gravy I have a large body of research at hand that supports the notion that we are possibly entering a post-enlightenment world. That can be challenged, but I'm not going to be able to do justice to the argument in this post. Check out the thinkers Ulrich Beck, Becker, Bauman and Latour. Check out research on the cultural cognition of scientific concensus. I'm not alone in the wilderness with this idea. Indeed it's not my idea. It helps me understand why perfectly intelligent people argue with me about climate change science though.

When you propose that the rational thing is to be doing nothing about climate that really depends on your value system and whether you have children that you love and care about or not and whether you care about the future of humanity or not. If you decide the best thing for you is to do nothing that's your choice. I'm not talking about the rationality of a choice of actions here though. I'm talking about the change in status science has in our contemporary society. Our overall response to this issue is complex and multifacted. One facet is that people are changing their regard of science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

That just doesn't sound to me to be a large enough quantity of people to determine a trend. There will always be fringe elements in society. Fifty or so years ago, everyone got vaccinated, but the government was more heavy handed about that kind of thing. If left up to their own devices the same number people probably would have decided the same.

I wasn't identifying a large upward trend in refusal to vaccination. I was identifying a trend in increased reported cases of german measles and whooping cough in Byron Bay. This increase is suspected to be due to refusal to vaccinate exacerbated by an ensuing drop in herd vaccination

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

When you propose that the rational thing is to be doing nothing about climate that really depends on your value system and whether you have children that you love and care about or not and whether you care about the future of humanity or not. If you decide the best thing for you is to do nothing that's your choice. I'm not talking about the rationality of a choice of actions here though. I'm talking about the change in status science has in our contemporary society. Our overall response to this issue is complex and multifacted. One facet is that people are changing their regard of science.

They frustrating thing, as I said in my last post, is that a lot of the people who reject one kind of science - vaccinations, AGW - for whatever reason don't go on to reject all science. Even those hostile to science, the fundamentalist religionist crowd, don't reject all science (some do). They will take it for granted about the theory of gravity, and nuclear physics, and the atomic structure of our materialist world, etc. etc. yet if science challenges a spiritual belief directly they automatically criticise that science not realising by criticising that science on spiritual grounds they actually criticise all science.

I heard Michelle Bachmann talk about micro-science - germ theory, nuclear physics - which she didn't question, she accepted. It was macro-science - evolutionary biology, cosmogony - which she disputed. In her mind they were completely separate branches of science: the Micro being real science; the Macro being shamanistic theory with no ability to be either proven or disproven.

The Industries who challenge Climate Science or Tobacco Science are very selective in their application of skepticism when the science challenges the whole way they create their vast wealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

gravy I have a large body of research at hand that supports the notion that we are possibly entering a post-enlightenment world. That can be challenged, but I'm not going to be able to do justice to the argument in this post. Check out the thinkers Ulrich Beck, Becker, Bauman and Latour. Check out research on the cultural cognition of scientific concensus. I'm not alone in the wilderness with this idea. Indeed it's not my idea. It helps me understand why perfectly intelligent people argue with me about climate change science though.

When you propose that the rational thing is to be doing nothing about climate that really depends on your value system and whether you have children that you love and care about or not and whether you care about the future of humanity or not. If you decide the best thing for you is to do nothing that's your choice. I'm not talking about the rationality of a choice of actions here though. I'm talking about the change in status science has in our contemporary society. Our overall response to this issue is complex and multifacted. One facet is that people are changing their regard of science.

I'd love to know at what point science and enlightenment values were viewed in the highest regard. At a glance, those writers discuss the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. I highly doubt this is a new phenomenon. Hitler used a false document as his 'warrant' for killing millions of people. Similarly, demonstrable falsely scientific notions like Lysenkoism killed millions through famine.

When was this brief age of enlightenment that the majority of people bought into?

sorry i meant to write herd immunity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

They frustrating thing, as I said in my last post, is that a lot of the people who reject one kind of science - vaccinations, AGW - for whatever reason don't go on to reject all science. Even those hostile to science, the fundamentalist religionist crowd, don't reject all science (some do). They will take it for granted about the theory of gravity, and nuclear physics, and the atomic structure of our materialist world, etc. etc. yet if science challenges a spiritual belief directly they automatically criticise that science not realising by criticising that science on spiritual grounds they actually criticise all science.

I heard Michelle Bachmann talk about micro-science - germ theory, nuclear physics - which she didn't question, she accepted. It was macro-science - evolutionary biology, cosmogony - which she disputed. In her mind they were completely separate branches of science: the Micro being real science; the Macro being shamanistic theory with no ability to be either proven or disproven.

The Industries who challenge Climate Science or Tobacco Science are very selective in their application of skepticism when the science challenges the whole way they create their vast wealth.

It's funny though, you'd probably find those that reject vaccinations probably would heavily support the AGW thesis (and vice versa).

I don't think vice versa can be true, or you'd have a huge number of people rejecting vacc's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

They frustrating thing, as I said in my last post, is that a lot of the people who reject one kind of science - vaccinations, AGW - for whatever reason don't go on to reject all science. Even those hostile to science, the fundamentalist religionist crowd, don't reject all science (some do). They will take it for granted about the theory of gravity, and nuclear physics, and the atomic structure of our materialist world, etc. etc. yet if science challenges a spiritual belief directly they automatically criticise that science not realising by criticising that science on spiritual grounds they actually criticise all science.

I heard Michelle Bachmann talk about micro-science - germ theory, nuclear physics - which she didn't question, she accepted. It was macro-science - evolutionary biology, cosmogony - which she disputed. In her mind they were completely separate branches of science: the Micro being real science; the Macro being shamanistic theory with no ability to be either proven or disproven.

The Industries who challenge Climate Science or Tobacco Science are very selective in their application of skepticism when the science challenges the whole way they create their vast wealth.

The lobby groups are a different case. They exploit this loss of trust in science.

Cherrypicking which science you want is not about science. It's about looking for information that conforms to and reinforces your beliefs. We all do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I'd love to know at what point science and enlightenment values were viewed in the highest regard. At a glance, those writers discuss the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories. I highly doubt this is a new phenomenon. Hitler used a false document as his 'warrant' for killing millions of people. Similarly, demonstrable falsely scientific notions like Lysenkoism killed millions through famine.

When was this brief age of enlightenment that the majority of people bought into?

I'm not talking about global binary states of acceptance and rejection. I'm talking about trends and notably the trends in the western world. We live in an educated technologically advanced world and we are trending away from science and trending towards folklore. There are a number of examples: creationism, global warming, vaccinations, non-pharmaceutical remedies... conservative politics.

We changed direction when Kennedy was shot. We took our eyes off the stars, and started to look to building corporatist hegemonies instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I'm not talking about global binary states of acceptance and rejection. I'm talking about trends and notably the trends in the western world. We live in an educated technologically advanced world and we are trending away from science and trending towards folklore. There are a number of examples: creationism, global warming, vaccinations, non-pharmaceutical remedies... conservative politics.

Erm. These things have existed for far longer than recent times. Snake oil salesmen, quackery and peddlers of misinformation aren't new, nor are there more of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Erm. These things have existed for far longer than recent times. Snake oil salesmen, quackery and peddlers of misinformation aren't new, nor are there more of them.

You're entitled to your view.

There might be the same numbers, but they sure do have greater access to the general public than they used to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

There might be the same numbers, but they sure do have greater access to the general public than they used to.

Not sure about that. The resources are there to give them greater access, but also to expose them as charlatans.

I'm convinced claude glass is Clive Hamilton.

You have entire news stations like Fox devoted to supporting the psuedo-babble of the neo-cons and anti science lobbies - presenting fiction as truth and fact as propoganda. The Dunning-Kruger effect clearly states people don't have the mental arsenal to work out fact from fiction in these situations.

The reach and scope of the denialists have never been stronger or more concentrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Not sure about that. The resources are there to give them greater access, but also to expose them as charlatans.

I'm convinced claude glass is Clive Hamilton.

I can see your point, and I might be starting to sound like a broken record, but I fear that despite the resources being there, people aren't taught how to use them, so they don't...

Also, exposure as a charlatan doesn't always have the desired effect. People keep on believing what they want to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

You have entire news stations like Fox devoted to supporting the psuedo-babble of the neo-cons and anti science lobbies - presenting fiction as truth and fact as propoganda. The Dunning-Kruger effect clearly states people don't have the mental arsenal to work out fact from fiction in these situations.

The reach and scope of the denialists have never been stronger or more concentrated.

And you know that if science was to prove that AGW doesn't really exist, or that vaccinations do cause autism, or that God does exist they wouldn't be skeptical of scientific claims then.

from the latest New Scientist:

Quote:

In fact, atheists might consider themselves as unrecognised victims of discrimination. In a recent opinion poll, Americans identified atheists as the group they would most disapprove of their children marrying and the one least likely to share their own vision of American society. Self-declared atheists are now the only sizeable minority group considered unelectable as president.

yes I know that says atheists but I think it ties on with the same movement against science, with the rise of religiously motivated trying to argue against science due to their own ignorance and/or greed.

I find it scary that while science has lead to such a huge improvement in quality of life over the past 100 (or so) years that so many people are willing to ignore or argue against it as soon as it tells them they need to change how they act.

Between the campaign against AGW and trying to get ID taught in schools I can see society sticking it's head in the sand so that the world can walk up and kick it in it's arse while the few of us who see it come can do nothing to stop them.

That includes the new agey lot.

They're just as bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

I can see your point, and I might be starting to sound like a broken record, but I fear that despite the resources being there, people aren't taught how to use them, so they don't...

i'm not so sure that people aren't taught how to use them, more that they're too lazy to put in the effort to educate themselves. it's so much easier to have FOX tell you what you should be thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberabit

i'm not so sure that people aren't taught how to use them, more that they're too lazy to put in the effort to educate themselves. it's so much easier to have FOX tell you what you should be thinking.

Maybe both is correct.

There isn't much of a grounding in logic and analysis unless you actively choose it.


EDIT.
It wouldn't be so bad if people were aware of the lack but they're not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

I can see your point, and I might be starting to sound like a broken record, but I fear that despite the resources being there, people aren't taught how to use them, so they don't...

Also, exposure as a charlatan doesn't always have the desired effect. People keep on believing what they want to believe.

Sure, but that's been the case since forever. Intelligent, enlightened people like Isaac Newton thought alchemy was a thing.

no, stupid people keep on believing what they want to believe. Intelligent people have the capacity for change.

Pity as the population explodes and the relative percentage of stupid vs intelligence remains the same, the intelligent are being increasingly outnumbered and shouted down by the ever more numerous stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

no, stupid people keep on believing what they want to believe. Intelligent people have the capacity for change.

Do they? William Shockley invented the transistor and believed there was some scientific basis to eugenics, despite evidence to the contrary. Oh wait, kind of like this:

Quote:

Pity as the population explodes and the relative percentage of stupid vs intelligence remains the same, the intelligent are being increasingly outnumbered and shouted down by the ever more numerous stupid.

no, like this , a nobel prize winning work :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

or as Bertrand Russell put it :

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Sure, but that's been the case since forever. Intelligent, enlightened people like Isaac Newton thought alchemy was a thing.

We're going around in circles...

This is what I mean:

1) chicanery and stupidity has a much wider audience than before
2) although by corollary, "good" data is equally wide reaching, people aren't as susceptible to rationality as they are to the wiles of a charlatan, and they don't have the skills to analyse data anyway

Leading to
3) a proliferation of contradictory material, both good and bad, being read by a population who are not able to discern between the two

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

no, like this , a nobel prize winning work :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

or as Bertrand Russell put it :

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

Ig Nobel prize winning work. Ig Nobel. Same prize Dr Karl got for his belly button lint theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Sure, but that's been the case since forever. Intelligent, enlightened people like Isaac Newton thought alchemy was a thing.

alchemy was a thing, the thing that pretty much lead directly to the scientific method and chemistry. The fact that they were aiming for something they couldn't do doesn't change that.

Sure, and astrology led to astronomy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Ig Nobel prize winning work. Ig Nobel. Same prize Dr Karl got for his belly button lint theory.

see what I mean? The correct way to argue this is to attack the science, not the author or the community. Yet denialists and anti-science proponents act like you have above and attack the author/community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

see what I mean? The correct way to argue this is to attack the science, not the author or the community. Yet denialists and anti-science proponents act like you have above and attack the author/community.

I'm attacking the fact you can't even get basic facts right yet want to cast aspersions on others' intelligence. Hypocritical as always, dbb618.

you cherry pick one non-central piece of my argument ... now - please, refute the science. I'd like to see what you have to say about the Dunning Kruger effect - is it correct, or is it not? If it is not, please inform me how and I'll change my original opinion about stupid people being unable to determine fact from fiction when watching TV stations like Fox.

So, I'll make it simple : Do you think the Dunning Kruger effect is likely, or not?

If not, then where has their science failed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

you cherry pick one non-central piece of my argument ... now - please, refute the science. I'd like to see what you have to say about the Dunning Kruger effect - is it correct, or is it not? If it is not, please inform me how and I'll change my original opinion about stupid people being unable to determine fact from fiction when watching TV stations like Fox.

So, I'll make it simple : Do you think the Dunning Kruger effect is likely, or not?

If not, then where has their science failed?

Why do I have to refute the science again? Given that Bertrand Russell said the same thing as them, it kind of goes to my theory that people are no less enlightened nor rejecting of enlightenment than they were in the past.

And since when has the Dunning-Kruger effect had anything to do with telling fact from fiction? It's about measuring one's own competence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Sure, but that's been the case since forever. Intelligent, enlightened people like Isaac Newton thought alchemy was a thing.

When Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian physics was wrong in many of it's assumptions and conclusions, planes didn't immediately fall out of the sky. We still used Newtonian physics to fly to the moon.

Physics hadn't changed, merely our understanding of it.

Sure Newton believed in some whacky ideas, but the reason we know they are whacky now is people tested them out and found there was no evidence to support it.

It's telling that the people arguing against science have to play the man and point out individuals involved in that science flaws. The reason science is so robust is it doesn't rely on a single person like most religions/cults/political movements but is in fact a compilation of all the study done by anyone who ever studied it.

Anyone who has studied science has been wrong about a lot of things, it's part of the process of working out what is and isn't likely to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

When Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian physics was wrong in many of it's assumptions and conclusions, planes didn't immediately fall out of the sky. We still used Newtonian physics to fly to the moon.

Physics hadn't changed, merely our understanding of it.

Sure Newton believed in some whacky ideas, but the reason we know they are whacky now is people tested them out and found there was no evidence to support it.

It's telling that the people arguing against science have to play the man and point out individuals involved in that science flaws. The reason science is so robust is it doesn't rely on a single person like most religions/cults/political movements but is in fact a compilation of all the study done by anyone who ever studied it.

Anyone who has studied science has been wrong about a lot of things, it's part of the process of working out what is and isn't likely to be true.

I think you've missed my point. There's this notion that people these days are more easily conned by falsehoods and anti-scientific ideas, leading us into a dark age.

But even some of the most intelligent people in history have been conned by them. I don't think anything's changing, it's just easier to hear the stupid than it ever has been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I'm convinced claude glass is Clive Hamilton.

And I'm convinced your just being argumentative.

I'm aligned with a lot of what Clive Hamilton has to say, but not everything he has to say. At least he is a considered thinker and doesn't rely on gut feel, something becoming typical of our society's post-enlightment turn. On that basis I take your comment as a compliment.

Hamilton is a Cassandra. He views everything through the prism that if it exists, it must be turning to shit somehow.

All I know is I'm in Seoul at the moment and this place is like the fucking future - but fans here still come with a timer so you don't suffocate if you leave them on at night in your room with the window closed.

ha!! i've heard about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

All I know is I'm in Seoul at the moment and this place is like the fucking future - but fans here still come with a timer so you don't suffocate if you leave them on at night in your room with the window closed.

So much this. And it turns out the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't seen in east Asians, so that rules out that explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I think you've missed my point. There's this notion that people these days are more easily conned by falsehoods and anti-scientific ideas, leading us into a dark age.

But even some of the most intelligent people in history have been conned by them. I don't think anything's changing, it's just easier to hear the stupid than it ever has been.

Yeah that's fair.

I doubt there is an increase in ignorance over say the middle ages or even the 1950's but there does seem to have been a tipping point in recent history where we have started to slide back in that direction with scientists become less credible in the public's eyes as a direct result of the wealthy and powerful spending massive amounts of money to use the media to sway public opinion on scientific matters.

Just out of interest, where is the evidence for that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Yeah that's fair.

I doubt there is an increase in ignorance over say the middle ages or even the 1950's but there does seem to have been a tipping point in recent history where we have started to slide back in that direction with scientists become less credible in the public's eyes as a direct result of the wealthy and powerful spending massive amounts of money to use the media to sway public opinion on scientific matters.

It's weird, I've always thought that scientists had a pretty uneasy relationship with the public, except for a period during WW2 and the years afterwards, where they were generally revered as having helped win the war. But prior to that, they were either ignored or poorly understood, just like now. Most of sciences greatest achievements have only really become apparent to the general populace in the past 50 years anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by becy

Just out of interest, where is the evidence for that?

FOX News is pretty much evidence of the power of the corporatists using extreme reach to befuddle the ignorant.

... also all of the Murdoch newspapers to varying extents.

If you look at advertising, you'll see that science has often been co-opted into giving stamps of approval on products and services.

That tends to make me wonder if there is an overall perceived respect for science as an authority.

Oddly enough, I became a lot happier when I stopped reading newspapers last year. I don't feel that much less informed for it either. I let my crikey subscription run out last month too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

FOX News is pretty much evidence of the power of the corporatists using extreme reach to befuddle the ignorant.

... also all of the Murdoch newspapers to varying extents.

That's not really evidence....

The reason I ask is that you all seem to pounce on each other and demand empirical evidence for a lot of other claims, yet that one just slides right on by.

you deny there is a massive media empire funded by Murdoch and his backers to pursue an ideological right wing agenda?

It's reasonably self evident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

you deny there is a massive media empire funded by Murdoch and his backers to pursue an ideological right wing agenda?

I don't know actually. Probably not? I just want to see the evidence for the bit quoted below - what's wrong with that? To be honest, I think I'm biased towards believing it, but my gut feeling isn't evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by griggle

I doubt there is an increase in ignorance over say the middle ages or even the 1950's but there does seem to have been a tipping point in recent history where we have started to slide back in that direction with scientists become less credible in the public's eyes as a direct result of the wealthy and powerful spending massive amounts of money to use the media to sway public opinion on scientific matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

It's reasonably self evident.

That's a terrible response to a request for evidence. I'll pretend you didn't say it.

If a white guy calls a black women a ****** bitch, it's reasonably self evident that's a racist insult.