inclned to follow links, see if you think this matches the profile of your average Tea Partier, - Breitbarter, Ann Coulter denier:
From wiki:
Signs and symptoms
Throwing repeated temper tantrums
Excessively arguing with adults or other authority figures
Actively refusing to comply with requests and rules
Deliberately trying to annoy or upset others, or being easily annoyed by others
Blaming others for your mistakes
Having frequent outbursts of anger and resentment
Being spiteful and seeking revenge
Swearing or using obscene language
Saying mean and hateful things when upset
In the case of climate change deniers, you really have to break out people at the grassroots from the "thought leaders".
The Koch brothers are almost certainly sociopaths, that is, they are perfectly aware that the case for AGW is rock solid- their own studies have shown as much:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/127235/koch-bros-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-and-man-made
but they don't want to take the economic hit to their fortunes that cap and trade, for instance (which may now be too weak to do much good, thanks to their success in denying climate change ) would impose.
Legally, it just comes down to mass murder / crimes against humanity. They know the truth. They deny the truth. They do so to retain power, money and the status that comes with those things and also to thwart and frustrate the actions of people they loathe- to act out their spite. That's a sociopath.
At the grass roots level, you have a lot of spite and an unwillingness to admit you're wrong and your enemies were right about this or any topic. But why are the Ayn Randers and free market ideologues deniers in the first place? Answer: they are distinguished by having oppositional defiant personality disorder. In a nutshell, people with ODP loathe, deny and will defy -even unto their own personal destruction - the validity of any kind legitimate societal or earned authority. That's why they think they have the standing to argue with PhDs who have spent decades learning the arcana highly technical subject matter. That's why they think that their homegrown theories about climate and paleo-climatology and "common sense " rebuttals of scientists are somehow legitimate and deserving of being given equal footing to the those of research scientists. To do otherwise is to submit to and admit the legitimacy of, an authority they are incapable of earning will never personally possess.
Not only do they think their arguments have some scientific validity, but they also consider that they themselves are the best judges of which argument is correct. So like all mental illness, it's a sealed system with elaborate defenses against all intrusion by the forces of rationality.
The fact that a large portion of America can be accurately described this way is troubling, At least 20-30% of the population is "hard right" in this way on this topic and effectively incapable of processing reality. Since they're not going to change their mind, and they sense that they're outnumbered, they look for force multipliers in legislation and electioneering to keep themselves in power. Thus the new run at Jim Crow laws. Thus citizens united where money is used to substitute for democratic majority opinion. Thus also the serially lies that not only the Koch Brothers spew forth but also Paul Ryan indulges in. Lying is indeed a force multiplier against majority opinion; since the majority of people actually aren't crazy, they will coalesce on shared solution as soon as they coalesce on a shared perception of the problem. The goal then has to be to stop them from coalescing on a shared perception of the problem ,
Put it this way. The Koch brothers know what the truth is about global warming but they nevertheless lead a lie campaign with the specific goal to obscure that truth so no action is taken.
Ask yourself- who does that? Who literally sets about to destroy a large part human civilization so that their wealth and power will not be diminished and so their enemies will not be proved right? Who sets about to literally deconstrcut human civilization , killing hundreds of millions or billions of people in the process, so they can rebuild it to their liking?
What kind of person does that?
A person who needs to be stopped by the US government through any means necessary for the sake of humanity itself and all future generations That's who.
Phrases and words sometimes evolve to have meanings different than just a literal interpretation of their parts. Even if many of those people create many theories involving conspiracy, that doesn't make them conspiracy theorists in the typical meaning of the phrase.
It is not uncommon to hear amateurs pontificating to scientists about what the "scientific process" should be. And almost invariably, what they are advocating is the opposite of science—a kind of superstitious thinking that is precisely what the disciplines of science, statistics, experimental controls, blinded analysis, etc., have been developed to counteract, dressed up with "sciencey" jargon, what Richard Feynman famously characterized as "cargo cult science".
As human beings, we are all prone to superstitious thinking. Our brains are hyperaware of connections and associations, to the point of often seeing them where they do not actually exist, and this is even more exaggerated where risks are concerned. It is easy to understand why "jumping to conclusions" has been favored by evolution—the rabbit cannot afford to think, "Perhaps the next fox will be friendly." We are particularly prone to see exaggerated significance in "runs" of behavior. Any sports fan will tell you that their favorite player or team has periods in which they are "hot" or "cold," even though numerous statistical analyses have shown that such runs occur no more frequently than expected from random fluctuations about a mean. Such erroneous perceptions often have associated with them an emotional conviction of great meaning and certainty. So you have attached great significance to the fact that you had a run of of years with colds, and then a run without colds (something that tends to happen with greater frequency as we get older and develop immunity to many of the common pathogens around us), and have developed an unshakeable conviction that this was associated with your vaccination, and also with your illness. In fact, you were undoubtedly exposed to numerous novel substances and organisms over that period of time, but your mind has likely seized upon vaccination because the experience of receiving an injection stands our more prominently in your mind because being stuck with a syringe is a more unusual experience than the routine cuts and scrapes that are constantly introducing bacteria, viruses, and environmental contaminants into our bloodstreams.
One of the reasons why doing science requires experience and training is that we have to learn the hard way just how often that such convictions, which often arrive in our minds with a sense of great clarity and certainty, turn out to be mistaken when subjected to the hard discipline of scientific analysis. So it is certainly possible that CFS is some sort of immune dysfunction (perhaps even interacting with a vaccination), just as it is possible that it is some sort of chronic infection, and these are hypotheses worth investigating (and they have, indeed, been investigated for quite a few years, so far without major insights), but your own experience, no matter how compelling it feels to you, is very weak evidence from a scientific perspective.
As part of my professional life I have coded and used the genetic algorithm, have read extensively on it, and I am constantly amazed by the cognitive dissonance that must make it nearly impossible for the social-liberal-economic-liberals (aka, the "left") to think clearly. The genetic algorithm is arguably the single most powerful algorithm we know of because of its ability to solve problems that are not even stated to be problems. Yet believing in the genetic algorithm is essentially to believe in evolution, while believing in free-markets is essentially to believe in the genetic algorithm. Both are driven by the mathematics that use "success" as a predictor of future existence, whether we are discussing a genetic line (e.g., rats) or an economic line (fast food corporations). Still, one extreme of our political world embraces evolution and rejects free-markets while the other extreme embraces free-markets yet rejects evolution (remember, these ARE the extremes). Unfortunately, correlation is not causation, as this article appears forget in its haste to point out once again that people they don't like are idiots (a classic ad hominum attack).
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Anyone who cannot see this is nothing but a fringe leftist personal attack on the majority is blind, deaf and dumb, pun intended.
Just like the fairy story that there was ever a time when people actually believed in a flat earth or that Columbus had to argue for a round one which andy encyclopaedia published since ' 86 will tell you this idea that people who believe in the monetary system that has made America the richest and most benevolent country in world history don't accept the correlation between smoking and health problems or HIV and aids you have to be a fool to actually believe this. I have never met anyone who denied these things , there is a huge difference between having the right to smoke and denying it is likely to kill you.
lumping conspiracy theorists in with skeptics.
And with very little distinction between the two.
How scientific.