Exactly. For instance, take the issue of global warming. If I am told, "All the gases we're pumping into the air are going to make the Earth warmer," I have no particular reason to doubt it. (I may not be totally convinced about any particular REMEDY, but that's another matter.)
However, if I am told "the science is settled," or "the debate is over," I reflexively feel doubtful. Is science really something that can be "settled?" Forever? And if the debate really were over, would you feel obliged to declare that it's over? Because that would imply that someone doesn't agree, in which case, no, I'm not so sure that the "debate" is really over.
I am not saying this because I am advocating "climate denial" or whatever it's called. I'm all for solar panels and hydrogen-fueled cars and wind turbines and whatever else is going to save the day and result in less smog. I prefer a world with trees and grass and animals and clean air. I confess that I'm also rather attached to electricity. I'm only observing that there seems to be a lot of political pressure involved on both sides of debates that involve science (and there are other factors, such as pressure to come up with something "groundbreaking" and newsworthy, in order to secure funding for one's research). If I have any strong position on something, I can't just drop it as soon as someone comes at me with some anecdote or selective statistics that, if true (and properly interpreted), "disprove" my beliefs.
There have been cases where I honestly DID NOT CARE all that much about a particular topic, but I had heard A somewhere, so I assumed A was (until proven otherwise) true. Then someone comes along, tells me A is wrong, and B is right, and this is why. Then I hear a compelling case for why that advocate for B was full of garbage, and A was right all along. Until, of course, I hear B's rebuttal. And then there's all the anecdotal stuff that I can't verify. Who's telling the truth? Who's lying? Who's selectively pulling statistics in a misleading way? Is it reasonable for me to spin about in my "position" every time I'm presented with a new argument? I haven't the time to be the expert on every point discussed, WHEN it's brought up, and in a sense, the advantage goes to the "attacker." At some point, I'm just going to have to say, "You make a very compelling point, but I'm going to have to get back to you on that."
I think it's unrealistic to assume that if someone has any strongly held beliefs, just showing him a few "facts" on paper will make him do an about-turn. If that were the case, how should this study continue? Should they show him a NEW set of facts in the next room and see if he obligingly swaps right back? I wonder how long they could keep that up before he just declares them a bunch of misanthropes playing pointless mind games on him? ;)
no subject
However, if I am told "the science is settled," or "the debate is over," I reflexively feel doubtful. Is science really something that can be "settled?" Forever? And if the debate really were over, would you feel obliged to declare that it's over? Because that would imply that someone doesn't agree, in which case, no, I'm not so sure that the "debate" is really over.
I am not saying this because I am advocating "climate denial" or whatever it's called. I'm all for solar panels and hydrogen-fueled cars and wind turbines and whatever else is going to save the day and result in less smog. I prefer a world with trees and grass and animals and clean air. I confess that I'm also rather attached to electricity. I'm only observing that there seems to be a lot of political pressure involved on both sides of debates that involve science (and there are other factors, such as pressure to come up with something "groundbreaking" and newsworthy, in order to secure funding for one's research). If I have any strong position on something, I can't just drop it as soon as someone comes at me with some anecdote or selective statistics that, if true (and properly interpreted), "disprove" my beliefs.
There have been cases where I honestly DID NOT CARE all that much about a particular topic, but I had heard A somewhere, so I assumed A was (until proven otherwise) true. Then someone comes along, tells me A is wrong, and B is right, and this is why. Then I hear a compelling case for why that advocate for B was full of garbage, and A was right all along. Until, of course, I hear B's rebuttal. And then there's all the anecdotal stuff that I can't verify. Who's telling the truth? Who's lying? Who's selectively pulling statistics in a misleading way? Is it reasonable for me to spin about in my "position" every time I'm presented with a new argument? I haven't the time to be the expert on every point discussed, WHEN it's brought up, and in a sense, the advantage goes to the "attacker." At some point, I'm just going to have to say, "You make a very compelling point, but I'm going to have to get back to you on that."
I think it's unrealistic to assume that if someone has any strongly held beliefs, just showing him a few "facts" on paper will make him do an about-turn. If that were the case, how should this study continue? Should they show him a NEW set of facts in the next room and see if he obligingly swaps right back? I wonder how long they could keep that up before he just declares them a bunch of misanthropes playing pointless mind games on him? ;)