Fweethawt Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I dunno. This article seems to be less about wilful ignorance (choosing not to know and understand) and more about wilful denial (choosing to reject one explanation in favor of another). Take Rayskidude for instance. http://www.ex-christian.net/4907-rayskidude/#.VdnDE7CYDcs (This link seems to be faulty! Please click on the 'Member' option at the top of the main Ex-C page, select the letter 'R' and go to page # 3. His profile page is there.) An MS in Biochemistry and a US gov't nuclear inspector. He was a consultant in Iraqi Kurdistan, testing soil and water samples for traces of radiation from Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. In other words, a highly intelligent, learned and scientifically-trained man. Not an ignoramus. Not a person wilfully choosing not to understand the issues or how science works. Yet also, an unshakeable and uncompromising Young Earth Creationist. (He even evangelized to the Kurdish Muslims assigned to work with him when he was stationed out there, maintaining that the book of Genesis [6-day creation, Adam and Eve, the talking snake, the forbidden fruit, Noah's Flood, etc.] was literally true and an accurate record of real historical events.) He didn't opt to be ignorant, he opted to deny that which threatened his faith. . . . Imho, we've entered an Age of Wilful Ignorance and Wilful Denial. Thanks, BAA. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 A technical difference... sadly as I see it this difference doesn't matter much regarding the results. But yeah... need to correctly identify the problem if we want to have any real chance of resolving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I had more fun reading the many comments than the article. One of my favorites posted by FarOutlier: "Sure genius. I'm confused. Climatologists understand climate change but they cannot model it or use their knowledge to make an accurate prediction. got it. Makes sense to you keep the faith. You are another one of those idiots that actually thing "journalists" made it all up. The first Earth day was a push for global cooling. Quotes from 1970 scientists are easily found in which they predict global cooling. Scientist thought the worlds was cooling. wow, a whole 40 years ago. omg omg omg. The physics of climatology changed? Oh, wait a minute. We are just sooooo much smarter now. Got it. That was ancient science. Alchemy and voodoo.You are the one with faith and no science. You believe down to your core in the god of climate change. Facts mean nothing and you are willing, no eager, to allow facts to be changed all the while ignoring the reality that your side cannot produce an accurate model of climate. In other words you have no idea how it all works." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz The global cooling hype back then was exactly that - a hype. Some very very few people made that claim, the media (sensing a profitable story) jumped at it, and that's the entire story. The majority of climatologists never expected any significant global cooling. But hey, good job proving you're lightyears away from facts... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 The global cooling hype back then was exactly that - a hype. Some very very few people made that claim, the media (sensing a profitable story) jumped at it, and that's the entire story. Very few people? It made the cover of Time Magazine and other publications. The majority of climatologists never expected any significant global cooling. I don't know about a majority, but some were getting their message to the press.But hey, good job proving you're lightyears away from facts... What facts am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 If only they had read the Bible instead they could have known God's unchanging truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 The press has been publishing bullshit every now and then for a long time already dude. It's become an epidemic since they found that fact-checking costs time and thus money, but it's been happening back then too. The most absurd shit can survive that way. How often do we encounter the claim even today that spinach is good for kids because it has a fuckton of iron, despite the claim having been debunked about 3 eons ago already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 "The press has been publishing bullshit every now and then for a long time already dude. It's become an epidemic since they found that fact-checking costs time and thus money, but it's been happening back then too. The most absurd shit can survive that way." ~ Thurisaz I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 "The press has been publishing bullshit every now and then for a long time already dude. It's become an epidemic since they found that fact-checking costs time and thus money, but it's been happening back then too. The most absurd shit can survive that way." ~ Thurisaz I agree. You agree to fact-checking, IH? That's odd. Because your usual response to facts that clash with your beliefs is, "I don't agree." Still agree with fact-checking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 "The press has been publishing bullshit every now and then for a long time already dude. It's become an epidemic since they found that fact-checking costs time and thus money, but it's been happening back then too. The most absurd shit can survive that way." ~ Thurisaz I agree. You agree to fact-checking, IH? That's odd. Because your usual response to facts that clash with your beliefs is, "I don't agree." Still agree with fact-checking? Does posting a quote from Bono count as fact-checking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Does posting a quote from Bono count as fact-checking? Only when the quote agrees with da Holy Bibles. That is what fact means. A fact is something that agrees with da Holy Bibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I think its important to understand that it isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. People hold on to beliefs and ideas because they get emotionally attached to them. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, as BAA point out in his reference to Rayskidude, people hold on to their beliefs because those beliefs bring them something that the truth of reality cannot: comfort and belonging, especially in the context of religion. This blog post gives a good statement about this: "The answer lies in neuropsychology's growing recognition of just how irrational our rational thinking can be, according to an article in Mother Jones by Chris Mooney. We now know that our intellectual value judgments—that is, the degree to which we believe or disbelieve an idea—are powerfully influenced by our brains' proclivity for attachment. Our brains are attachment machines, attaching not just to people and places, but to ideas. And not just in a coldly rational manner. Our brains become intimately emotionally entangled with ideas we come to believe are true (however we came to that conclusion) and emotionally allergic to ideas we believe to be false. This emotional dimension to our rational judgment explains a gamut of measurable biases that show just how unlike computers our minds are: Confirmation bias, which causes us to pay more attention and assign greater credence to ideas that support our current beliefs. That is, we cherry pick the evidence that supports a contention we already believe and ignore evidence that argues against it. Disconfirmation bias, which causes us to expend disproportionate energy trying to disprove ideas that contradict our current beliefs. Accuracy of belief isn't our only cognitive goal. Our other goal is to validate our pre-existing beliefs, beliefs that we've been building block by block into a cohesive whole our entire lives. In the fight to accomplish the latter, confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias represent two of the most powerful weapons at our disposal, but simultaneously compromise our ability to judge ideas on their merits and the evidence for or against them." Our emotional attachment to our beliefs and the immense amount of defenses our brains have created to protect its worldview are significant reasons why our brains reject reality. There is definitely truth to the statement "Change happens when the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of changing." If there is no pain in the sameness of your belief, then change will not likely happen. This website is full of people that experienced the pain and discomfort of the truth and came to the final realization that staying the same was more painful than changing their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts