This is why cache invalidation is important.
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
101–110 of 163 posts
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am really souring on such conversations because of the tremendous number of bad-faith arguing tactics people use -- willfully misconstruing your point, racing as quickly as possible to a glib dismissal without really understanding what you said, or, like you said, link-bombing. Another failure mode I find extremely frustrating is failure to understand analogies. For instance, if I were having a discussion about whe…
I think people instinctively refuse to parse analogies because it's too much work for too little reward. Practically every time somebody starts to use an anology it becomes an anology battle because of course it wasn't perfect. Secondly it's like trying to prove a point by introducing a bunch of weird mental tricks. Yeah you might have a point there but it's rude to expect me to parse all this extra made up stuff you…
If you don't want to do work understanding someone's argument then I'd suggest not participating in a debate; there is no way to present an argument that makes consuming it completely mindless. And really, it doesn't take that much work to understand "if we really believed that principle was true for ANY political philosophy then it'd be just as true for the Nazis as it is for whatever group you're supporting."
As far as logical fallacies go: I don't like the Internet style of just rattling off a bunch of logical fallacies to dismiss an argument, but I think it's fair to say "this argument is such-and-such a fallacy because of X, Y, and Z."
If we took your suggestions I don't know how anyone would have a substantive debate at all.
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it differently. It appears to me that large swaths of the political right have gone over to intellectual relativism, where everything is reduced to mere opinion, equally valid to all other opinions, and facts simply don't matter. See any discussion of climate change for that. To be fair, it's happening some on the left as well, but not to the degree it's happening on the right. Of course, that's my opinion, and…
The left ignores facts when it suits them as well, but with different subjects. See race and IQ correlation, gender wage gap, implicit association test.
Race-IQ correlation? Really?
Do tell.
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#104We have this weird fetish these last few years with asserting in broad language that people don't change their minds, don't respond to evidence, dig their heels in further when presented with evidence that contradicts their preconceived opinions, etc. It's all over pop psychology and the headlines. Bugs the heck out of me, because if the language they use is literally true, then no one would ever be convinced to chan…
Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed the article, but the mention of Steve Bannon at end is an indication that the article probably belongs to that trend. This turns the issue into the political ground, not the scientific one. Thus, the word "fact" is used as an appeal to authority when its actua…
The problem is that the lab isn't isolated, and so facts produced by the lab can have strong political bias. A 'wrongthink' produced by a lab would have a far stronger criticism applied to it than a 'rightthink' using the same methodology. Combined with issues like competing for funding, publish or perish, and the extreme lack of reproduction, it casts a level of doubt on any facts coming from science, especially when they have strong tie in to political areas.
And to specify, the 'rightthink' and 'wrongthink' examples I've studied in the past were cases that didn't breakdown by any common political stance like left or right, but were findings that either agreed or disagreed with positions held strongly by people regardless of political standing. I do think the results would apply as expected when considering a political issue that broken down per party lines, but the reaction is much stronger when there there is more uniform agreement for or against something.
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed the article, but the mention of Steve Bannon at end is an indication that the article probably belongs to that trend. This turns the issue into the political ground, not the scientific one. Thus, the word "fact" is used as an appeal to authority when its actua…
The question has political import but there is, of course, no way to write those in without someone skimming the article finding a way to call it a hatchet-job and refusing to consider it. Perhaps we might call this another way facts don't change our minds: we can't be bothered to consider them if interspersed with even a mild statement of opinion that differs from our own.
Without endorsing, titanix's view of the article, I have to say it's bothersome that all the political examples leaned the same way.
It's an article about confirmation bias, and while most examples were neutral, they only ventured into politics when it would confirm the biases of a left-leaning readership.
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Do humans cause climate change?" is a question of fact. "What type of gun control should we have?" is not a question of fact, so you shouldn't expect that simply stating some facts relevant to the issue would automatically change someone's opinion.
I agree, but there are facts about gun issues that make that gun control question harder to answer. People who believe strongly that guns make a country much safer. People who don't understand what assault rifles are, or that you can shoot up a school 99% as well with a `regular` rifle, people who think lack of guns will make a country MUCH safer. There are plenty of empirical evidence to refuse those kinds of belief…
Perhaps the appeal of an assault rifle in this situations is the emotional charge a spree killer feels in wielding one. The marketing of the weapons - in fictional media as well as in gun magazines is that these are tools of power, probably something that appeals to the kind of a spree killer. So... maybe assault rifles being banned would be a consequence of their great marketing. (And why they get a bump in sales after every mass shooting?)
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? or "why don't facts change people's minds about gun control?" (this is an issue with both the left, they are both wrong about many aspects of gun issues!) These are just two cases that came to mind, where I have friends/family who I talk to about it, and I can explain some facts in great detail that I'm familiar with, and in that moment they will…
> How about "why don't facts change people's minds about global warming"? I have always thought it was either the lack of the ability to understand the facts, or the shear unwillingness to actually look at the facts.
What about the way the information is often presented to the average person as a justification for policy change. How often does the average person encounter information about global warming devoid of an attempt to change policy in relation to the information? That alone would cause reason for a person doubt the authenticity of the information since the source is seen as biased. Add in how badly news organizations butcher the actual science, and there is plenty of room for doubt that then can be exploited by those who specifically seek to do so.
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#108[deleted]
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, most of the time the "Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds" question could actually be rephrased as "Why Don't Everybody Agree with the Left?" I just skimmed the article, but the mention of Steve Bannon at end is an indication that the article probably belongs to that trend. This turns the issue into the political ground, not the scientific one. Thus, the word "fact" is used as an appeal to authority when its actua…
A good point. When I see the word 'fact', I remind myself that even now evolution is still only considered a theory - despite the weight of evidence on its side. Because in science something might just show up that invalidates all that came before, and maintaining that faint skepticism is what separates science from belief. (And of course evolution is a theory, not a mere hypothesis because of this weight of evidence…
There's a difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution borne out by the fossil record.
Using your definition, even gravity is a "theory", yet things still fall to the ground when we drop them from above.
Re: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds (2017)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
There really was a scientific poll were 51% of Republican voters said the believe that Obama was born in Kenya. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/51-of-gop-voters-obam...
Did you really mean to use the word "scientific" here? If so, I'm not sure what you mean for a poll to be scientific.
There's a lot of material out there on what makes a scientific poll. Basically, demographic weighting and a derived margin of error.
It's not the same thing as a web poll.