NationStates Jolt Archive

In one of the topics on global warming Kyronea had this to say to someone who referenced several sets of data to oppose the idea of significant human influence on the greenhouse effect:

And tell me, who gathered the information that allowed you to make those statements? Who were the ones who studied climate enough to explain the idea of cycles and what have you?

Climatologists.

So why doubt how they interpret their data now? Why accept only so much of what they say and dismiss the rest?

The attitude Kyronea attacks here is one we see often. Many people are for instance all too happy to believe doctors, biologists and physicists on many varieties of issues - but when it comes to evolution they suddenly dismiss the knowledge offered. In a broader sense the picking and choosing also takes place elsewhere: just look at how conveniently some people forget abominations from their holy book that do not suit them while enthousiastically embracing those they can condemn others with.

What can we do against this ? Or should we not do anything against it and is it in fact a desireable human trait ?

Eh. The 'appeal to authority' is one of the more common debate tools here and everywhere else.

True - but that is a sidestep. What we actually obeserve is that people embrace the words of authorities - until the authority says something they do not like. Then suddenly the words are completely dismissed, without dismissing anything else - even if the "offensive" and "nonoffensive" statements share the exact same basis.

Eh. The 'appeal to authority' is one of the more common debate tools here and everywhere else. The solution is to go and actually dig through the information yourself, but few of us are going to do that. As for global warming, I have no idea who's right - Kyronea's a bit of an oddball as I recall, but that's not to say that he or anyone else is deliberately misinterpreting the data..

I really hate this attitude, it's so arrogant. You are saying that you, as someone most likely not well versed in the details of something, know more about a field of study than someone who has dedicated many years of their life researching it.

It's very much like religion, isn't it?
You take the religion you want to believe in, and you believe in the bits you agree with and dismiss the rest as "having to be taken in historical context", "depending on interpretation" or simply disregard it.

Humans are funny that way.

I really hate this attitude, it's so arrogant. You are saying that you, as someone most likely not well versed in the details of something, know more about a field of study than someone who has dedicated many years of their life researching it.

The same for me. They trust scientists with their health, with making our modern convenient lifestyle possible, and keeping it running, but not with evolution and climatology? It's hypocritical bullshit. Some dumbass fapping forumite isn't going to know more about global warming than a climatologist. Just isn't gonna happen. Reading a few internet articles and choosing to point out doctored studies sponsored by oil companies does not equate to a lifetime of study in the field.

And likewise for biology, regarding evolution. Being able to selectively pick out a few bullshit points that have been long-refuted in an attempt to argue with evolution, and using a book as evidence, that has been repeatedly and sometimes intentionally mistranslated and mis-transcribed, the only support of the veracity of which is the fact that the book says it's the word of god and that must be true because it says so (circular logic, anyone?) is in no way comparable to a biologist spending years of study and collecting evidence, let alone the fact that evidence for evolution has been found hundreds and hundreds of times.

People are ridiculous.

I should just create an anti-religious thread on Sunday, wait out the day, and then go "You worked on the Sabbath. You're going to hell, fool". About a month later, do one on Saturday, to catch out the Jehovah's Wintesses.

I think it's sometimes a good thing to ignore even experts on a range of issues because sometimes they can be wrong. And it reduces the amount of control your government has if you say don't belive you.
But if you want to have an intelligent conversation then it's probably better to listen to the experts.
Hmmm i don't know to be honest.:confused:

In one of the topics on global warming Kyronea had this to say to someone who referenced several sets of data to oppose the idea of significant human influence on the greenhouse effect:



The attitude Kyronea attacks here is one we see often. Many people are for instance all too happy to believe doctors, biologists and physicists on many varieties of issues - but when it comes to evolution they suddenly dismiss the knowledge offered. In a broader sense the picking and choosing also takes place elsewhere: just look at how conveniently some people forget abominations from their holy book that do not suit them while enthousiastically embracing those they can condemn others with.

What can we do against this ? Or should we not do anything against it and is it in fact a desireable human trait ?

I feel it is all a result of the emerging middle class in the past few centuries. Suddely, there's this feeling that what authority is telling you is not necessarily right. This was a very good thing in regards to the church and dictatorships, but it has carried on to other areas. This comes into effect both in denial of evolution and global warming (as if it is a 'belief - I hear people who tell me "I don't believe in evolution") as well as committing crimes, such as drug consumption and so on.

When someone says they don't believe in evolution, you could in turn ask them: "Do you believe in the version of string theory that includes 10, 11, or 26 dimensions?" This is the exact same. Someone who is not versed in a scientific area, has no say in this. It's not a matter of belief or non-belief.

People may argue that in science, independent research by individual scientists aiming for theories that are different than the ones accepted by the scientific community, is what they can choose to accept. But this is only if either they have conducted research themselves, or have thoroughly understood the alternative hypothesis. And the alternative, of course, must be testable (ID - haha).

This has become an essential part of society - especially American one. It is a complete disgrace :headbang: to America when a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE openly declares that he doesn't believe in evolution. 1. The fact that he gets so many votes is alarming. 2. We shouldn't even know that, I don't want to know the religious views of the candidates, they are of no relevance unless they will affect their presidency (as would be the case with this guy).

The problem stems from a while back when science and religion began to seperate. For quite the while, people were often torn between believing that the earth was flat and that it was round. Similarly, the heliocentric or geocentric models, despite clear scientific evidence, have somehow been 'in question'. This is not something that is up to an individual to decide. Of course independant exploration and thinking is encouraged, but one cannot go against the entire scientific community.

The same for me. They trust scientists with their health, with making our modern convenient lifestyle possible, and keeping it running, but not with evolution and climatology? It's hypocritical bullshit. Some dumbass fapping forumite isn't going to know more about global warming than a climatologist. Just isn't gonna happen. Reading a few internet articles and choosing to point out doctored studies sponsored by oil companies does not equate to a lifetime of study in the field.

And likewise for biology, regarding evolution. Being able to selectively pick out a few bullshit points that have been long-refuted in an attempt to argue with evolution, and using a book as evidence, that has been repeatedly and sometimes intentionally mistranslated and mis-transcribed, the only support of the veracity of which is the fact that the book says it's the word of god and that must be true because it says so (circular logic, anyone?) is in no way comparable to a biologist spending years of study and collecting evidence, let alone the fact that evidence for evolution has been found hundreds and hundreds of times.

People are ridiculous.

Hypocrisy is the greatest sin of them all. And a large majority of the population does it.

The picking and choosing (or "cherry-picking") that you describe has been a universal human behavior throughout history and across all cultures. However, I consider it a sub-category of a broader spectrum of behaviors called "ego-tripping." When wondering why people pick one thing and not another to pull this stuff on, you have to look at the topic in question and figure out what function that topic is playing in the cherry-picking person's life.

Most people have no personal investment in most of the things they believe. For instance, the vast majority of real and practical things that scientists do -- like invent new plastics or predict tomorrow's weather or organize our communications, for example -- remain impersonal, distant things that people do not see as reflecting upon them in any way at all. So because such things are perceived as having nothing to do with us, on a personal level, we are happy to take the scientists' word for them without question. Why? Because when a thing "has nothing to do with us personally", that can be read as "it isn't about anything," and therefore it is trivial (even if it isn't).

But now take global warming. A person whose personal egotism is not tweaked by this issue might look at it and think that it has nothing to do with him personally, but it affects him so it is important to change his habits to fix the problem.

But other people do have their personal egotisms pinned to a lifestyle of consumption, which is seen as a privilege of affluence which is part of the structure of a social hierarchy. These people view reports of global warming not as scientific observation, but as social criticism. They don't think "Oh, it turns out my lifestyle is bad for me. What a bummer." Instead they think, "These guys want to take away what is rightfully mine according to my place in society. These guys want to demote my social status and make me a scapegoat for everyone else's problems."

Plastics, penis implants, faster internet connections, etc, etc, do not ask people to take personal responsibility for an impersonal problem, nor to stop doing something they've been accustomed to doing and have felt privileged to do. Global warming does. For people whose egos depend on demonstrating their affluence by consumption, this can be seen as an intolerable personal insult. Science has nothing to do with it.

It's the same with opponents to evolution. Some people are heavily invested in an ego-gratifying world view that has an almighty god placing THEM at the center of his omniscient attention, even having created the whole world specifically for them, with the whole cycle of natural history revolving around them and being about them. Evolution makes the story of life be about something other than them. Do you start to see the problem? Even if they grant that their god could have been the force behind evolution, that still means that god has been doing something other than focus all his attention exclusively on them and their wellbeing all this time. So... they're not going with that.

Now, the actual debate over these things, and the cherry-picking that this thread is about, comes in when these ego-driven refusniks try to beat science at its own game. It is not enough to say simply that they don't believe what science is saying. They must shut science up, stop it from saying these things that undermine their egos once and for all, and to do that, they must nullify science's greatest weapon, its "facts." And that is why they go into studies and cherry-pick out only the bits that can be refashioned to appear to support their side of the argument, so that they can claim factual basis and thus negate science's unbeatable strategy of actually being true. Thus their argument becomes, "Our argument is true because your precious scientists said it themselves. Here, look, here is the proof."

This is how it goes with global warming and evolution, but in fact, this kind of egoistic, manipulative stubbornness exists in anyone who feels they have a personal stake in something (anything). It takes a lot of self-awareness and self-discipline in all of us not to engage in the same picking and choosing of one's preferred reality. And it takes an amazingly strong ego to say, "Oh, well, I guess I was wrong," and abandon a way of thinking that had been previously so desirable without feeling like you're losing out in life. Very, very few people are that aware, that disciplined or have such healthy egos, no matter what their overall belief system might be.

Now, I'm sure that opponents of evolution and global warming are not going to like my assessment of their motivations, but I really don't care. I base my observations on their behavior and on the contents and structures of their own stated opinions/beliefs, and my own ego is satisfied with that.

;)

Its far easier to disregard somethign than it is to try and find a way a round it.

Generally speaking--sometimes it's a matter of not *really* knowing who to believe. Taking climate change as an example: Some climatologists say climate change is from humans...others say that's BS or at least substantially BS. It's clear that one of the groups must be wrong, so that leaves the layman to try to guess which one it is. The fact that they can't make sense of the studies if they read them directly means that their opinions aren't going to be able to be weighted by them--without understanding, the arguments might as well be written in ancient Egyptian.

And sometimes there is so much loud rhetoric going on that both sides of a debate seem equally full of it...and the truth--IF it's even been discovered yet--is hopelessly buried. This is compounded by the fact that both sides will scream that it's NOT buried, and that Their Scientists are clearly right.

So it comes down to a *trust* issue: Who will he/she trust to interpret the science? Chances are that the layman will trust the same kind of sources that they trust for other things. If they trust a source that's on either extreme, it tends to lead towards bad results as well as even more BS rhetoric which only compounds the problem.

What can we do against this ? Or should we not do anything against it and is it in fact a desireable human trait ?
Wow. I actually inspired a thread. Neat.

- Kyronea's a bit of an oddball as I recall, but that's not to say that he or anyone else is deliberately misinterpreting the data..
I'd like for you to clarify what you mean, please. How exactly am I an oddball, and what do you mean by oddball? (I'm not taking offense, by the way...I'm just curious.)

As for the thread topic, I think I made my feelings on it pretty clear.