Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   I reject your reality and substitute my own   (nytimes.com) divider line 101
    More: Stupid, sea-level rise, Pew Research Center, human behavior, global warming, Planck epoch, beliefs  
•       •       •

5071 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Jul 2014 at 8:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-07 07:47:14 PM  
Describe the Universe. Give three examples.
 
2014-07-07 08:30:54 PM  
Americans would rather cherry pick lines from a book that has undergone more alterations than Dolly Parton, listen to obviously troll-ish pundits and shun science?

fc06.deviantart.net
 
2014-07-07 08:32:03 PM  
Why should I substitute my own, when yours will change at a much brisker pace?
 
2014-07-07 08:41:35 PM  
The problem isn't belief, per se, but rather blind faith belief.

Whenever you have a blind faith belief in something - it doesn't matter what that something is - you open the door for atrocities to occur. Anyone can be brought to the bidding of their superiors, or be compelled to commit any heinous or unspeakable act, for the sake of strict adherence to a program or format of social control.

There is a commonality of blind faith in all the extremisms of past ages, from fundamentalist theocracies to military dictatorships, from the totalitarian nation-states of the twentieth century to the Inquisitions of medieval Europe. The holder of a blind faith is static in a constantly changing Universe. It is not what they believe in that's so dangerous - the exact particulars of the belief are really quite irrelevant - but to the extent that they will defend their beliefs. This is true of zealots from every facet of civilization, from politics to religion, law, war, culture, race and industry. It is also true for value systems that people show unwavering fealty toward, from holy books to Constitutions.

Everything comes down to a fundamental assumption of faith. But it's how faith is upheld that matters. If you believe in something absolutely from a position of blind faith then you will defend it absolutely from a position of blind faith. There is no room for interpretation: It is 100% true, absolute, and beyond question. You will seek out and destroy its opponents as they are threats to its wisdom and self-evident superiority. You are capable of dying for it and you are capable of killing for it. You are capable of being told to kill for it, and you accept conquest or annihilation as the only logical courses of action. There is no middle ground.

If we wish to live in an ethical world where atrocities do not occur, then we must reject blind faith and accept critical evaluation (but don't do this blindly, of course). The reason for this is quite simple: If you recognize the possibility that your basic assumptions might not be absolutely correct, then you will be much more tolerant of someone who disagrees with your assumptions. Moreover, you will not perceive their opposition as a threat to yours. You will disagree, but you will not die, and you will not kill for your convictions. The door to a better world lies down this path.
 
2014-07-07 08:52:51 PM  
i291.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-07 08:53:39 PM  
This whole problem stems largely from Monotheism. There is no way that Christianity and Islam can both be right, much less NNE Baptists vs NNE Baptists.

Polytheists of old could at least pick and choose among the Gods and doctrines they thought would serve them best and few would put all their eggs in one basket.
 
2014-07-07 08:57:02 PM  
You must first realize there is no spoon.
 
2014-07-07 09:00:12 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-07 09:04:20 PM  
So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan's study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues - for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharina Hayhoe.


If that is so, then this was the opposite of helpful:
www.huffingtonpost.com
/SCIENCE
 
2014-07-07 09:14:16 PM  
a.dilcdn.com
 
2014-07-07 09:14:38 PM  

GilRuiz1: So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan's study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues - for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharina Hayhoe.


If that is so, then this was the opposite of helpful:
[www.huffingtonpost.com image 350x420]
/SCIENCE


img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-07-07 09:16:34 PM  
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net
 
2014-07-07 09:19:39 PM  
It's called Stick it to the Libs Syndrome.
 
2014-07-07 09:20:15 PM  

Kanemano: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 720x549]


Newton spent years studying alchemy.
 
2014-07-07 09:27:03 PM  
I'll master your language and in the meantime I'll create my own.
 
2014-07-07 09:30:55 PM  
Hurry up, Dr. Tyson! We need a new round of "Cosmos."

(I know he said he wasn't going to produce any more, but maybe he could get that scientist dude with the beautiful silvery hair to be to narrator.)
 
2014-07-07 09:38:52 PM  

TV's Vinnie: [a.dilcdn.com image 500x617]


I noticed that one of the answers considered "wrong" was:

What was Rev. Hale's specialty?

The answer "Jesus" wasn't correct?
 
2014-07-07 10:03:20 PM  
Willful ignorance cannot be cured by presenting logical and consistent data. You cannot 'fix' stupid.

There will always be people that think the folks in the mothership are using that guys' penis as a radio transmitter to broadcast lesbian meatloaf recipes to Liza Minelli and Soupy Sales. They're *content* and *comfortable* with this knowledge. No arguing will change their minds.

What the rest of us need to do is get actual logic....truth and science...the power of reason...into the hands of as many OTHER people as we can. The tinier the minority of the "I'm a retard and PROUD!" group is, the less damage we can allow them to do.
 
2014-07-07 10:05:23 PM  
As a result of surveys like these, scientists and advocates have concluded that many people are not aware of the evidence on these issues and need to be provided with correct information.

Right there: Proof that scientists aren't that smart.
 
2014-07-07 10:07:31 PM  
So, the result of this study is that people who believe that magic is real or that trickle-down-economy is good for the 99% (or both), think their uneducated opinions on science are on par with the actual scientists working in the field.

Wow. Didn't see that coming.
 
2014-07-07 10:09:41 PM  
Yeah, Clarence Darrow knew this 90 years ago.

Every once in awhile some ivory tower leftist will think he has brilliant insight to point this out, but of course it never changes everything, and it wasn't brilliant because it's at least 90 years old and also completely obvious.

Want to have a more than a hair of a chance to convince someone of evolution?  Say this:
"Ok, maybe the Earth is 6000 years old but obviously God worked very hard to make it look like the Earth is billions of years old, so convincingly that it has fooled the vast majority of scientists into believing in evolution and plate tectonics, and in order to keep fooling scientists the current world has to continue play this out.  Either way any any scientific insights we gain are valid, either because evolution happened or because God wanted us to think it did."
 
2014-07-07 10:11:37 PM  

Ishkur: The problem isn't belief, per se, but rather blind faith belief.


Says someone with a blind faith belief in the make believe feminist version of reality called 'the patriarchy'.
 
2014-07-07 10:11:40 PM  
Science or Religion, humans just need an excuse to do evil. For example, Craniology as scientific "fact" for a time and used by (people like the Nazi) to justify all sorts of evil deeds. Science once declared Negros to be subhuman and thus fit for slavery.

Science is no less subject to human fallibility than any other of our endeavors.
 
2014-07-07 10:24:16 PM  

yakmans_dad: Kanemano: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 720x549]

Newton spent years studying alchemy.


describing Newton's study of alchemy tells you more about the historical state of analytical chemistry than it does about any possible idiocy on his behalf
 
2014-07-07 10:25:09 PM  
I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical.  It's a trust issue.  That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists.  You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

Everyone seems to think the earth is warming up, and I'm not denying that.  I'm just reluctant to fall in line on taking any and all blame for it.  Even conceding that puts me in the 97% by that study's standards and oh no I've gone cross-eyed.
 
2014-07-07 10:27:35 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net
 
2014-07-07 10:29:19 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Americans would rather cherry pick lines from a book that has undergone more alterations than Dolly Parton, listen to obviously troll-ish pundits and shun science?


Who made that one? Nicely done...
 
2014-07-07 10:31:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Says someone with a blind faith belief in the make believe feminist version of reality called 'the patriarchy'.


I don't have a blind faith belief in anything, what I have is an acceptance of a set body of verifiable and empirical facts that all throughout history women have been likened to property while male dynastic lineage controlled of all avenues of commercial, political, martial and theological power (and still does).

The fact that you deny this very obvious fact of history is what TFA is talking about.

So if you dispute this assertion, then by all means provide historical evidence proving otherwise.
 
2014-07-07 10:35:14 PM  

Ishkur: women have been likened to property


So have men. Any "proof" you have ignores that fact.
 
2014-07-07 10:38:34 PM  

Oysterman: I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical.  It's a trust issue.  That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists.  You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

Everyone seems to think the earth is warming up, and I'm not denying that.  I'm just reluctant to fall in line on taking any and all blame for it.  Even conceding that puts me in the 97% by that study's standards and oh no I've gone cross-eyed.


But you have no problem trusting scientists in every other field?

Believing in a world-wide conspiracy between thousands of scientists across several different fields of science is ridiculous beyond belief.
 
2014-07-07 10:41:05 PM  

hogans: [ts3.mm.bing.net image 300x225]


Whoa!
 
2014-07-07 10:43:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: Oysterman: I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical.  It's a trust issue.  That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists.  You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

Everyone seems to think the earth is warming up, and I'm not denying that.  I'm just reluctant to fall in line on taking any and all blame for it.  Even conceding that puts me in the 97% by that study's standards and oh no I've gone cross-eyed.

But you have no problem trusting scientists in every other field?

Believing in a world-wide conspiracy between thousands of scientists across several different fields of science is ridiculous beyond belief.


As a frequent viewer of late night infomercials, no, I do have a problem trusting scientists in other fields.
 
2014-07-07 10:44:28 PM  

yukichigai: GilRuiz1: So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan's study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues - for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharina Hayhoe.


If that is so, then this was the opposite of helpful:
[www.huffingtonpost.com image 350x420]
/SCIENCE

[img4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]


So who's trolling?  It's just a statement of fact.  By making Global Warming a "Democrat" issue, the researchers tell us, he assured that the other side would automatically be against it.  All politicizing did was create a ready-made base of opponents who had a vested interest in proving their political opponents wrong.

As the article tells us, it's a bad idea to take a neutral idea and turn it into an "us-vs-them" fight.
 
2014-07-07 10:44:46 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Hurry up, Dr. Tyson! We need a new round of "Cosmos."

(I know he said he wasn't going to produce any more, but maybe he could get that scientist dude with the beautiful silvery hair to be to narrator.)


Michio Kaku?  He'd be terrible on it.
 
2014-07-07 10:49:12 PM  

Oysterman: It's a trust issue. That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists. You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.


It's amazing the idiotic conclusions one can make when comparing scientists to snake oil salesmen.
 
2014-07-07 10:49:58 PM  

yakmans_dad: Kanemano: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 720x549]

Newton spent years studying alchemy.


Therefore, Newton's Laws are bullshiat and we should go back to humours and the five basic elements.

/"Tear down the idol and his concept falters" doesn't work with people who know the concept works.
//Which is why creationists fail when they attack Darwin, who had no idea of any of the advancements like DNA, genetic drift, and punctuated equilibrium...or even heredity in Mendelian terms...
 
2014-07-07 10:53:15 PM  

GilRuiz1: yukichigai: GilRuiz1: So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan's study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues - for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharina Hayhoe.


If that is so, then this was the opposite of helpful:
[www.huffingtonpost.com image 350x420]
/SCIENCE

[img4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

So who's trolling?  It's just a statement of fact.  By making Global Warming a "Democrat" issue, the researchers tell us, he assured that the other side would automatically be against it.  All politicizing did was create a ready-made base of opponents who had a vested interest in proving their political opponents wrong.

As the article tells us, it's a bad idea to take a neutral idea and turn it into an "us-vs-them" fight.


So you're saying that if some neutral party had made the movie, the Republican crazies wouldn't be as batshiat in climate denial as they would be? And if a Republican had made it, it'd be the liberals who'd be the deniers?

That's bullshiat. And you well know it.
 
2014-07-07 11:00:50 PM  

MrEricSir: Oysterman: It's a trust issue. That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists. You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

It's amazing the idiotic conclusions one can make when comparing scientists to snake oil salesmen.


That was just one example.  Their studies depend on that assumption by definition.  This is true for any science.  Nutritionists study nutrition, agreeing that changes in diet affect health.    Bigfoot researchers agree that bigfoot is real.    Anthropogenic climate scientists agreeing there is anthropogenic climate change is tautological.
 
2014-07-07 11:04:17 PM  
If only those tea baggers, deniers and Koch brothers would just kill themselves.
 
2014-07-07 11:12:26 PM  

IlGreven: So you're saying that if some neutral party had made the movie, the Republican crazies wouldn't be as batshiat in climate denial as they would be? And if a Republican had made it, it'd be the liberals who'd be the deniers?

That's bullshiat. And you well know it.


I'm not saying it, the Yale scientist from the story is saying it.

Let's take a hypothetical case.  Let's suppose that tomorrow a movie comes out saying that fracking is perfectly safe.  Let's suppose this movie is made by someone utterly neutral - I don't know, let's say it's made by Popular Mechanics or National Geographic.  Let's say the movie features interviews with respected neutral parties like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and other non-political authorities.  Let's call this one Movie A.

Now let's suppose the movie instead is financed and produced by Exxon Mobil and BP, and that all the experts in it are oil company scientists and oil men like George W. Bush and the Koch brothers.  Let's suppose for the sake of argument that they present exactly the same evidence as the first movie.  Let's further suppose that this second movie gets lots of positive airtime on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, and becomes a frequent topic of discussion of every Republican candidate.  Let's call this second movie Movie B.

Do you suppose that people on the Left side of the spectrum would be more willing to consider the arguments from Movie A or Movie B?  Does it seem to you that the politicized presentation of the evidence might cause the viewers on the Left to be more skeptical of Movie B than they would be of Movie A?
 
2014-07-07 11:17:24 PM  

IlGreven: GilRuiz1: yukichigai: GilRuiz1: So what should we do? One implication of Mr. Kahan's study and other research in this field is that we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues - for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican like former Representative Bob Inglis or an evangelical Christian like the climate scientist Katharina Hayhoe.


If that is so, then this was the opposite of helpful:
[www.huffingtonpost.com image 350x420]
/SCIENCE

[img4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

So who's trolling?  It's just a statement of fact.  By making Global Warming a "Democrat" issue, the researchers tell us, he assured that the other side would automatically be against it.  All politicizing did was create a ready-made base of opponents who had a vested interest in proving their political opponents wrong.

As the article tells us, it's a bad idea to take a neutral idea and turn it into an "us-vs-them" fight.

So you're saying that if some neutral party had made the movie, the Republican crazies wouldn't be as batshiat in climate denial as they would be? And if a Republican had made it, it'd be the liberals who'd be the deniers?

That's bullshiat. And you well know it.


Not to mention that global climate change had become a politicized issue well before Al Gore was elected to any office, much less before he wrote that film.  On top of that, the book doesn't actually make it a "Democrat" issue.  If anything the book goes out of its way to say that this should not be a political issue since it matters to everyone.  On the contrary, An Inconvenient Truth probably did more to reduce the rampant politicization of the issue, since anyone who bothered to watch the film who had an even vaguely analytical mind would have noticed all those pesky facts and bits of evidence backing up what he was saying.

The only "politicizing" the film does is that its spokesperson happens to be a Democrat.  Apparently guilt by association is still a thing.
 
2014-07-07 11:18:58 PM  

Oysterman: I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical.  It's a trust issue.  That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists.  You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

Everyone seems to think the earth is warming up, and I'm not denying that.  I'm just reluctant to fall in line on taking any and all blame for it.  Even conceding that puts me in the 97% by that study's standards and oh no I've gone cross-eyed.


You're not skeptical. You're easily misled by politicos. It's not like there's only ever been one survey of climate scientists. This one shows that most papers published in the field support climate change. This one breaks out climatologists from active climatologists. This one explores the correlation between activity in the field with acknowledging climate change. The numbers are all slightly different but they show overwhelming consensus that climate change is real and human activity is a major factor in it.

Even the barest amount of research shows that the vast majority of scientists in the field support climate change and the deniers are made up largely of bloggers, political talking heads, and other people for whom politics come first and knowledge second. Any reasonable person would know who to believe on a scientific matter. If you're coming down on the side of the politicos it isn't because you're an independent or careful thinker.
 
2014-07-07 11:19:30 PM  

jeanwearinfool: Huck And Molly Ziegler: Hurry up, Dr. Tyson! We need a new round of "Cosmos."

(I know he said he wasn't going to produce any more, but maybe he could get that scientist dude with the beautiful silvery hair to be to narrator.)

Michio Kaku?  He'd be terrible on it.


Oh. Well, I looked up his image, and he's the one I had in mind.
So if he wouldn't work, maybe we could get Morgan Freeman. He's portrayed a learned scientist so many times -- he's got another such movie coming out -- that people would mostly believe he IS one.
 
2014-07-07 11:28:07 PM  

Oysterman: I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical.  It's a trust issue.  That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists.  You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

Everyone seems to think the earth is warming up, and I'm not denying that.  I'm just reluctant to fall in line on taking any and all blame for it.  Even conceding that puts me in the 97% by that study's standards and oh no I've gone cross-eyed.


I have a hard time believing that 97% of scientists can agree on anything.
 
2014-07-07 11:29:40 PM  

Oysterman: MrEricSir: Oysterman: It's a trust issue. That 97% they keep using is from a study of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate scientists. You could ask astrologers if astrology is real and get 97%.

It's amazing the idiotic conclusions one can make when comparing scientists to snake oil salesmen.

That was just one example.  Their studies depend on that assumption by definition.  This is true for any science.  Nutritionists study nutrition, agreeing that changes in diet affect health.    Bigfoot researchers agree that bigfoot is real.    Anthropogenic climate scientists agreeing there is anthropogenic climate change is tautological.


But you're missing the big picture here -- the snake oil salesmen and bigfoot researchers may agree on the existence of snake oil and bigfoot, but they have wildly varying claims, methodology, and conclusions. Scientific theories don't work that way.
 
2014-07-07 11:30:21 PM  
Morgan Freeman would be good.  I heard him on StarTalk recently (Tyson's podcast) and he has a scientific curiosity I can respect.  A "hollywood" scientific curiosity, but still.
 
2014-07-07 11:33:05 PM  

yakmans_dad: Kanemano: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 720x549]

Newton spent years studying alchemy.


Making him yet another stupid biatch!

37.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-07-07 11:49:47 PM  
Several ides that were a consensus at one time:
blacks are inferior
women are inferior
jews are inferior
the world is flat
global warming is real
climate change is real
only men and women should marry
 
2014-07-08 12:10:01 AM  

odinsposse: You're not skeptical. You're easily misled by politicos. [...]If you're coming down on the side of the politicos it isn't because you're an independent or careful thinker.


To be fair, the feeling is mutual.  The implication I can't think for myself wasn't lost on me though, nor in kind do I hope it was lost on you in the previous sentence.  My only source for news as of late has been whatever is on Fark and websites for local papers.   If anything, I would be swayed towards accepting anthropogenic climate change by your assumption I have been misled by what I read.  Again, back at you.  Are you blind that there have been no politicos in favor of ACC?

As for the studies...  The first one, the consensus project, was the study I was referring to...  That was the one where I looked up what it was referring to, noticed that it was the anthropogenic global warming scientists saying it was anthropogenic global warming and formed this whole argument..... and 66% of the climate studies in that study stayed out of it.

The second one, average response for an online survey or not, a 30% response rate would have participation bias.

The third one... (I'm exhausted and wasted an evening on this... woof...) the Convinced of Evidence group has published more articles than the Unconvinced of Evidence group.  Okay... atheists have this problem too: we can't respond with "There is no God" until after everyone has started publishing that there is one.


There's also the overarching issue here that this has been devolved into bandwagon argument rather than explaining why it's human caused.
 
2014-07-08 12:16:10 AM  
hateandanger.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report