Science denial
29/12/20 18:28![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics"All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident. And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial, about everything from climate change to COVID-19, is rampant, informed by fallacies of all kinds.
But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19.
Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.
Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-false-logic-behind-science-denial/
What the Scientific American article doesn't mention is the role of propaganda.
Propaganda definition:
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Many individuals cannot differentiate between truth and propaganda. If propaganda supports one's preconceived notions then it is often believed.
For example, I have debated people for years on the subject of global warming, and nearly every conservative that I have debated rejects anthropogenc global warming. They generally believe the propaganda that they read from right-wing sources and reject mainstream sources. Most of them don't bother to read articles or go to websites that represent mainstream science. The role of the internet has contributed to individuals tuning in to the sources that confirm their biases.
The science supporting AGW is complex and requires considerable time and effort on the part of individuals. Few people spend the time to get to the truth and so the general public is ignorant about climate science and therefore easily manipulated by propaganda. It is just easier for one to accept or deny a scientific claim based on some prejudice than spend the time and effort in trying to understand the subject. Propaganda is everywhere, one person reads an appealing piece of propaganda and then passes it on to others, who also pass it on to others.
But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19.
Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.
Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-false-logic-behind-science-denial/
What the Scientific American article doesn't mention is the role of propaganda.
Propaganda definition:
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Many individuals cannot differentiate between truth and propaganda. If propaganda supports one's preconceived notions then it is often believed.
For example, I have debated people for years on the subject of global warming, and nearly every conservative that I have debated rejects anthropogenc global warming. They generally believe the propaganda that they read from right-wing sources and reject mainstream sources. Most of them don't bother to read articles or go to websites that represent mainstream science. The role of the internet has contributed to individuals tuning in to the sources that confirm their biases.
The science supporting AGW is complex and requires considerable time and effort on the part of individuals. Few people spend the time to get to the truth and so the general public is ignorant about climate science and therefore easily manipulated by propaganda. It is just easier for one to accept or deny a scientific claim based on some prejudice than spend the time and effort in trying to understand the subject. Propaganda is everywhere, one person reads an appealing piece of propaganda and then passes it on to others, who also pass it on to others.
(no subject)
Date: 30/12/20 19:54 (UTC)The issue is not what side of politics you're on. It's how extreme your views are. From a science perspective, the moment you start rejecting any news out of hand that doesn't comply with your own narrow worldview, one you have built based on information sources totally lacking in scientific validity, then there's really no difference between left or right. A closed mind is a closed mind.