The Cellar - View Single Post

Lamplighter · 03-19-2015, 01:11 PM

Sitting in the waiting room while my Ranger was being diagnosed, I picked up a magazine.
It was the March 2015 issue of National Geographic, and this issue is devoted
to just how people come to believe a thing is true or not.
I wondered whether it was the basis of UT thesis here on AGW, or just coincidence.

In any case, the NG articles start with "flat earth" in earlier times, and go on to:
Did NASA actually land on the moon, Do vaccinations cause autism, Is climate change real, etc....

Basically most of this NG issue is dealing with the question of why people come to believe something, or not,
... even if it is contrary to what "reputable scientists" and/or scientific methods are reporting.

I can't here give all their arguments, but they conclude some of the following:

A) Scientific "facts", by themselves, often do not convince or change the beliefs of people.

B) Scientists that become advocates tend to lose credibility.
So discrediting the "reputation of the scientist" and "who paid for the study" are often used as tactics.

C) Scientists who do become advocates usually can not later on regain their previous credibility.

D) People who don't buy what the science says tend to put their inter-personal relationships at a higher priority.
e.g. "tribal relations" outweigh "factual arguments" to the point that:
If were they to change their belief, they would be at odds with their "tribe"
... even to risking being expelled from their "tribe"

E) "trust" of the message-giver is of great importance. e.g., family members are usually more trusted.
They give one example of a daughter being unable to convince her father
... and she finally says: "If you don't believe in xxxxx, you don't trust me."

F) The issue also includes the recently publicized ideas that people
who are"scientifically informed" tend to be more polarized on climate warming, etc....

------

There are many different tactics used to convince or deny issues based in science.

I see UT's post about Obama using the word "dangerous" in a Tweet, primarily as a tactic. That is, he has found a relatively minor issue in a social medium that, whether true or not, has little to do with the "truth" about global warming, climate change, or AGW. That is, it's a political argument.

In this instance, "dangerous" is a subjective word, to be interpreted based on time, place, and circumstances. For example, sea level rise due to AGW is probably not "dangerous" to a family living on a hill, but for poppulations living on a gradually flooding island or the Lousiana "Swamp People", the impact could well be "dangerous".

03-19-2015, 01:11 PM	#71
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	Sitting in the waiting room while my Ranger was being diagnosed, I picked up a magazine. It was the March 2015 issue of National Geographic, and this issue is devoted to just how people come to believe a thing is true or not. I wondered whether it was the basis of UT thesis here on AGW, or just coincidence. In any case, the NG articles start with "flat earth" in earlier times, and go on to: Did NASA actually land on the moon, Do vaccinations cause autism, Is climate change real, etc.... Basically most of this NG issue is dealing with the question of why people come to believe something, or not, ... even if it is contrary to what "reputable scientists" and/or scientific methods are reporting. I can't here give all their arguments, but they conclude some of the following: A) Scientific "facts", by themselves, often do not convince or change the beliefs of people. B) Scientists that become advocates tend to lose credibility. So discrediting the "reputation of the scientist" and "who paid for the study" are often used as tactics. C) Scientists who do become advocates usually can not later on regain their previous credibility. D) People who don't buy what the science says tend to put their inter-personal relationships at a higher priority. e.g. "tribal relations" outweigh "factual arguments" to the point that: If were they to change their belief, they would be at odds with their "tribe" ... even to risking being expelled from their "tribe" E) "trust" of the message-giver is of great importance. e.g., family members are usually more trusted. They give one example of a daughter being unable to convince her father ... and she finally says: "If you don't believe in xxxxx, you don't trust me." F) The issue also includes the recently publicized ideas that people who are"scientifically informed" tend to be more polarized on climate warming, etc.... ------ There are many different tactics used to convince or deny issues based in science. I see UT's post about Obama using the word "dangerous" in a Tweet, primarily as a tactic. That is, he has found a relatively minor issue in a social medium that, whether true or not, has little to do with the "truth" about global warming, climate change, or AGW. That is, it's a political argument. In this instance, "dangerous" is a subjective word, to be interpreted based on time, place, and circumstances. For example, sea level rise due to AGW is probably not "dangerous" to a family living on a hill, but for poppulations living on a gradually flooding island or the Lousiana "Swamp People", the impact could well be "dangerous".