Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#321

Post by hashkb » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 3:23 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #304

sinxoveretothex wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the problem: we can't even say that. The paper you cite says that most published research is false. You infer from this that published research is no better than no source. But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. I'd like to know if pe…

> But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. Only if "people's intuitions" are true on a less than a "published research" percentage.

Why on Earth would you assume your intuitions are better than professionals combining intuition with methodology in good faith?

The article we're commenting on (which you can discard more easily than I) describes a study you can reproduce easily to prove it to yourself. Why don't you?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#322

Post by hashkb » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 3:23 PM UTC

j2kun wrote: post #153

coldtea wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Yeah, in the sense that all you are saying is its possible to have degrees of trust on difference sources of "facts". That said, you'd be surprised how often the fact (pun intended) that it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people. > Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer rev…

> it's "impossible to know anything for certain" is lost on people In my experience, people tend to use this phrase as a bludgeon to exclude ideas they don't like. It's a way to stop a discussion, not help promote understanding and find real facts.

Duh. Now prove it to them.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#323

Post by benmcnelly » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 3:27 PM UTC

Noos wrote: post #319

Why is this even a valid article? The evidence given was based on studies that actively deceived the takers in order to prove a point. Of course if you trick people they become defensive. You've primed them to believe one thing and then turned around and said it was another.

This was a scientific experiment. Fact.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#324

Post by benmcnelly » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 3:36 PM UTC

I have some facts for you. I hate passive aggressive pop overs that take over a page and then try and make you feel bad for not signing up. Also, against my better judgment I continued to try and read this. It was trash so let me offer some advice that at the least should be equally as subjective.

A good frame of mind or world view to have, is to be open to the possibility that you don't know everything. That we are in a constant state of figuring things out and ratifying what we know, and accept that at some point, if we are tolerant and listen, we may learn something new. Hell, maybe modal window hijacks ARE the best way to try and get people to subscribe.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#325

Post by sqeaky » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #257

sqeaky wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't met one that wasn't an idiot. Around my location they are all claiming that vaccines cause autism or deferring to Jesus for his medical opinion like he actually exists. EDIT - Downvote away, but I would prefer if you demonstrated I was wrong by presenting a sensible reason to allow mass anti-vaccination. I understand there legitimate reasons for an individual to avoid a vaccine, like immune deficiency or al…

>Downvote away, but I would prefer if you demonstrated I was wrong by presenting a sensible reason to allow mass anti-vaccination. Probably downvoted due to the swiftness by which you call someone an idiot... It's a broad term. I'm sure I can find someone who believes in the things you listed who can do several things better than you (be it mathematics, programming, etc). Who would the idiot be?

I use vitriol to convince in casual conversation, because it works. Just as the article indicates and many smart people before me have demonstrated people like to ignore facts that don't agree with them.

Put another way "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason into", so you need to use something else. I like peer pressure, sarcasm and shame. Even just a tiny cheap laugh can dislodge all but the most strongly held beliefs if those laughs come from their close peers.

"Idiot" is not particularly funny, but was the word already chosen and followed nicely with the idea that people who believe dumb things should feel shame for feeling dumb things.

I have no regret caller anti-vaxxers idiots, and I hope they feel shame for their dangerous ideas not matter how good they are at math or programming.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#326

Post by BearGoesChirp » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 4:37 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #60

coldtea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then actually follow up on their citations Not to mention that citations are not all they are touted to be. Just because something has been written by someone somewhere doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has been published on a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Just because something has the consensus opinion doesn't make it an objective reality fact. Ju…

All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain. Having a citation from a well regarded source is better than having no citation. Peer review is better than no review. There is probably a higher correlation for a statement from an official state agency being true, than a random statement with no attribution. So yes, a statement can satisfy any of the things you mention, and still not be true.…

>All you are really saying is its impossible to know anything for certain.

Which is to say, that what ever being said isn't a fact in the absolute extent people tend to mean when they talk about how facts should change one's mind, and thus why it doesn't change our mind (well one reason at least).

> But that doesn't mean those factors can't be helpful in assessing the likelihood of a given assertion.

But what of the likelihood that the one presenting the information (or someone further up the chain) specifically picked information that would meet all the criteria will being misleading? I've seen this behavior from think tanks on every side of the political spectrum. They begin with a view they want to push and then go searching for the best back information that lets them push it. Unless you are an expert, you don't hear what is left out, which bits are using very precise definitions that are being confused by the layman who is the intended recipient, or what similarly backed information outright calls into question the information being presented. Add in people's own biases to ignore their side when it does it while focusing on the other side, and it creates this view that the well back information from the other side is of far less value than the the poorly backed information from their own side.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#327

Post by mcguire » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #311

sjy wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be better if you provided more recent examples: medical science was very primitive in the 19th century, and Galileo was not persecuted by scientists. More recently, Marshall and Warren's research on stomach ulcers quickly led to the rejection of the expert consensus which had prevailed for decades, because technological advances enabled them to present convincing evidence to a profession which had come to ac…

The consensus around fat being so bad and The Bell Curve are two that come to mind for me.

Modern microeconomics. I could elaborate, when I get to a better keyboard, but I suggest you read Misbehaving by Richard Thaler.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#328

Post by mcguire » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

idiot_stick wrote: post #301

coding123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with this, and this is completely lost on people. For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good, NOT because it's actually good. The problem is, we humans play right into that as if the number's game actually means something - 1 out of 10 studies says something is bad - the other 9 say it's good. So rather than actually work off…

> For every study that says coffee is bad there's 10 more that say it's good, simply because people want it to be good Or, maybe, it actually is good. Why do you assume some agenda on behalf of the 9, not the one?

There's an old joke along the lines of, if an old, white haired scientist tells you something is possible, he's probably right; if he tells you something isn't, he's probably wrong. My extension to that is, if 100 scientists tell you something, it may be right or wrong, but that's the way you should place your bets.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#329

Post by mcguire » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 4:59 PM UTC

balabaster wrote: post #135

philipov wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, correct. Humans are not capable of having access to indisputable truth. However, indisputable truth is not necessary for forming useful foundations for other knowledge. Humans exist in the space of the "probably good enough." What becomes a fact for you depends on how tolerant you are for uncertainty. You're probably going to die. That's almost 100%. A solipsistic universe is likewise very unlikely. Those are pr…

> If you want facts that won't change after 15 years, you should study Mathematics. I was just watching The Man Who Knew Infinity the other night and I would dispute that even Maths won't change after 15 years. Once in a generation, someone like Ramanujan comes along and manages to change something even as fundamental as Mathematics.

Hell, Hilbert's program, Godël, and Turing.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#330

Post by davidf18 » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 5:33 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #264

goatlover wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The community of people who have spent their time becoming knowledgeable in that field. Or do you suppose that any quack peddling snake oil is as knowledgeable as someone who went to medical school and practices medicine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.[5] He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of results where ha…

> Current "experts" are really terrible about defending their current belief system, and actual evidence be damned.

While it is true that Semmelweis could have communicated his ideas better than he did, his true problem was that he had the brilliance to see and test the correlation he could not show causation: There was no direct evidence of the germ theory of disease. We had to wait a few more decades for Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch.