> I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"
I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.
> This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.
Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.
> By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it
Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.
Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.
I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.
> This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.
Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.
> By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it
Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.
Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.