That's the real problem.
I start off too many conversations with: "Look, if you want to talk about <position>, fine. However, you have to tell me up front what evidence you will accept that your position is wrong. If you can't do that, then this is a harangue and not a debate or discussion."
It is easy to see the flaw in others' arguments, but the true challenge is to identify your own biases and irrational worldviews.
And sometimes you ARE objectively right. Truth DOES exist.
This false equivalence that social validation is equivalent to being correct is what got us to this point.
And that's the trick to finding your own biases. Which of your beliefs are based on "social validation" rather than any notion of evidence? Which of your beliefs requires you to dismiss actual facts to the contrary?
Because that's the case in 99.99% of topics, at least for me.
Additionally, what if one's education would, if honestly evaluated, conflict with widely held political views ? What if it is perceived that they may lead to policy changes ?
For instance, taking two points that are sure to be controversial here:
Among psychologists there was a long drawn-out fight about whether being shown violence (tv, video games) causes people to be more violent. That fight is over (there are extremely thorough and long duration studies available). The answer is yes, being shown violence, especially as a child, makes you more violent. Participating in violence does the same, but more so (ie. video games, and keep in mind these are decade long studies. We're talking about things like duke nukem (NON-3d version), and other ancient games, including believe it or not tetris. Not that one game was studied in isolation) (It also seems rather unclear how someone could honestly believe at this point that games like DOOM aren't worse). Participating, or being victimized, in real violence (ie. living in a bad neighbourhood) even more. Exposure to criminal acts makes people more criminal. And yes, that includes the victims.
But it's been my experience that the people who harp on this point are the same people who insist that:
- there is no such thing as objective truth
- it is not possible to be unbiased or objective
Do you reciprocate and state ahead of this what evidence will make you accept that your position is wrong?
I found the article went to great lengths to explain why someone might not want to correct their world view. It then proceeded to give some examples of how you might work around that (avoid tribalism, change your own attitude, demonstrate that you're invested in/impacted by the question at hand). Empathy for the other person seems to be the general approach.
I found How to Win Friends and Influence People to be a good read for more examples. https://www.amazon.ca/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/06...
For example, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag4HN_jeYV4
Purple is obviously the villain here, right? Grab your pitchforks!
Now read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/69xqxh/reviewer_ask...
Now it seems clear that the video creator was hiding something and that Purple is justified in their actions. Lynch the youtuber!
Now read the youtuber's response to that and be prepared to grab your pitchforks again...
I'm of the opinion that weak beliefs should be weakly held and strong beliefs should be strongly held. Something that you haven't studied yourself should be a weak belief, weakly held. Something that's only been on the news for a few days with very few actual facts should be a weak belief, weakly held (i.e. Ahmed Mohammed, Michael Brown, etc). Something you've studied or experienced over an extensive period should be a strong belief, strongly held since you are an expert.
Example, diet fads, or what new thing causes or prevents cancer (red wine/chocolate/low carb/high carb). Some people really strongly hold these beliefs, and they do get moved around when new beliefs come out. To their detriment, usually (especially with diet fads).
I'd rather have someone have a strongly questioned strong belief, a weakly held weak belief, and the ability to know that just because you believe something doesn't make it exist.
Now some things like gravity are very strong beliefs. But, you should be open to the possibility that something else is going on even with gravity. That does not mean you should stop believing in gravity based on a slick YouTube video, but rather accept that with solid evedince something else might be going on.
For example, one strongly held strong belief that I have is that the speed of light is the maximum speed of matter. So when CERN publishes a report that they discovered superluminal particles, I don't instantly switch beliefs - that would be weakly held. Instead I stand my ground and wait to see if it's reproducible, etc.
Further many people disagreed with QM even with a lot of evedence backing it because it was so different from what they where used to. They essentially had not threshold to update their beliefs.
Yes I would have updated my beliefs, but my new beliefs would be both weak and weakly held. If in 20 years the consensus was still solid they would become both strong and strongly held.
> Because that's not even close to enough evidence for say global worming opponents.
For them the evidence they need to see is perceptibly rising temperatures or sea levels. A lot of people view climate change as highly politicized/hyped science (which it is) and are therefore skeptical if not of climate science of the apocalyptic predictions (which are not universally agreed upon by climate scientists). They will change their minds if they see that it hasn't snowed in 10 years or if their beach front properties are getting swallowed by the ocean.
Changes that are obvious and massive to the CEO of a company which owns ski resorts around the world may seem meaningless to people living at those same locations. I like most people don't recall the date of each snowfall over the last 50 years, because it has little real impact on me, but keeping accurate track of those same storms can be of vital importance for some people who see these trends as both obvious and critical.
Them talk about effects of CO2. Does it help plants grow or hurt athletic performance.
People get really wound up in these ideas, but the existence or non existence of the moon landing has no real impact on me. It's like sure people are dumb, at what point did you assume people where intelegent and rational because that's clearly not the case.
What issues are there with that paper?
But I would say that it's worth noting there is criticism of the original paper http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048....
But as I said you've changed my mind, the 97% figure seems to be accurate.
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
So... why believe in facts at all? The answer to this will generally include some intellectual elitism, driving away the group I describe in the first paragraph even further. People might use words such as correct and right, but those words already impose a value judgement to begin with, only further begging the question.
I've seen many, many people make dumb decision after dumb decision despite having all the facts because of emotions.
I'm not really sure what you're asking here, especially since you put believe in quotes.
Facts are - by definition - things that are true, indisputable, regardless of whether you believe them or not. As such, a refusal to believe facts makes one wrong - at least about that particular thing.
If a person insists on being wrong about a particular thing, in the face of facts proving such wrongness, it is probable that that person is:
- wrong about other things
- unable or unwilling to reason correctly (at least in certain circumstances)
Even in your example you said that it is probable that the person is wrong about other things or unable or unwilling to reason correctly if they insist on being wrong about a particular thing. However, facts are only defined by the present state of knowledge one possesses. In other words, facts can change to conjecture with the introduction of new evidence. How do you know someone who refuses to believe what you think is a fact is not just more enlightened than you?
What you are alluding to here are not facts, they are hypotheses, guesses, theories, conjecture...
I wrote this comment. That is a fact. It will never change, regardless of any evidence you may speculate. It will be a fact until the heat death of the universe.
Anybody who refuses to believe this fact is not more enlightened than me, they are someone who does not understand what a fact is.
To extend Moynihan - everybody is entitled to their own opinions, hypotheses, guesses, theories, conjecture, etc. But they are not entitled to their own facts.
Facts should be believed because they are - by by definition and in practice - necessary to avoiding failure. Those things that cause failure are factual components of reality. If you don't believe in them, how can you hope to avoid them? Those things that lead to success are factual components of reality. If you don't believe in them, how can you hope to understand them? Etc., ad infinitum for all things.
In order to even evaluate your argument (aside from just addressing it's logical flaws which are independent of facts), then, I must first bother to believe something about facts (maybe what you claim, maybe the opposite.)
Belief and spreading are two different things.
worth discussing? What's next, the right-wing field sharing articles of IQ across racial groups?
So I didn't see that image as bigoted.
You're really inferring a lot from this image that isn't there. It is clear there isn't an intent for this image to be "Dems are smarter than Repubs", but it's very telling that that is all you get from it.