When We Don't Like the Solution, We Deny the Problem

Ichijo writes: A new study (abstract) from Duke University tested whether the desirability of a solution affects beliefs in the existence of the associated problem. Researchers found that 'yes, people will deny the problem when they don't like the solution. Quoting: "Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.

But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."

Comments

Re:never mix science and politics

[rmdingler]

Political science, such as it is, is the artful implementation of your belief set into legislation that becomes law of the land.

That there are citizens in your nation representing you who shun science, logic and evidence, well, that is a political problem. And it's all mixed up with getting science elected when we visit the voting booth.

I mean to say the idiots haven't won yet, even though at present they seem to have the lead.

Re:There is such a thing as fact

[DiamondGeezer]

There are basically no credible scientists arguing if global warming is a thing. There are also no credible scientists arguing over whether it will negatively impact humanity. The argument is over what's causing it and the magnitude of the damage. Please note that the consensus is that the damage will be massive, it's just about _how_ massive....

You've just demonstrated that you don't understand science or the history of science.