Customer Discussions > Science forum

Denialism


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 67 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 29, 2009 6:53:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2009 7:54:27 AM PST
Tero says:
Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives (Hardcover)
~ Michael Specter

I do not know how to link, it is here
Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives

"In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before."

enjoy

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 7:08:59 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 11:52:33 AM PST]

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 7:16:49 AM PST
Fatman says:
morjens, Tero!

If you follow the link and read the reviews there are recommendations for people who already have the pro science attitude.
True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society seems to be less 'preaching to the choir'.

An important subject.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 7:55:48 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2009 7:56:04 AM PST
Tero says:
Yes I saw that, Martti. I think the Denialism was the snappier title. I was not impressed enough with the book in hand to buy it.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 7:57:57 AM PST
Fatman says:
I sort of knew it...after all our tribe has 99% literacy rate!

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 8:16:35 AM PST
Sure - it's all a conspiracy. Peer reviewed science is now shown to be a hoax. Didn't you read the hacked e-mails? All of peer reviewed science can now safely be ignored...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 8:21:20 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 2:12:40 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 2:11:50 PM PST]

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 2:39:17 PM PST
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves."
-- Richard Feynman

Denialism represents the human desire for comfort and security run amok, where people will chose a false understanding which supports their world view over a true understanding which contradicts it. People are easily fooled, and easily fool themselves, so they can easily fool themselves, or be fooled into believing, that the world is a certain way, even when the evidence doesn't support or even directly contradicts their views. The denial of evolutionary theory and the age of the universe are prime examples. The denial of anthropogenic global climate change is another.

I think it also explains our culture's ugly streak of anti-intellectualism, and the distrust of intellectual institutions... science strives to tell us what is, rather than what we'd like to hear, and that rubs many people the wrong way. It's harder to trust someone who's telling you things you don't want to hear, even if (or perhaps especially when) what they're telling you is (a) unpleasant and (b) true.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 4:06:33 PM PST
barbW says:
My relative, several states away, told me while I was visiting - that he really really wants to believe in Christian theology and its claims. AND he didn't want to debate it or even talk about it. He also thinks his kids will be better behaved when they get older. He knows I'm a meteorologist, and he assumed I would ask why a smart guy like him was a fundy - when I learned of his church. He works as a manager in a Lexus dealership. He says he has no foreseeable need to learn any more 'science'.

So, some people just want to believe and they fully understand why other people don't see it as healthy. I wonder how they can live with the dishonesty..

Wouldn't we all wish that the planet was still too big for us humans to destabilize and degrade?
Wouldn't we all wish that a god created everything perfectly and it was continuing to look out for us?
Wouldn't we all wish that we could be teleported to a heavenly place and live as long as we wanted?

If you don't want these things I can actually understand why a simple-minded fundamentalist or evangelical would be upset with you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 6:03:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2009 6:04:38 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
"My years in academia convinced me that nowhere on earth is their less open-mindedness..."

Um, how many years was that "their" again, TDS?

I personally don't feel much contempt for the "comman" person, but I've oodles and oodles for the ignurnt. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 6:16:24 PM PST
I don't know how long TDS spent in academia but it wasn't long enough.

Not knowing how to use the various forms of their (there, they're) is one hint and not knowing how to spell
common is another.

We all make grammatical/spelling errors but these two in such a short post are revelatory.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 6:19:03 PM PST
While posting under a different name, TDS made claims as to their training and education with regards to the biological sciences.

FWIW, the content of TDS's posts never substantiated those claims, and he never otherwise supported his claims by producing credentials or displaying an accurate knowledge of the biological sciences... or science in general, for that matter.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion... so take it as you will.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 6:39:56 PM PST
barbW says:
Yeah, I wasn't gonna bring it up, but I'm glad you did..

(Those poor kids!)

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 6:58:38 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 7, 2011 11:06:39 AM PDT]

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 7:01:05 PM PST
Tero says:
I read some Darwin related stuff every now and then, the 1800s period has always fascinated me, up to and including Mark Twain here in the US. The Western world was not so educated then, but the educated classes were pretty well educated. The high school level taught the classics and then you learned more science or theology...yawn... in college.

Of course it was not as hard perhaps then, but I would claim they still were not as anti-intellectual as today's deniers. I think they actually took evolution quite well. There was some resistance, obviously, as people are reluctant to change their ways.

And they knew how to spell.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009 10:29:55 PM PST
Michael Altrarriba explains it well

It can be summarised as "Shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message". This seems to be the basis of the denial industry in all of its disguises.

Regards

John

Posted on Dec 29, 2009 10:49:15 PM PST
Fatman says:
"I don't know how long TDS spent in academia but it wasn't long enough"

Maybe there was 'an incident'. Things happen. I changed my policy from insult to ignore.
You never know.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009 5:59:03 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 30, 2009 6:15:09 AM PST
Ronald Craig says:
I've had him on ignore since the first of his posts I read ... last week or thereabouts?

But I keep misreading his user name as "Tangerine Dream Sharks" ... which makes me giggle ... and then I sometimes give in and have a peek.

(Never worth it, but so it goes.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009 7:47:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 30, 2009 7:55:27 AM PST
William N. Kerney says: <<Josh: I agree, never question authority>>

Your denial of science (both evolutionary science and climate science) doesn't display independence of mind. The counter evolutionary community adheres to a philosophy that perfect wisdom was attained two thousand years ago and all we can hope for now is a pale reflection. The anti global warming community is funded by the coal and oil lobbies and serves the status quo. Neither viewpoint is progressive - both are inherently regressive.

I have no problem supporting scientific arguments that buck the scientific status quo. However - they have to be *scientific* arguments. The debate about them must involve scientific evidence and must be open to debate. The "open to debate" part is your biggest failing. You are plenty willing to argue. I have never, however, seen you concede a point - no matter how clearly wrong you were. I have no problem with someone being true to a particular intellectual position - even if I disagree with it. It's being too proud to admit you had a detail wrong that galls me. I've never forgotten how, after I tarred your behind on how components of e-coli bacteria are homologous to other structures in other bacteria with multiple citations you said "ex post facto arguments are never impressive" and then abandoned the thread.

Have the courage of your convictions, but be open to real evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009 7:54:24 AM PST
Michael Altarriba: <<I think it also explains our culture's ugly streak of anti-intellectualism, and the distrust of intellectual institutions... science strives to tell us what is, rather than what we'd like to hear, and that rubs many people the wrong way. It's harder to trust someone who's telling you things you don't want to hear, even if (or perhaps especially when) what they're telling you is (a) unpleasant and (b) true.>>

I think there is a cultural gulf that pre-dates the civil war in the US. Scottish mountain folk distrusted the wealthier and better educated farmers of the lowland in the South. Plus they were carrying an ancient ethnic hatred from the Old World. Later, Western farmers hated NorthEast bankers and distrusted their cultural institutions. The Civil War's legacy of people who felt bound unwillingly to a Union that did not represent their interests. Populism in the US is bound up in all this. Central, Southern, and Mountain distrust and despise the wealthier, better educated elite of the coastal lowlands who dominate culturally. The Bible Belt is part of that girdle of populism that spans the middle of the continent. I bet if you could map atheists you'd find they correspond geographically quite well with Western and NorthEastern cultural elites. The arguments about global warming and evolution parallel the battles between Republican and Democrat (in their post Goldwater/Nixon configuration) - which roughly parallel the Union and Confederacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009 8:00:21 AM PST
I am Beast.
Designed by the Tao.
Forged by the forces of Nature.
Evolved through Space and Time.
I am Man
W
I am Man.
Designed by the intelligence of God.
Forged by the forces of Nature.
Evolved through Space and Time.
I am Human.
W
I am Human.
Designed by the intelligence of Man.
Forged by the forces of Nature.
Evolved through Space and Time.
I am ?.
Who am I?
I am Alpha and Omega

The Beginning and the End.
WWW

Posted on Dec 30, 2009 8:01:45 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 30, 2009 8:02:26 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009 8:04:43 AM PST
saurian says:
Michael: "Denialism represents the human desire for comfort and security run amok, where people will chose a false understanding which supports their world view over a true understanding which contradicts it."
s: I think you're exactly right. For many people, science is threatening because it is not concerned with weaving a nice, Disney-esque bedtime story, but in confronting the way things actually are, which is that not everything has a happy outcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009 9:48:56 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 19, 2010 2:10:59 PM PST]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  25
Total posts:  67
Initial post:  Dec 29, 2009
Latest post:  Oct 6, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions