Friday Roundup

  • Are you an “anti-theist” type of atheist?
  • Hardly settled science
  • Again, why a simple appeal to the “facts” or “science” is to entirely miss the point and to ignore one’s own meta-narrative lens (one’s own, not just the “other’s”) and its role in why we “see” and “interpret” things (facts, science, existence) the way we do.  There is a huge difference, by the way, between information and knowledge or wisdom.

“None of which bodes well for the idea that policy or other debates can be solved by simply giving people accurate information. As research by Yale University law and psychology professor Dan Kahan has suggested, polarization does not happen with debates like climate change because one side is thinking more analytically, while the other wallows in unreasoned ignorance or heuristic biases. Rather, those subjects who tested highest on measures like “cognitive reflection” and scientific literacy were also most likely to display what he calls “ideologically motivated cognition.” They were paying the most attention, seeing the duck they knew was there.”

  • On evil
  • What we learn from history is that, we rarely learn from history…
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Friday Roundup

  1. Hi Darrell

    Climate Change strikes me as a particularly unhelpful example here. Many times, debates do indeed occur purely because the participants can't see past their own preconceptions. But other times, there really is a careful collaborative attempt to understand cause and effect. I don't think it's going too far to say, that in the case of Climate Change, the more familiar with the data the participant is, the more likely they are to fall on one side of the debate. I suspect a poll of climate scientists would back this up.

    Bernard

    Like

  2. Darrell says:

    So you think the research that concluded:

    “Rather, those subjects who tested highest on measures like “cognitive reflection” and scientific literacy were also most likely to display what he calls “ideologically motivated cognition.” They were paying the most attention, seeing the duck they knew was there.”

    -was incorrect or flawed? Should be interpreted differently? Or you just disagree? Is the research being confirmed, right now, perhaps? See the point?

    Like

  3. Hi Darrell

    No, I agree that there's an awful amount of wishful thinking involved in the formation of our points of view, and that information and education are not, of themselves, sufficient inoculation. I'm just suggesting that Climate Change is a very poor example of this affect, as it is an issue where information plays an important role in influencing opinion.

    Specifically, the great majority of climate scientists can be found on one side of the issue.

    Bernard

    Like

Comments are closed.