Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-do-you-think dept.

schnell writes A New York Times article discusses a recent Yale study that shows that contrary to popular belief, increased scientific literacy does not correspond to increased belief in accepted scientific findings when it contradicts their religious or political views. The article notes that this is true across the political/religious spectrum and "factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines." So what is to be done? The article suggests that "we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues – for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."

9 of 725 comments (clear)

  1. Not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Humans aren't motivated by logic. Instead, they use logic as a tool to satisfy their emotional needs. No tool suits every problem.

    1. Re:Not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One thing that we all need to realize is that ALL of us have this same issue, not just the people who disagree with you.

    2. Re:Not surprising. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I know it's been pushed on the public about as unscientifically as Eugenics and Phrenology.

      Whoa! Phrenology has no scientific basis, but Eugenics certainly does. If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation. That is a scientific fact. Just because you don't like the political act of mass murder, doesn't make it scientifically invalid.

    3. Re:Not surprising. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?

      I'm not sure why you need a case study to support research that was originally done almost 150 years ago,
      but If you'll accept "not allowing the undesirables to breed" as a proxy for "murder them,"
      here's a more recent long term study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

      Or you could just read about Mendel's original research with pea plants and honey bees.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Not surprising. by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."

      That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.

      Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.

    5. Re:Not surprising. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans aren't a rational animal. They are a rationalizing animal.
      -- Heinlein.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Not surprising. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoa! Phrenology has no scientific basis, but Eugenics certainly does. If you take all the people with traits you don't like, and murder them, you will have fewer of those traits in the next generation.

      While it is certainly true that selective breeding is a scientific fact, almost all historical eugenicist movements have NOT been based on scientifically verified traits. Take some time and read about the nonsense criteria that eugenics people would use -- measuring ear size or facial characteristics to determine "degenerate" people more likely to be stupid or commit crimes.

      You seem to think that "eugenics" is just a synonym for "selective breeding" or something. While the proponents of eugenics often claim that, in fact their criteria for selection were generally based on bogus "science" (even phrenology) and generally tend to be motivated more by politics or class distinctions than science.

      So, no, actual eugenics as practiced does NOT have a scientific basis, even if the general principle might theoretically work.

  2. There's belief, there's facts and there's politics by mark_reh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."

    But you can't. The Republicans won't have you.

    Ignorance is a choice, just like belief. The real problem is to get people to reject ignorance. The difficulty in that is that ignorance, like belief, is easy. Rejecting ignorance requires effort. That is why there are so many people who choose ignorance and belief over reason and fact.

    For many, being identified as a member of a specific group, even if that group wants you to believe stupid things, is more important than objective reality. They must get something from that group membership that outweighs what they would get from reality. Reality CAN be a bitch.
     

  3. Re:It's Okay by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You must be an American if you equate liberal with socialist. In Europe, they tend to be the very opposite of each other.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.