Thought this might be interesting for a little not-strictly-political discussion...


When science clashes with beliefs? Make science impotent
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/when-science-clashes-with-belief-make-science-impotent.ars

Quote :

"A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence"—the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly. It finds evidence that not only supports the scientific impotence model, but suggests that it could be contagious. Once a subject has decided that a given topic is off limits to science, they tend to start applying the same logic to other issues. The paper is worth reading for the introduction alone, which sets up the problem of science acceptance within the context of persuasive arguments and belief systems. There's a significant amount of literature that considers how people resist persuasion, and at least seven different strategies have been identified. But the author, Towson University's Geoffrey Munro, attempts to carve out an exceptional place for scientific information. "Belief-contradicting scientific information may elicit different resistance processes than belief-contradicting information of a nonscientific nature," he argues. "Source derogation, for example, might be less effective in response to scientific than nonscientific information." It might be, but many of the arguments against mainstream science make it clear that it's not. Evolution doubters present science as an atheistic conspiracy; antivaccination advocates consider the biomedical research community to be hopelessly corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry; and climatologists have been accused of being in it to foster everything from their own funding to global governance. Clearly, source derogation is very much on the table. If that method of handling things is dismissed a bit abruptly, Munro makes a better case for not addressing an alternative way of dismissing scientific data: identifying perceived methodological flaws. This definitely occurs, as indicated by references cited in the paper, but it's not an option for everyone. Many people reject scientific information without having access to the methodology that produced it or the ability to understand it if they did. So, although selective attacks on methodology take place, they're not necessarily available to everyone who chooses to dismiss scientific findings. "

6/4/2010 4:35:03 PM

More pseudo-scientists crying that the public is starting to wise up to their lucrative climate change alarmism

6/4/2010 5:07:02 PM

^wat?
you didn't even read it, did you?

I seem to remember moron or someone else already posting this... maybe that was in Chit Chat though.

[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2010 5:09:58 PM

^^Ironically, your type of thinking is precisely the subject of the study.

6/4/2010 5:46:22 PM

yes. because disagreeing with bullshit models that fail to predict what is happening is truly a sign of a person's beliefs clashing with actual hard science

6/4/2010 5:57:14 PM

When a scientist's theory is discredited, the correct course of action is for him to assail his critics as unscientific, rather than to modify his theory.

This is the new scientific method, guys.

6/4/2010 6:02:00 PM

The psychological study had virtually nothing to do with climate change or climate change denial, you two fuckwits. The study specifically mentions potential conflicts with religious beliefs, ala evolution/creationism and views on the nature of homosexuality (views on homosexuality are used to conduct the study itself). Climate change is only mentioned very briefly by the author of this particular article as one additional example of denial of science.

You're the only ones here with any particular interest in global warming.

Read the article next time before unleashing your party's talking points.

[Edited on June 5, 2010 at 2:33 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2010 2:29:44 AM

Solinari's barfing out Republican talking points again like a good little butt boy, big fucking surprise

6/5/2010 2:34:52 AM

Wow, didn't take long for it to turn partisan.

6/6/2010 11:07:15 AM

^^^ sure I guess it makes total sense to completely ignore the societal context in which something was written

6/6/2010 11:32:01 AM

Did you hear about that oil leaking? Obviously global warming is a myth!

6/6/2010 12:37:41 PM

Bubbles has something to say: No offense, son, but that's some weak-ass thinking. You equivocatin like a motherfucker.

First sentence:

Quote :

"A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence"—the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly."

And then, inexplicably, the topic changes to source derogation.

So, if you are concerned about the conflicts of interests of scientists, or note a personal agenda in much of their work, and use that as at least part of your reason to doubt their conclusions, you are saying science can't address the topic properly?

That's not an attack on science. That's an attack on scientists. They are not the same, but the first sentence treats them like they are.

Also, if one does not have the training to evaluate the methodologies involved, then it is perfectly valid to doubt their conclusions if there are conflicts of interest or personal agendas plainly on the table.

For many, this may be a reaction of defensiveness because they don't like the conclusions. But it's also a perfectly defensible response to research done by questionable people, if you don't have the tools to evaluate the methods.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM. Reason : s]

6/6/2010 3:36:12 PM

^Yeah, I did not like how that article was written. Way too much of his own stuff inserted into it, not nearly enough focus on the study itself. Then again, I suppose that there's a limit to how much of the published article he is allowed to reveal, being that everything past the abstract isn't free access.


Also, after re-reading your post, I don't think the article writer was saying that source degradation and doubting methodologies were the same thing as accusations of scientific impotence that the study deals with. He was just detailing other methods people use to deny scientific claims. Basically, "Here's what the study says.... and here are some other different things that have a similar purpose to what the study deals with. Now here's what the study deals with." I can see why he might have wanted to do that, it was just unnecessary and completely broke the flow of the article.

[Edited on June 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2010 12:31:03 AM

^I think you might be right.

6/7/2010 4:08:47 AM

Quote :

"Then again, I suppose that there's a limit to how much of the published article he is allowed to reveal, being that everything past the abstract isn't free access. "

This I think is a huge PR problem for scientists these days, and it needs to be solved. Scientists aren't controlling their own message, and their good deeds and research are being twisted and abused by the media and by governments for self serving ends. Is it any wonder in a world where you can't (or don't) even trust your news paper to provide unbiased, or at least thoroughly researched information, that people are equally distrustful of scientific studies that are locked away behind pay walls? The only time most people hear about this stuff is after it has been filtered through marketing and people with agendas, and when they question parts of it, they're told they don't know enough to question it.

6/7/2010 8:00:04 AM

Quote :

"This I think is a huge PR problem for scientists these days, and it needs to be solved. Scientists aren't controlling their own message, and their good deeds and research are being twisted and abused by the media and by governments for self serving ends."

This would be nice, but the fact of the matter is that publishing companies have academic research by the balls. The journal system is really broken; you have people writing articles and people editing and reviewing them, but none of these people make money. Mysteriously, the publisher, who has put zero effort and value into the endeavor, takes a huge cut and restricts access to the published material, which is why an average Joe can't just go online and get a copy of the journal (even researchers can't -- when I forget to look up articles before I go home, I literally HAVE to pirate them since I don't have a VPN set up solely for this purpose).

The scientist's incentive to buy into this system is simple: for some reason, we measure merit by the number of publications in top journals. There's really no incentive to buck the system and not get a job, so everybody is still buying in and everybody loses; publishers make a mint and it's hard as shit to do your job properly, even at a top-tier university with a decent library.

It's time we got past the stupid, archaic system of publishing research to the community at large. With the internet around, this is really the best time possible; publishing costs are at an all-time low. If people were paying for a profit-less (or minimal profit) service, journals would cost cents at most for end users. Instead, it's super important that Springer makes a bunch of cash off of zero effort so they can chill and consume.

This is why I pirate a fuckload of textbooks and journals.

[Edited on June 7, 2010 at 8:07 AM. Reason : .]

6/7/2010 8:05:23 AM

Free exchange of information online is managing to grow in the academic community a little (example: http://firstmonday.org/about)... but in the interests of having society be a better place for everyone, I'd rather it hurry the fuck up.

Quote :

"This is why I pirate a fuckload of textbooks and journals."

I may start doing this, actually. Up until now I just figured scientific journals were a bit too obscure/under-used of a subject/medium for the people of the internet to post on most torrent sites... I suppose I've never put the effort into looking, though.

6/7/2010 8:31:59 PM

Do it and never look back. Life gets so much better.

6/7/2010 8:45:54 PM