|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science Of Why We Don’t Believe Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
The Science Of Why We Don’t Believe Science Posted by JacobSloan on May 9, 2011 scopeWondering how evolution developed us into creatures who don’t believe in evolution? Mother Jones explains why large numbers of people tend to believe things that make no sense, and why the human brain is averse to evidence and reasoning: An array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called motivated reasoning helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, death panels, the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts. The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call affect). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of millisecondsfast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we’re aware of it. That shouldn’t be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It’s a basic human survival skill, explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself. When we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers (PDF). Our reasoning is a means to a predetermined endwinning our caseand is shot through with biases. They include confirmation bias, in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and dis-confirmation bias, in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. Ran across this and thought it might be relevant, as we all have seen this behavior play out on here many times. taken from here "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call affect). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of millisecondsfast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we’re aware of it. There is an on going study at Harvard that investigates this. You can participate if you like. I am just in the middle of a book called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell that discusses our tendancy and ability to make snap judgements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4173 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Thanks
I did participate in one test so far...I slightly associate white people with weapons, although I was using word association when the choice of white and weapon were grouped together, so I dont think I revealed any deep dark secret about myself. More test to follow, might learn something about myself yet. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Yeah something seems a little off with the tests. I have completed 3 so far and they tell me that I have some preference for one type of body lotion over another type. I am consciously certain that I have absolutely no preference for any type of body lotion but apparently my subconscious believes otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I took it once, seems dead on to me. It says I think men are strong compared to women, and that I don't think I'm much different in strength from anyone else.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I took the Black/White Weapon/Harmless object test and it said that I slightly associate white people with weapons more than black people. In fact, I think the results merely mean that I got better hitting the right buttons as the test went on. And, as fearandloathing mentioned, the word association was easier with the White/Weapon combo.
Seems like a lot of pop psychology to me. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I took it once, seems dead on to me. You mean the results matched your conscious opinion. It just seemed inaccurate to say that I had a preference for one imaginary body lotion over another given that I am not a body lotion kind of person. Probably has huge marketing applications.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Seems like a lot of pop psychology to me. Are you not believing in the science of why we don't believe in science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dogmafood writes: You mean the results matched your conscious opinion. Yeah.
It just seemed inaccurate to say that I had a preference for one imaginary body lotion over another given that I am not a body lotion kind of person. Probably has huge marketing applications. My test was man/woman, weak/strong, me/them, with words like him, hers, tough, dainty, I, others, etc. Were you given the same or a different test? In many psychology tests the part where they tell you what the test is about is actually part of the test. After they gave the results, didn't they ask if you agreed with them? I can't remember, but if they did then that was probably part of the test. And the Chinese culture part at the end could have been misdirection, but whatever it was I don't believe it was what they said it was. AbE: Someone should contact the provided names, see if they're real. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Were you given the same or a different test? My test involved vode/veani (imaginary body lotion) and words like good/bad, joy/agony, wonderful/awful. Same form I guess with different subjects. They asked before the results if I thought that I had a preference. Looking back on my results I see that I showed a strong preference for one on the first test and then a mild preference on the next two tests. I found them from a reference in a book published in 2005. They have been testing since 1998 and have completed 4.5 million tests. I am fairly certain that they are legitimate. I have been contacted 3 times to repeat the test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Dogmafood writes: Yeah something seems a little off with the tests. I have completed 3 so far and they tell me that I have some preference for one type of body lotion over another type. I am consciously certain that I have absolutely no preference for any type of body lotion but apparently my subconscious believes otherwise. The body lotion tests could be there as a control, to see if results on this are all over the place, while the things like race show consistent bias. Edit: Incidentally, apparently I'm a massive subconscious racist. It was easier to hit the right keys when white people and positive words were on the same side, but I don't know how much this was because I'd gotten used to the game by then. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The Science Of Why We Don’t Believe Science Posted by JacobSloan on May 9, 2011 Wondering how evolution developed us into creatures who don’t believe in evolution? Mother Jones explains why large numbers of people tend to believe things that make no sense, and why the human brain is averse to evidence and reasoning: An array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called motivated reasoning helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, death panels, the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts. The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call affect). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of millisecondsfast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we’re aware of it. That shouldn’t be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It’s a basic human survival skill, explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself. When we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers (PDF). Our reasoning is a means to a predetermined endwinning our caseand is shot through with biases. They include confirmation bias, in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and dis-confirmation bias, in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. Ran across this and thought it might be relevant, as we all have seen this behavior play out on here many times. taken from here I can see how facts are applicable to Biblical events, stories, and myths that can be tested, but I dont see how this applies as strongly to faith in a Creator of all seen and unseen---a concept that would involve different tests than are available. Edited by Phat, : clarification+Topic BumpChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I dont see how this applies as strongly to faith in a Creator of all seen and unseen---a concept that would involve different tests than are available. I think you mean "a concept that can involve no empirical tests, other then total absence, whatsoever." It is pure emotional rationalization.
quote: That describes religion all too well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It is pure emotional rationalization. I would suggest, however, that there needs to be a catalyst for the emotions to influence the self explanation or belief and not so much a need to rationalize the experience. I would argue that for me at least I need no rationalization apart from the experience that led to my belief/conversion/long strange trip. Perhaps my error is that I wont go to any great lengths to at best question and at worst doubt my experience.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
I would suggest, however, that there needs to be a catalyst for the emotions to influence the self explanation or belief and not so much a need to rationalize the experience. Yes. A good observation. In religion, I would go further and say that this catalyst, this emotional experience, would need to be quite compelling in the extreme for it to cause the kind of critical examination that would cause someone to abandon their long-time deeply-held belief. Anything less than strongly compelling is too easily rationalized away. The study says that once the strong belief sets in a few facts, a few dozen facts, are not enough to bring the belief under question and may only serve to strengthen the belief. I think you are right. It may be that only some devastating emotional trauma would shake the foundations enough to cause the question to be given serious soul-searching examination. For me, as much as I may rage against religion, I can't wish that kind of pain on anyone.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024