Anti- science, science deniers and 'alt' science, do they have a growing following

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Is the belief that the Earth is flat essentially comparable with the idea that some bunch of billionaires have your best interests at heart and you should vote for them?

Both seem to rely on anti-intellectual conspiracy to a certain extent.  Science is covering up the Truth about our planet! The bad billionaires want to exploit Joe Sixpack and take over! It's about irrational fears that make folks ignore the facts and buy into these narratives over and over again. 

[Danijel Gorupec]

Hmm, there are also irrational hopes. I was always worried how could science compete with those guys that promise eternal life.

Another thing is spite (or whatever you would call this: "Fu** you and your fu**ing math! Yes, I don't understand it, so what?! I'm not a lesser person! So, fu** you and your damn physics!"? )

[MigL]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Apparently, now I'm taking incoming fire even within threads where I'm not participating. Good times...

No, you're not taking fire, INow.
The people who arrived at their opinion without reasoning are the D Trump supporters. Not you !

The point I was ( unsuccessfully ) trying to make is that, for those people, "contrary evidence only tends to harden their resolve".

Sorry for the misunderstanding; you know I love you   .

 

 

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

People need to learn to use their brains to make decisions first, then get passionate about THAT.

I seem to have suggested the same sentiment in the Greta Thunberg thread, but it was pointed out to me that the time for reasoned discussion is over, and we need to appeal to peoples emotions to convince them of the seriousness of AGW.

Edited December 13, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I seem to have suggested the same sentiment in the Greta Thunberg thread, but it was pointed out to me that the time for reasoned discussion is over, and we need to appeal to peoples emotions to convince them of the seriousness of AGW.

Maybe given the seriousness of that topic there’s room for both approaches

[Ken Fabian]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Unfortunately, our media is about entertainment, not information.

And it is funded by promoting goods and services - and less directly, opinions and attitudes that will, due to the overlap of self interests, tend to support those of their principle customers. The customers that really matter are the advertisers and the requirement to be entertaining is for bringing viewers to the ads.

In some of the the OP's list of fake science/anti-science there is no direct interest in the content but the viewer drawing entertainment but other issues like climate change can involve quite strong interests in what the viewers think and media companies tend to be amoral about the opinions they promote - including in how they present moral and ethical issues.

Captains of commerce and industry do not want climate responsibility or accountability impacting their businesses and have a political interest in promoting opinions to support that desire. Businesses and political parties that are closely aligned to business interests and see themselves as advocates for those interests will find the self interest of media companies to overcome any lingering notions of morality and ethics in accommodating their desire to influence public opinion against climate concern and climate action advocacy.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ken Fabian
clarity

[nevim]

 

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

More seriously, it's an interesting topic, and it feeds into other areas (which I accept are probably  off-topic)

Is the belief that the Earth is flat essentially comparable with the idea that some bunch of billionaires have your best interests at heart and you should vote for them?

One difference is that it doesn't matter to me if you think the Earth's flat (unless you are my pilot) but your vote makes a difference to my life.

It would, for a number of reasons be very useful to understand  this issue.

I suspect that the Conservative party did- and that's how the lying guy who hid in the fridge from reporters is now PM.

😪

Edited December 14, 2019 by nevim

[YJ02]

6 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Another thing is spite (or whatever you would call this: "Fu** you and your fu**ing math! Yes, I don't understand it, so what?! I'm not a lesser person! So, fu** you and your damn physics!"? )

and for those,finding some shiny and slickly produced Yt video that "explains it all", is all they seemingly want to know

 

and it would be easy to just write off those people who choose this but what is the critical mass of people we can allow to believe what they want and ignore known science?

How many people can we allow to get into the workforce, or become otherwise educated ( - science of course) and then become the next generation of parents, economy shapers, public policy makers, authority figures and all manner else of what it takes to keep our economy and society running?

Or, to use an example from film, how long can we just ignore these people before we began to finalize our transformation into one that was shown in the film IDIOCRACY?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA

 

 

[iNow]

Was reminded of this thread when I saw the tweet below

 

 

[MigL]

I can't imagine the studies quoted by the two sources ( in the tweet ) were very scientific.

Of the people who are not shown the facts, exactly none change their minds ( why would they have to ? ).
Of the people who are shown the facts, at least a few ( those without mental blinders ) have to change their minds.

But I like the humor in the tweet anyway.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I can't imagine the studies quoted by the two sources ( in the tweet ) were very scientific.

I don’t know which studies were cited, but they do exist.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Of the people who are not shown the facts, exactly none change their minds ( why would they have to ? ).
Of the people who are shown the facts, at least a few ( those without mental blinders ) have to change their minds.

So? That doesn’t contradict the statement. As long as some aren’t swayed by the facts, it’s true.

[Cynic]

On 12/13/2019 at 9:59 AM, iNow said:

Apparently, now I'm taking incoming fire even within threads where I'm not participating. Good times...

 

I usually say it this way, and I think I got it from Hitchens or Harris in one of their various debates about religion years ago: It's hard using logic and reason to change the mind of a person who arrived at their position using neither.

Might this be the quote by Hitchens that you mention? It is similar. I had copied this and use it as a sig line on another forum I frequent.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12042-that-which-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-be-dismissed

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Cynic said:

Might this be the quote by Hitchens that you mention? It is similar. I had copied this and use it as a sig line on another forum I frequent.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12042-that-which-can-be-asserted-without-evidence-can-be-dismissed

I think iNow's quote is originally something Jonathan Swift might have said: "You can't reason someone out of a position he or she was not reasoned into."

[CharonY]

Just some additional info I cam across. There is a poll on science attitudes paid for by 3M conducted by ipsos. When asked whether they agree with the statement that they trust scientists 80% somewhat agree or completely agree. Trust in science 86% somewhat/completely agree. Skeptical of science 35% somewhat/completely agree.

The same poll was only conducted once before and globally we see similar responses but a slight increase in skepticism.

2018 values

Trust in scientists: 81%

Trust in science: 86%

Skeptical of science: 32%

Here are the changes for some countries from 2018 to 2019:

Trust in scientists: US 82/84; UK 82/82; Germany 76/80 ; Canada 80/84

Skeptical of science: US 27/33; UK 28/36; Germany 28/27; 25/32

So while trust in scientists as a whole remained high, skepticism increased in most of these countries.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Cynic said:

Might this be the quote by Hitchens that you mention?

Nope. I like that one too and am familiar with it, but it’s a different one. 

[Butch]

No "facts" are absolutely complete, "Everything is relative".

[Phi for All]

I think the entertainment format adopted by most information outlets these days, along with using single words to describe thorny issues so everyone assumes their own definitions, has made science seem difficult, overly nitpicky, and uninteresting by comparison. It's disgusting how sensational science writers have to be to remain popular, and I think many of these deniers are trying to "spice up" things that aren't intuitive to them, which seems to be a prerequisite for them ("If it doesn't make immediate sense to me, there's something wrong with it"). 

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Butch said:

No "facts" are absolutely complete, "Everything is relative".

To the extent that this can be applied rigorously (which is to say: not very much) I disagree. Some facts are just complete, and not everything is relative. Some things are invariant. Which is a fact, and (partly because of the qualitative nature of the statement) is absolutely complete.

[Butch]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

To the extent that this can be applied rigorously (which is to say: not very much) I disagree. Some facts are just complete, and not everything is relative. Some things are invariant. Which is a fact, and (partly because of the qualitative nature of the statement) is absolutely complete.

There are no facts, only logical belief... our beliefs are imperfect, some it would seem more imperfect than others.

On 12/13/2019 at 3:40 PM, MigL said:

The people who arrived at their opinion without reasoning are the D Trump supporters. Not you !

Well, it seems the alternative is to be a Pelosi supporter...

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

There are no facts, only logical belief... our beliefs are imperfect, some it would seem more imperfect than others.

The value of the elementary charge is not 1.602176634×10−19 C? (a defined SI unit)

 

[Leon1961]

On 12/13/2019 at 3:58 AM, YJ02 said:

If you want to post a brief description/method for how you would explain to these people why they are wrong, then please do.

Trying to explain to these people why they are wrong is futile.

These anti-science people all seem to know that they are intelligent enough to be able to understand anything. Because of that they automatically assume that if something does not make sense to them that it must be wrong.

Trying convince them otherwise comes across to them as a personal insult to their intelligence and will only make things worse.

Not to mention that I have no doubt that there are also a lot of them that are only trolling.

The good thing about the internet is that everybody has access to it.

The bad thing about the internet is that everybody has access to it.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Leon1961 said:

Trying to explain to these people why they are wrong is futile.

No, it’s not, but attitudes like this ARE defeatist 

2 minutes ago, Leon1961 said:

Trying convince them otherwise comes across to them as a personal insult to their intelligence and will only make things worse.

Which is why it matters how one does it. Process and approach matter

3 minutes ago, Leon1961 said:

Not to mention that I have no doubt that there are also a lot of them that are only trolling.

Clearly some are trolling, but you’d need to quantify what you mean by “a lot” before anyone can agree or disagree with this statement. 

How would you convince someone you love to change their mind? Clearly if you love them, you’d not give up and say it’s futile. So maybe start there. 

[Leon1961]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, it’s not, but attitudes like this ARE defeatist 

Which is why it matters how one does it. Process and approach matter

Interesting, since when did it become my problem that these people do not understand? It is their problem and their defeat. Not mine.

[iNow]

Just now, Leon1961 said:

Interesting, since when did it become my problem that these people do not understand? It is their problem and their defeat. Not mine.

Ok. You seem like you’ve got it all figured out. It’s no wonder you hate others so much. I suspect the feelings are mutual 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

There are no facts, only logical belief...

Wow, can you imagine if that were true?! All that meticulous methodology, all that gathered knowledge, for all those centuries, down the drain! Everything we trust reduced to individual "logical beliefs"! A true hell indeed, since nothing could be relied upon.

Oh, you must be joking. You scoundrel, you had me going there for a minute.

[Leon1961]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ok. You seem like you’ve got it all figured out. It’s no wonder you hate others so much. I suspect the feelings are mutual 

Seriously, I come across as hating to you? I can assure you, I have no emotion of any kind towards anti-science people. I just let them be and hope they come to their senses for their sake. I do not care either way.