
Ted Talk Review Why people believe weird things - ctsciencenut
http://www.ctsciencenut.com/2017/03/ted-talk-review-michael-shermer-why.html
======
Pica_soO
The human species is just not build for logic. The process seems to be:

1\. Search for a heuristic

2\. Glue Logic Bits to the found heuristic

3\. Generate a coherent backstory for heuristic

4\. Query parts of the Backstory to check the heuristic.

5\. If Part of the Backstory fall apart, reconstruct

6\. If reconstruction fails, have a crisis.

7\. If crisis continues, start to think it through for the first time or

8\. Solve by discrediting facts (aka believes)

Its very efficient. The only time, its not completely efficient is during
youth, as this is the time, one has to carve out a thiefdom for oneself. Also
a slight trait of intellectual sado machismo helps.

I think to get normal people to think and question believes, education as
proposed is a rather lousy tool, applied often too late. If you are tempted to
question "everything" at 21, that phase of your life is almost over.

Kindergarten age and first years at school, should be ideal- basically
teachers should weave in wrong "days" where they would tell falsehoods, and
reward those discovering and questioning.

------
javajosh
It's more than just measuring outcomes. There's also a very strong belief
among the scientifically minded that there should be a valid causal chain
between one event and another. Astrology, even if it succeeded, would fail
this test because there is no causal chain acceptable to science that explains
why astrology was correct.

Another test that must be met (and which many conspiracy theories fail
miserably at) is the implication test: e.g., if that is true, then what else
could be true? For example, if you believe Bush engineered 9/11, then surely
he could have planted WMD evidence in Iraq (a far simpler conspiracy!) We
never found WMD in Iraq, planted or otherwise, so the idea that Bush did
anything special around 9/11 is just silly.

One conspiracy which I think is particularly potent is the moon landing
deniers. This conspiracy is tough to argue against because ultimately it
really is unlikely that humans ever made it to the moon, and only a very few
people were actually involved, and indirect video evidence is indeed capable
of being faked. The best reason I can think of to argue against this is that
far too many people would have had to be in on it for it to work, but really
that's not very satisfying.

(Next moon landing I hope the mission lays down an enormous silver blanket
that can be seen by amateur astronomers and ordinary people are encouraged to
come out and look through a 'scope for themselves!)

~~~
Gustomaximus
> Next moon landing I hope the mission lays down an enormous silver blanket
> that can be seen by amateur astronomers and ordinary people are encouraged
> to come out and look through a 'scope for themselves!

There are reflectors on the moon people can (or could?) point lasers towards:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon)

~~~
guilhas
I am not very informed on this but what would you say to this? There is people
claiming moon is naturally reflective, and that there were successful
reflection experiments before moon landing.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966 'The Lasers Bright Magic' by
Thomas Meloy Page 876 "Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller
than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240,000 miles
away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were
reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive
electronic equipment."

------
teslacar
this is a low-quality submission of a site that was created just a month ago
and filled with affiliate links.

------
BuckRogers
I have a cousin who participates in this willing cognitive bias (really crazy
ideas like flat Earth theory). Of course he only cherry picks from the
unfounded conspiracy bucket that suits his chosen political view and what he
wants to be true. Nothing rooted in any evidence review or similar approach.

------
swayvil
Go science?

Science has become such a cult.

~~~
JuliusKaiser
I can't tell if this comment is serious or not but I find it odd that people
who know fuck all about science go around bashing people over the head with
it.

~~~
metaphorm
I think it's a serious comment lamenting the rise of "scientism" which is a
dogmatic belief in the supremacy of rationalism and materialism.

it's possible to be very opposed to scientism while also being very supportive
of good science.

~~~
joefourier
What's the alternative to rationalism and materialism? How can good science be
practiced without rational reasoning and physical (i.e. material) evidence?

~~~
metaphorm
you missed something important

> dogmatic belief in the _supremacy_ of rationalism and materialism

good science absolutely must take a rationalist and materialist view. however,
the needs of good science are not necessarily the supreme values which to make
any and all decisions.

~~~
michaelmrose
What else do you base decisions on?

~~~
throwanem
Lots of things! Because I'm not actually a practicing researcher. And the set
of practicing researchers I've known is, perhaps not so oddly, disjoint with
the set of dogmatic scientific positivists I've known. No one has a better
grasp of the vast difference between ideal science and real science than
someone who actually does science for a living.

~~~
michaelmrose
Can you name some of those lots of things?

