The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science

[LongLiveLife]

This article popped up on one of my news feeds, coincidentally as I was musing about the futility of some arguments and debates -- namely evolution and creationism.

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science | Mother Jones

In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

An issue the article excluded is ESP and the entire field of parapsychology. There have been experiments which suggest its existence (mostly micro-telekinesis things, like influencing the events of a random number generator), but the mainstream scientific community refutes the idea, simply and purely because it contradicts with current beliefs. This New Scientist article examining the evidence for ESP in more detail was accessible for free a few weeks ago; not anymore.

Thoughts? Are we hardwired to reject ideas that fundamentally change our belief system? If yes, why do we do it? What are the implications of this given that have so much left to learn about our universe and that our existing knowledge base is in constant flux?

 

[Nyangoro]

Are we hardwired to reject ideas that fundamentally change our belief system? If yes, why do we do it?

Though I know that the term "hardwired" can be pretty touchy; yes, rejecting ideas that fundamentally change a person's belief system is common. Why? Because humans desire stability. More than that, most people's decision-making process (especially with regards to larger and more vague issues like morals, politics, etc.) revolves around said belief system which provides the base, or foundation. If that foundation suddenly changes, then a person can be left with the thought that every decision they've made up until this point has been wrong, and the various consequences that did or might have arose from those wrong decisions. It can be very psychologically taxing.

That's the main reason why people try to rationalize through interpretation of "evidence" in order to fit it into their belief system, thereby safeguarding their sanity and stability. Naturally, all of this fluctuates from myriad of discoveries that constantly change the shape of what we know and which may or may not contrast with what we previously knew. Which is why I love the following line from Men in Black:

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

 

[Pirates]

I think this is true in its main points.
I know I have questioned sources for others and gave next to no time on researching my own.

But, I am trying to change that because I learnt that it is far worse to let the opponent prove my sources are bull than if I do a little research before I say it.

I also think that debate pretty much means bias is involved. If there were no bias, you wouldnt be trying to prove your view as truth. If there were no views, it wouldnt be a debate.

Unless we become robots in thinking, we wont get above this problem.

 

[Wehrmacht]

If you give it enough time, scientific consensus can and will change. Big changes in consensus require big evidence to back them up. It's as simple as that.

The fact that consensus can change at all is a good thing. It changes because it's been *corrected*.

 

[Solar]

I hold the belief that people want to believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see.

For the most part, until they become less narrow-minded/ more self-aware

 

[The Conquerer]

As much as I'd hate to admit it, maybe something drastic within the next several decades has to occur in order for people to believe what's really going on here. IDK, maybe we need to lose fish within the next 50 years for fishing industries to be like "oh crap, let's harvest squid now." There's nothing wrong with hunting at all, but in general, we over-harvest, sometimes 10x over what we should. There's no room for shelving responsibility over to elsewhere when we, humans, are the ones who are going to deal with what's going on or not and just live in disarray.

 

[LongLiveLife]

While this is deviating slightly from the topic, I actually cannot envisage the logic behind disbelieving climate change and global warming. How do you even make a counterargument to it? It's not like global warming is shifting a paradigm; there are no existing beliefs to which to cling. Burning fossil fuel makes carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Increased greenhouse gases leads to a greater greenhouse effect. A greater greenhouse effect increases the average surface temperature. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Nyangoro]

While this is deviating slightly from the topic, I actually cannot envisage the logic behind disbelieving climate change and global warming. How do you even make a counterargument to it? It's not like global warming is shifting a paradigm; there are no existing beliefs to which to cling. Burning fossil fuel makes carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Increased greenhouse gases leads to a greater greenhouse effect. A greater greenhouse effect increases the average surface temperature. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Well, I know multiple people who "disbelieve global warming"; and from what I gather, it's not so much that they deny the temperature change, it's that they deny the severity of it (especially when talking to people who have an almost apocalyptic view of it).

 

[Pirates]

While this is deviating slightly from the topic, I actually cannot envisage the logic behind disbelieving climate change and global warming. How do you even make a counterargument to it? It's not like global warming is shifting a paradigm; there are no existing beliefs to which to cling. Burning fossil fuel makes carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Increased greenhouse gases leads to a greater greenhouse effect. A greater greenhouse effect increases the average surface temperature. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Global warming may well be inhanced by humans, but it certainly isnt only because of them.
The earth goes through cycles of temp change, like previous ice ages. There isnt 1 permanent global temp, it changes.

I dont think the leading opponents to global warming due to humans ever deny that humans might play a part in this. The argument is usually about how much we influence.

Also, breathing produces CO2.

[video=youtube;FfHW7KR33IQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ[/video]

[video=youtube;o38ywQ2ukcw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o38ywQ2ukcw[/video]

You dont have to believe these. Im sure you wont if you dont want to.
But, this just shows how there are intelligent arguments against globabl warming.

 

[LongLiveLife]

Well, I know multiple people who "disbelieve global warming"; and from what I gather, it's not so much that they deny that that the Earth that they deny the temperature change, it's that they deny the severity of it (especially when talking to people who have an almost apocalyptic view of it).

Ah, this makes infinitely more sense. Thank you for that.

Also, breathing produces CO2.

Nowhere near the magnitude of fossil fuel combustion, but I take your point that there are other factors involved as well. Still, in this respect, I've always held the precautionary principle, because by the time we get solid proof that global warming is catastrophic, and that we were its primary cause, it will be too late to negate the damage. What does it do to you to turn off the lights when you're not in the room? To save yourself a few dollars by turning off your monitor when it's not in use? To cut your needless water use?

 

[Solar]

Everyone in this thread who is seriously interested in the topic needs to read Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer

 

[Pirates]

Nowhere near the magnitude of fossil fuel combustion, but I take your point that there are other factors involved as well.

On the same time scale, of course not. But, humans and other animals have been breathing for years I do believe and this would probably be much more than fossil fuels combustion.
I remember that in New Zealand, they were trying to tax farmers because of the methane their cows were excreting, which was a problem to the atmosphere.

Still, in this respect, I've always held the precautionary principle, because by the time we get solid proof that global warming is catastrophic, and that we were its primary cause, it will be too late to negate the damage. What does it do to you to turn off the lights when you're not in the room? To save yourself a few dollars by turning off your monitor when it's not in use? To cut your needless water use?

Thats probably how they get you. They say "whats the harm?", then you begin to live like that to the point where you pretty much believe it as truth.

The world is trying to be more effecient now and we are saying that it is because of global warming, yet we havnt concluding anything yet. The argument is still going. They will start bringing in new laws and start forcing us to change when they dont even know if it is worth it.

 

[LongLiveLife]

On the same time scale, of course not. But, humans and other animals have been breathing for years I do believe and this would probably be much more than fossil fuels combustion.

Time is of the essence. So what if we've collectively respired more tonnes of CO2 in the past x million years than fossil fuels are unloading today? Photosynthesis always kept the balance in check. When you suddenly tip the system off its balance, the world's plant life aren't going to and already are incapable of buffering the fourfold increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

It's the rate, not the history, that matters.

I remember that in New Zealand, they were trying to tax farmers because of the methane their cows were excreting, which was a problem to the atmosphere.

Good. Methane is much more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Thats probably how they get you. They say "whats the harm?", then you begin to live like that to the point where you pretty much believe it as truth.

And what is the problem with that?

The world is trying to be more effecient now and we are saying that it is because of global warming, yet we havnt concluding anything yet. The argument is still going. They will start bringing in new laws and start forcing us to change when they dont even know if it is worth it.

By the time you know it is worth it, it will be too late to change. What are you going to do then? No one is asking you to regress to the caves and shun all modern advancements as harbingers of the apocalypse, but is moderation really too much to ask?

 

[Pirates]

It's the rate, not the history, that matters.

Yeah but people overlook the history. People think we are all actively killing our planet. We are not. It is something that has been happening since life began.

Good. Methane is much more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But then no one would have cows. New Zealand is a farming country. If they cant afford to have animals because they fart, then they are pretty stupid.

And what is the problem with that?

People shouldnt be encouraged to do something because there is no harm in doing it.
maybe there is no harm in doing it. That means there might also be no harm in not doing it. Why dont we just do whatever we want, seeing as we dont know anyway?
People are getting this lifestyle in their heads because they are told it might be the right thing to do. When the time comes for law changes, limiting our rights and putting taxes on things, people will be less likely to oppose it because they are already living as though it is the truth.

They have this idea in their heads that this is for the good of the planet, when it might not do a damn thing for it.

By the time you know it is worth it, it will be too late to change. What are you going to do then? No one is asking you to regress to the caves and shun all modern advancements as harbingers of the apocalypse, but is moderation really too much to ask?

The reason I dont think like that is the same reason I am not christian
By the time we would know for sure if god exists or not (death), it will be too late to change.
Is it really too much to ask that you live a christian life?

Yes, it might just be too much to ask.

 

[LongLiveLife]

It is something that has been happening since life began.

Rising carbon dioxide concentrations? Not in the slightest. Research a little into the data.

They have this idea in their heads that this is for the good of the planet, when it might not do a damn thing for it.

We know that doing the opposite does no favors for the planet.

The reason I dont think like that is the same reason I am not christian

Whether or not you are Christian does not damn the world; it only damns you. Whether or not you take effective countermeasures to prevent a global catastrophe doesn't only affect you; it affects everyone.



This is a perfect example of the original topic of the thread. You and I will bend and peruse any which evidence we have at our disposal to form our arguments. Following on from this, why then should humans debate at all? When neither side is going to back down or consider the other's arguments, what use is a discussion?

 

[Professor Ven]

I think you should all learn the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Wizards' Rule(s).

It basically maps out everything in a way fantasy-twerkers like me can understand.

However I'm more inclined to believe the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. The over-hyped "global warming" is just a small part of the bigger puzzle.

 

[The Conquerer]

Humans still need to cut their C02 emissions that much is fact. We can't just simply downplay the affects the Industrial Revolution had(s) on the Carbon Cycle.

 

[Pirates]

This is a perfect example of the original topic of the thread. You and I will bend and peruse any which evidence we have at our disposal to form our arguments. Following on from this, why then should humans debate at all? When neither side is going to back down or consider the other's arguments, what use is a discussion?

whoa...
Totally forgot about that.
Yes. You are right and you automatically gain total respect.

I had written out my counter to all that stuff then I got to this and it was like that "Holy shit bruce willis is actually a ghost!!!!" moment.

Well done.