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."
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"
You, Sir, are what is known as a "data point".
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.
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.'
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.
So... is your post some kind of satire, or what?
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.
That's right, the only possible way to disagree with the study is if you are opposed to science. A study that took as data online polls on blogs. Yep, some sound science right there. (/sarcasm)
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
At most a climitologist can rightfully say the Earth is warming, CO2 is the cause and human activity is the likely cause of the increase of CO2. Beyond that they should say NOTHING. Other scientists, in other fields, are qualified to evaluate proposed policies.
Que? A climatologist is best positioned to evaluate a proposal to see how it may affect the climate.
The second they use the cloak of science to push policy solutions they aren't scientists anymore, they are amateur politicians. Emphasis on the amateur.
Oh, it seems that you are confused by the meaning of "politician". For one thing, all good politicians are "amateur" - a professional politician is the worst sort.
Next, a politician isn't someone who creates "policy solutions". A politician in a representative democracy represents the voice of the people. He selects from the among the expert proposals the ones which align with the people's wishes, puts them forward to a legislature, listens to the alternatives, debates them, and ultimately votes on them in line with the wishes of those he represents.
To recap: a politician does not create solutions. He is not a professional in any particular field. He can't be - he's voted in as a voice of the people, not an expert on a particular thing.
It's funny how idiots like you use words like "socialist", "left(y)", and "liberal" as if they're some sort of insult.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Its a good idea to have scientists advising politicians on science. They know a HELL of a lot more about science than politicians.
I mean, we just had a guy on a congressional science committee forcefully and publicly proclaim that women emit some kind of magical substance to prevent pregnancy when "legitimately" raped.
I think that this pretty clearly shows that we need more science in political discussions about science. Just because Akin is a "professional" politician does not mean that he is suddenly great at making political decisions regarding science on his own.
And hell, we all know that if scientists completely divorced themselves from the political and social ramifications of their work, that you would be whining to high hell about how scientists isolate themselves in their ivory towers and can't communicate with the public. But if they do communicate their results to the public and talk about real world ramifications you get upset that they might be influencing politics directly related to their work.
With the free market bit I don't think that they are labeling anyone as crazy. Rather, they seem to be suggesting that free market proponents will dismiss evidence that counters their established views, which is probably true of many people who hold ideologies.
One interesting aspect of the report is that the conspiracy theorists tend to side with the corporations over science. While I do see how this is an attractive conspiracy, I would think that people would be more likely to think that the companies are conspiring against science to further their economic goals.
I think there are many reasons to lump disbelief of global warming with the distrust of vaccines. Both groups of people have these beliefs, despite an overwhelming volume of data that says otherwise. Worse yet, showing these people data that contradicts their beliefs bizarrely reenforces the baseless beliefs. There is a common phenomenon (psychological) going on here, and it is worthy of study.
What other people think of me is none of my business
Do you really believe that groups of people, regardless of their level of psychological commitment to any idea, are capable of convincing literally thousands of people in their own profession, aligned professions and knowledgeable bystanders to simply ignore facts and evidence, and to promulgate, knowingly, wrong information, proudly, authoritatively, and consistently without error.
And then, granting this is even possible, they're able to recruit entirely new generations of people, people who may not even have been born when the "lie" was originally concocted, to repeat the same lies, over and over, to not ask questions, to not pursue the truth, to simply obey, mindlessly, and to do so for nothing more than the remuneration of the occasional government grant (which they gotta fight like hell for regardless).
The problem is, if you all of this as true, you've successfully killed the Enlightenment and any principle of self-government through reason and debate. If conspiracies decide what the popular mind accepts as "fact," we might as well have kings and clerics decide the best course of action, because democracy in such a world is pointless. The people are sheeple, the books are cooked, and votes are a waste of energy, energy that could be more effectively spent by elite, autocratic decision makers.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
That's like saying a butcher is best positioned to evaluate how much meat someone needs to throw a successful barbeque.
Which they are.
I'm sure what you're saying is, "But uh there's a butcher conspiracy and they'll all say AS MUCH MEAT AS POSSIBLE because that'll make them rich!"
Except that - and I thought this is what you free markedroids always argue when you say that All Regulation Is Evil - it's in no butcher's interest to lie about how much meat someone needs, as then they'll stop being trusted and no-one will listen to them any more.
Not that the analogy is valid, of course, as a climatologist is a lot more likely to get big funding from big business if he sells out his soul and says "global warming doesn't exist.. err I mean has nowt to do with humans yo" than if he gets paid a government wage to tell the truth.
Except that HIV treatments have improved dramatically since the early 90's when Mr. Johnson (not Jordan) announced his diagnosis, with people being diagnosed today having a life expectancy slightly shorter than - but actually approaching - the general population. Of course, it depends on how quickly you start treatment after diagnosis, how far along your infection has progressed when you're diagnosed, your overall health, and your access to appropriate treatments.
But Magic Johnson has survived a bit over 20 years with his HIV under control; That's not even really an outlier based on today's prognosis - proper medication and treatment will turn it into a chronic, but mostly manageable, disease for many people. Given that Johnson was famous, rich, and presumably in excellent physical condition, it's not all that surprising that he'd have access to the best care available, and survive for a long time as a result.
You should probably also look up Long-Term Non-Progressors (HIV "controllers"), and the general natural history (infection process) of HIV. After initial infection, HIV typically enters clinical latency which can last up to 20 years (avg. of about 10 years, I believe). AIDS is only diagnosed when T-cell counts drop below a certain level, or one of the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS is diagnosed.
Given his diagnosis about 20 years ago, and the increasing efficacy of HIV treatments in the last 20 years... it's really not all that shocking that a young, healthy, rich man with access to the best care that money & fame can buy, and who also happens to be in excellent physical condition as a professional athlete, even if he's not a "controller," would be able to survive past his initial diagnosis for this long.
Using online polls limits the scope of the findings, it doesn't invalidate them, nor is it "bad science". It also doesn't mean this one study is the end-all authority on the matter. It's good information that can be collected into a larger view of things.
... as government less and less appears to be capable of solving the big social and economic problems of our time.
It probably has something to do with putting people in charge of government who believe that government can do nothing right. It's fucking ridiculous. You would have to be a complete moron to put in someone into any position of authority or control in a company if they believed that said company could do nothing right. It'd be foolish. Yet that is the very thing that conservatives are doing with our government.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
What's the point of having people who know what to do if they can't tell the people who decide what to do what should be done?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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 supposed existence of such attempts is a conspiracy theory, as is the idea that people who disagree with you do not "believe in the free market". Hardcore Libertarian ideology provides a lot of the misconceptions and straw men needed to justify rejecting climate science. It's those justifications that are the issue here, not the final conclusions drawn from them.
Visit the
There are at least five important questions whose answers are needed to address whether cap-and-trade is a good idea:
1. How much effect would cap-and-trade have on GHG emissions?
2. What other direct effects would cap-and-trade have besides its effect on reducing emissions?
3. What would the climate impact be of the effects described in #1?
4. Would any of the effects described in #2 have climate effects, and, if so, what effects?
5. Does the net social benefit of the climate effects in #3-4, combined with the net social benefit of the non-climate effects described in #2, offset the net social costs of effects described in #2.
#1-4 are scientific questions. #5 is a question that, while there may be some scientific aspects of it (aside from those in the preceding questions on which it relies) is largely about subjective values.
Of the four scientific questions, two of them are questions specifically about climatology. So, while there's very good reason for there to be other scientists providing input, its pretty clear that climatologists have quite a lot to contribute on the question.
Since one of the scientific questions listed above is largely an economic one (#1) and one is partially an economic one (#2), there certainly is a role for economists advising on the issue as well. But that role is not exclusive of the role of climatologists, as there remain climatological questions that are important in addressing the utility of cap and trade (or any approach to climate change, since the effectiveness of the approach in addressing the core problem it seeks to address will always involve a question of climatology, even if it also involves other questions.)
No, but once someone else provides input on the degree to which sequestration is feasible and what other near-term environmental impacts that sequestration will have, your going to need to turn to climatology to answer what the net effect of the sequestration (both from the direct carbon reductions and indirectly through any environmental side effects) is likely to be on climate.
They certainly are the best positioned, once others answer what is feasible and what effects those options would have on GHG emissions and other environmental inputs, to provide insight on what those alternatives are likely to do in terms of climate. Which, when evaluating alternative energy supplies as a solution to a climate problem, is a pretty critical insight.
Its true that you need a variety of experts to address those questions.
Its not true that the need for other scientists to address those questions means you don't also need climatologists to address each of them.
Yes, but its pretty freaking central to evaluating options to address climate change, for reasons which should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
... as government less and less appears to be capable of solving the big social and economic problems of our time.
It probably has something to do with putting people in charge of government who believe that government can do nothing right. It's fucking ridiculous. You would have to be a complete moron to put in someone into any position of authority or control in a company if they believed that said company could do nothing right. It'd be foolish. Yet that is the very thing that conservatives are doing with our government.
"Government is the problem! Vote for me and I'll prove it!"
(Score: -1, Stupid)
I know you are joking, but I think Karl Marx was probably more right on that than we'd think - and that open source, crowdsourcing, and others are the tip of that.
The problem with his image is that people tried to force it, and changes like that can't be forced, they have to come because society has changed to the point where they are necessary. Trying to force it just means you'll get it wrong, as the structures needed to even understand what you are doing correctly haven't been built yet.
Which means what we'll get is nothing like what tried to imitate it, and probably nothing like what we'd imagine it to be.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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.
I think communism works great at a community level but doesn't scale very well. It's why families who pool resources thrive. The allocation of resources is better defined. The incentive to contribute is stronger because the benefits are more apparent. It's communistic principles working within a larger, more capitalistic environment.
The problem when you try to do implement this on a national scale isn't due to people being forced into it. If anything, the masses are probably more likely to go along excepting they'll get something out of it. The problem is that you're eliminating incentive. If you're getting a stable allotment regardless of what you do, what's the reason to work any harder? The betterment of the nation is too abstract for most to appreciate.
And the fact of the matter is that humans will abuse any system they implement. You're always going to need some form of leadership and inevitably those who are connected with find a means to aggrandize themselves. People are pretty good at finding ways to cheat any system. So inevitably you end up with the haves and have nots, except that in communism it's institutionalized.
As always, the best approaches borrow from a wide variety of mindsets and implement them at levels where they fit best. And it's probably a sliding scale, requiring more or less of any particular element based on prevailing conditions. And when you account for cultural tendencies things get even more complex.