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."
You, Sir, are a Grade A Fucktard.
Unless you are being totally sarcastic, but somehow I doubt that. How much did you pay for that user ID?
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".
What is it that makes you say they are political hack poseurs? Do you have a criticism of their methodology, or is it just that you don't like what they're saying? The paper doesn't seem to be relying on the theory of climate change being true.
I think it's cute that you're upset at a debasemt of science, as you reject scientific findings based on your gut feelings.
One imagines Jmorris1 arguing in the vatican that Galileo Galilei should be punished for besmirching the honor of science and astronomy by clearly promoting falsehoods.
The fun part they didn't apparently check is that the 'Free Market' folks are also going to be the most likely to deny evolution....which is the ultimate 'free market'.
Ooooo the irony...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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
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."
My argument is:
Premise: Scientific consensus is that a certain problem exists, which means that we must institute a particular policy agenda.
Premise: Most of those supporting the first premise have previously made other arguments that claim some other problem means that we must institute that same policy agenda.
Conclusion: Those who are claiming that the "science is settled" are more interested in interpreting the evidence in order to promote a particular policy agenda than they are in finding out what is really happening.
The biggest problem is that anybody who questions the need for government intervention in the economy is considered to be someone who "denies the science."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Winning a debate, on the other hand, is a lot easier. All you have to do is make the other guy look like an idiot.
Arguing with a conspiracy nuts is a waste of time. Debating them, in front of others, is beneficial.
> Meanwhile the libertarians argue that they can somehow create an economic utopia by unleashing a
> sociopathic social order in which corporations are free to do whatever they want without oversight by
> the government.
I have to disagree with this chracterization as a bit too simplistic. Corps are legal fictions created through the power of the state. They are fictional entities which stand in the place of a person, to convey limited liability on the actual corp owners.
In fact, many libertarians are against limited liability at all. How this could, in any way, be described as pro-corperate, I just don't see. In fact, I can think of few things that would be less pro-corperate than elimination of limited liability.... it guts the entire concept of a corp.
Personally, as something of a libertarian myself (not entirely), I am not against its eliminatuon nor for it, because I see it as a useful pact with the government, and one which legitimizes regulation...afterall, they are fictional non-person entities, and are recieving a benefit for becoming such.... seems the government which offers this priviledge should be free to put whatever restrictions that they like on it.
In my view, I tend to say taxes are theft and extorition, not so with corp taxes...for that very reason.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Note that I said 'leaned socialist', not 'was a card carrying Socialist'.
You keep using the word "socialist." I do not think it means what you think it means. "Socialism," like I stated earlier, is an economic regime under which the means of production are owned by the government. It exists independently of the political system in place in a given country. You can have socialist countries in which there is great personal freedom (i.e., most countries in Europe), or you can have socialist countries in which there is little personal freedom (the old USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.)
Jesus certainly DID advocate a certain social order and priorities from the individual level on up. That social order is more closely fit by some variety of socialist philosophy (not necessarily Socialist, just socialist) than by free market capitalism.
But again, Jesus never advocated that the means of production be owned by the government. Ergo, he could not have been a socialist. On the other hand, Jesus did teach that one should have a certain degree of economic independence. His teachings in The Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard illustrate this.
You can bet he would not have taken money from the people and given it to the money changers like our government did (under both Republican and Democratic leadership no less).
You're missing the point of Jesus beating up the money changers and expelling them from the Temple. He did this because He felt that a house of worship was no place to conduct business.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Reality dictates how you live. You can live your libertarian fantasy all you like, but at the end of the day some problems require a society's effort. More importantly, some problems don't require your opinion. If AGW Isis happening (and the overwhelming majority of scientists in related fields say it is) then we can either sit around on our asses, watch it all happen and receive solace from our ideologies, or we can admit that there is such a thing as society, indeed civilization, and find a way to prevent the worst.
Even democracies have had conscription. And this problem does not require anywhere near that kind of direct state intervention.
I'd like my grandchildren to have a reasonably decent planet I live on. If that means higher taxes and moving to alternatives, then so be it. Christ, the West beat the Germans and the Soviets, and spent a helluva lot of money to do it. What's you're problem now?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.