…and this is a 
This is old news. The NY Times has an article on the expanding agenda of creationists to include denial of lots of other phenomena that make them uncomfortable. We've known this for years! It isn't just creationism; those beliefs have a surprisingly high correlation with denial of climate change, denial of HIV's role in AIDS, anti-vax nonsense, rejection of the Big Bang, dualism, etc., etc., etc. At the root of these problems is discomfort with modernity and change, resentment of authority, anti-intellectualism, and of course, goddamned religion, which is little more than a rationalization for maintaining barbarous medieval values. So, yeah, face the facts: creationism isn't just a weird reaction to bad science instruction and those annoying godless liberal college professors — it's just one symptom of a deep-seated mental derangement.
One example from the story:
In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss "the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories," including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
They often do this, taking the opportunity to try and get a whole slate of dogma incorporated into law. This one, from State Reprehensible Tim Moore of Kentucky, is just particularly stupid, but characteristic of the genre. I'm just impressed that now human cloning is a theory — I thought it was a technique.
They also mention the recent South Dakota resolution.
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant," the resolution said, "but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life."
Change the wording a little bit, and substitute "shit" for "carbon dioxide", and it's still just as true.
I have been repeatedly told that going to the root of the problem, the unwarranted deference given to religious views, is a tactical error if what we want is to improve the citizenry's understanding of biology. What these kinds of absurdities reveal, though, is that creationism is just one wretched excrescence of a whole body of pathological thought…and that focusing on one symptom while avoiding the cause is pointless.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
March 4, 2010 11:16 AM
I think I'm going to use that next time someone pulls that argument on me.
Posted by: Quantumburrito
|
March 4, 2010 11:18 AM
This is really scary because as you mention, it's not just about climate change or evolution but about the scientific method itself. These thugs are using promotion of mistrust of evolution and climate change as a tactic to foster mistrust of science itself, to declare all of science (or at least that which does not disagree with their worldview) as simply theorizing. This will easily open the door for them to convince their gullible followers to reject every other science-related policy issue which they are vehemently against; alternative energy and stem cell research prominently come to mind. These guys basically want to turn the country into a place where all of science is simply regarded as tentative and therefore religious dogma is no worse an explanation for almost anything. It's truly chilling and a decidedly enthusiastic run back into the Middle Ages.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload
|
March 4, 2010 11:18 AM
One thing is somewhat true - CO2 is necessary for plant life. Increased CO2 should lead to a decrease in photorespiration, may make plants more water use efficient, and perhaps even better at dealing with toxins. It may even increase their mass. Of course, the increased temperatures will have precisely the opposite effect. On top of that Climate Change is likely to lead to more droughts, floods, and a more erratic weather patterns which will lead to the extinction of many species. Of course, the biggest fact that this numbnuts doesn't seem to realize is that most plants in most environments are nitrogen rather than carbon limited.
Posted by: EricTheHalf
|
March 4, 2010 11:22 AM
Remind me, again, why it is that people die in submarines that can't surface.
Is it because the oxygen runs out?
Posted by: snurp
|
March 4, 2010 11:25 AM
Human cloning is a theory? I mean, the rest of it makes me question their understanding of the scientific use of the word "theory," but that doesn't even make colloquial sense.
Posted by: Galwayskeptic
|
March 4, 2010 11:25 AM
'What these kinds of absurdities reveal, though, is that creationism is just one wretched excrescence of a whole body of pathological thought…and that focusing on one symptom while avoiding the cause is pointless.'
Couldn't agree more...
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
March 4, 2010 11:27 AM
I call this the "canary in a coal mine" syndrome (or effect, or, whatever). Creationism in and of itself is mostly an annoyance that leads to some people to lack the ability to function as scientists in biology or other fields related to evolution. However, it's not the death of the canary that I find disturbing but it's implications. It points out something very toxic in the air.
Posted by: SteveM
|
March 4, 2010 11:28 AM
Remember George Washington Carver's "A weed is just a flower growing in the wrong place", likewise a pollutant is just a nutrient in the wrong place (or quantity).
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 4, 2010 11:34 AM
And uncertainty is immensely problematic for them. They don't know science, they don't get inference, and they can't stand error bars.
The uncertainties inherent in climate science are always a problem for their binary thinking, which has the slots "right" and "wrong," with one position "right" by default. Uncertainty is "wrong," so certainty that AGW is incorrect is "right."
Evolution, by contrast, is about as certain as any empirical science can be, but if you introduce uncertainty (design might have done it to look like evolution--could have, you know), it's uncertain, and "wrong."
They're into religion because they demand certainty, although they may demand certainty in part because they were already religious.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: skullsinthestars.com
|
March 4, 2010 11:40 AM
Could someone point the South Dakota legislature to the wiki page on Lake Nyos? Maybe they shouldn't be taking such a plant-centric view of atmospheric gases. Though, to be fair, most of them probably have a significant amount of vegetable matter in what passes for their brains.
Posted by: vanharris
|
March 4, 2010 11:42 AM
A true gem.
Posted by: bellerophon
|
March 4, 2010 11:44 AM
Such is the diversity of human thought I think if you look you can find all sorts of odd correlations of ideas in individuals. I could name one very high profile individual who strongly believes in climate change, but also strongly believes in and promotes homeopathy, chiropracty, and all the other medical woo out there.
Posted by: Antiochus Epimanes
|
March 4, 2010 11:47 AM
As a resident of Kentucky until recently, and frequent reporter on the state General Assembly, I can attest that Moore's dimwitted bill is not evidence of a resurgence of creatard effort. Nearly identical bills, and similar bits of demagoguery related to abortion, school prayer and gay-bashing, get submitted every session. They're always done by otherwise undistinguished legislators, usually facing some ethical scandal, who figure they need to burnish their nutjob credentials with the pinheads back home. Not that said pinheads make up the entire constituency, but their churches do bus them in to vote reliably.
The bills almost never make it out of committee. While most Kentucky legislators are too timid to take on the crazies in public, they're sensible enough to quietly squash the bills before they reach the floor. That makes everyone happy: idiotic laws don't get passed, and the bill sponsors can still go home and say "I tried so hard to stand up for you and Jebus, but them nasty Frankfort lllllibruls invoked Satan to stop me! But send me (and more like me) back again, and maybe righteousness will prevail in the next session!"
Posted by: bellerophon
|
March 4, 2010 11:49 AM
,"They're into religion because they demand certainty". True and so is the converse. Those who claim certainty are religious rather than scientific.
Posted by: Truckle
|
March 4, 2010 11:50 AM
I like Orac's name for it.
Crank Magnetism. How the acceptance of one conspiracy theory seems to open up the door to a whole lot of woo.
Posted by: destlund
|
March 4, 2010 11:51 AM
I have to disagree with one point there, PZ. You said "resentment of authority," but I would argue that these people are authoritarians of the highest order (ultimate imaginary authority über alles in der Welt), and their belief sets trigger the delegitimization/demonization of human/rational authority when that authority contradicts their beliefs.
Posted by: destlund
|
March 4, 2010 12:06 PM
Oh, and if "truthiness" was the word of the decade for the oughts, "scienciness" will probably be the word for the teens. Once it started looking like objective truth had a place in public policy, the noise machine started grinding away louder than ever.
Posted by: drnescio
|
March 4, 2010 12:11 PM
Reality rejection syndrome has been described in medical literature as crank magnetism, both here ( http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/11/crank-magnetism.html ) and here ( http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/12/crank-magnetism-revisited.html ).
Posted by: broboxley
|
March 4, 2010 12:13 PM
You might find a lot of folk who dont agree with AGW not because of the science and the uncertainty of some of the stats but of the wholesale dive to strip them of their money and impose an unknown new order upon their lives.
"Those who claim certainty are religious rather than scientific" is kinda like the bible scholar discussing how plato stories are mythical because they were told for a few generations before writing them down.
Posted by: Carl
|
March 4, 2010 12:19 PM
And of course there's Andrew Schlafly's ignorant dismissal of relativity. I think that Schlafly might be the most clueless person alive.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
March 4, 2010 12:21 PM
Translation:
Some people reject AGW because they do not give a fuck about anyone else and see no reason why they should stop putting the lives of others at risk by reducing their C02 footprint.
Reply:
That is a fucking poor reason to reject AGW.
Posted by: mattand08
|
March 4, 2010 12:27 PM
Re HIV denial:
I was just discussing this the other night with someone. I get the motives behind creationism and AGW denail; HIV denial has me baffled. Anyone know the "logic" behind that one?
Posted by: ktesibios
|
March 4, 2010 12:28 PM
@Truckle: I was going to mention that the very same phenomenon is commonly observed among devotees of paranoid conspiracy theories, but I'll settle for offering another term for it: syndromism.
I ganked it from J.C. Furnas' The life and Times of the Late Demon Rum.
I've noticed that there seems to be a correlation between authoriarian-follower personality traits and susceptibility to paranoid conspiracism, so it's no surprise that wingnut Christopaths (who are classic high-RWA followers) are also very prone to syndromism.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
March 4, 2010 12:36 PM
I don't know if that can be accurate, theism is the ultimate argument from authority.Posted by: ckitching
|
March 4, 2010 12:39 PM
A lot of the HIV denialists have been tested as HIV positive. They have a horse in the race, so to speak. Unsurprisingly, most die of AIDS a few years/decades later.Posted by: rob
|
March 4, 2010 12:39 PM
a creationist, a farmer and an an athiest were walking down a path and came upon a magic lamp. they rubbed the lamp--a genie popped out and said each will get one wish.
the farmer wished that his families farm and surrounding farms would be fertile forever, providing food and well being for the generations to come.
the creationist wished for a dome over his state, creating a haven where no unbelievers would be able to intrude and spread their science, their politics, their humanist agendas or their vaccines.
the athiest asked the genie to describe the dome.
the genie replied, oh, it is truly a wonder of the modern world. it is made of an ultra-strong composite of graphene. it is 500' tall and 100' feet thick at the bottom and covered with transparent panels of nano-diamond that only sunshine can get through. it is completely self sufficient and absolutley impregnable. there is no possible way anyone or anything can get in or get out.
the athiest said "i want you to fill it with carbon dioxide."
Posted by: Royce Bitzer
|
March 4, 2010 12:42 PM
What we're seeing here is the radical Christian inversion of all ethics. These people seem to believe that outright lying, distorting evidence to argue for their own case, and making ad hominem attacks on their opponents are all perfectly justifiable tactics. Much of what we would consider good, beneficial, or worthwhile, they consider "evil," and vice versa. Quantumburrito's reply at #2 is precisely on target - these militant ignoramuses are making a vigorous stand not just against rationality, but against reality itself.
This is the same mindset that has disastrously infested our politics, as Paul Krugman discusses in a recent posting to his blog:
You're So Vain, February 27, 2010
It's very frightening. Just at the time we need to deal with our accumulating problems by rational means, a host of profoundly ignorant and maniacal screamers is popping up just in time to obstreperously get in the way. Resolving a problem such as global climate change will take all the carefulness and delicacy of a walk on a tightrope. Now imagine taking that walk with a mad pitbull terrier fastened to your leg.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 4, 2010 12:43 PM
Yes I reject the scientifically backed notion that asparagus is a good source of vitamin B6, calcium, magnesium and zinc, and a very good source of dietary fiber, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin, rutin, niacin, folic acid, iron, phosphorus, potassium, copper, manganese and selenium because it makes my pee stink and its shape is disturbing to me.
Posted by: Zach
|
March 4, 2010 12:54 PM
Rob @#26: That is SO not how I thought that joke was going to end. I was thinking...
...So finally the genie asks the atheist what he wants, and the atheist asks, "So you mean to tell me that we have enough fertile farmland so solve hunger problems, and all the creationists are locked away in a big dome?" The genie says, "Yes. Now what is your wish?" So the atheist says, "I'll have a Coke, then."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 4, 2010 12:56 PM
Be careful rob, the crybabies over at the Colgate Twin's will accuse you of wanting to kill creationists.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
March 4, 2010 12:58 PM
Colgate Twin's blog
somehow dropped that word
Posted by: Zabinatrix
|
March 4, 2010 1:06 PM
Yeah, it's funny how often I see that as a standard knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of environmentalism. And I really don't understand it.
I've been involved in some environmental organizations in my days, and at times I've been discussing with people, talking about different ways to be more "green".
The common thread in all the suggestions was that you will save a lot of money over time by using less energy, at the same time as you help the world, and help work towards a kind of freedom by lessening our reliance on finite resources. So it was good all around - good for the environment, good for society, good for you.
..And of course a lot of people would just have the reaction "You just want my money!" and "Global warming is a lie - you're just trying to control me!" and so on... They seem to feel a need to believe that any "green" initiative is an attempt to rob them and run their lives, and I don't know why. And no matter how much you tell them that there are other reasons, besides global warming, to cut down on fossil fuel usage, they just keep repeating "We don't need to do that! Global warming is just a lie to let you control me!" or something to that effect.
I've never even understood who the big boogeyman they see in the closet is. Who has the evil plan to control people through environmentalism? Who stands to gain? I mean, it's very obvious who stands to gain on the "AGW is a lie"-anti-environmentalism-side. Of course I don't believe that the oil companies are behind all of the voices on that side of the debate, but at least they would have a clear motive. I don't know how I would benefit from some evil plan to make up lies about the benefits of energy conservation.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
March 4, 2010 1:06 PM
You can re-frame that libertarian argument all sorts of different ways. For whatever reason(s), libertarians defend military spending - typically without conditions or limits - despite corruption, shoddy work and mind-boggling waste. The more contradictory the arguments for something, the more dishonest those arguments look. If you're really upset about the big bad government and its "wholesale dive to strip" you of your money then military spending as inflicted upon us for decades should make you rabid frothing angry. If you're really concerned about national security, then the corruption, shoddy work and waste should make you rabid frothing angry. I have seen neither in real life nor online. Who has seen libertarians in D.C. waving signs and screaming about military waste?
What I have seen both in person and online is libertarians going rabid frothing angry over AGW, public assistance to the poor, universal health care, regulation, the income tax and the "government" in general. This makes me think that there is something else going on that has nothing to do with science or evidence.
BTW for any interested, Here's an interview with MIlton Friedman in which he states outright that the only "proper" activity for the government is to maintain a military and police apparatus. It has some other gems in there too, such as his opposition to building codes.
Posted by: glowball
|
March 4, 2010 1:11 PM
Looks to me like Future Shock/change panic has been jacked into by those with power agendas. Add the fact that a great deal of effort is applied in grade school to teach people *not* to think, and you get exactly this. "Simple answers" for simpletons, and the demagogues have ready audiences to profit off of.
Posted by: Kathy Orlinsky
|
March 4, 2010 1:13 PM
I can understand why someone wouldn't appreciate some particular field of science. Personally, I'm not that into geology. I cannot understand why someone would not appreciate science in general. Don't they like clean air and water? Medicine? Cool pictures from the Hubble? Ipods? Do they think god gave them all those things?
Wait.... don't answer that.
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 4, 2010 1:14 PM
Indeed it is. It is a technique by which the soulless armies of the atheist apocalypse are being constructed. Valiant warriors for Christ have passed this bill in last ditch effort to save humanity!Posted by: Sastra
|
March 4, 2010 1:16 PM
It's hard to see how people think they can believe in supernatural, magical forces guiding events in order for us to learn lessons -- and not have this interfere in any way with science. Once you accept that the universe is basically magic, how do you draw the line? Or, more to the point, how do you tell other people that they've drawn the line in the wrong place? The magic doesn't go that far, silly. It only stays in this untestable, unprovable area.
But it's really great that you're a person of faith. There's something especially noble and commendable in believing in certain facts on insufficient evidence, because that takes character. Right.
Since they rely on subjective truths and revelations, religions always set up stories about special insiders with special knowledge and special character traits, alone in a world of Others who will not understand them, and will reject them, and persecute them. It's the perfect narrative field for growing conspiracy theories. The highly competitive scientific enterprise is easily re-framed as a closed, undifferentiated cabal of enemies, who know only the World.
Posted by: ereador
|
March 4, 2010 1:19 PM
They want AIDS to be caused by something other than HIV. Explore that, I think. I am trying to figure it out myself, but I suspect their view is connected to their desire for control of human sexual behavior; specifically, their anti-gay stance. They still think AIDS is a gay disease, and the notion of improving community health by dispensing condoms or teaching people safe-sex practices in general, supports promiscuity, in their eyes. You know, teh gay might get loose if everyone thinks they can behave loosely because they have birth-control and disease control.Posted by: Royce Bitzer
|
March 4, 2010 1:24 PM
Whenever I hear such folks repeating this canard, I want to send them on a one-way trip to Venus
Atmosphere of Venus
and then ask them, "Enough CO2 for you?"
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 4, 2010 1:28 PM
Kathy Orlinsky #35 wrote:
Oh, they like the part of science which is technology, because they understand making and building things to use. But science itself has to do with the underlying explanations behind the technology, and why things work. As the explanations get larger, and more involved and complex, they start to get in the way of religious explanations. We are not discovering that the universe is deeply concerned with our moral actions or personal choices.
Since the religious already know that the universe is deeply concerned with them, science is not just wrong, but intruding on the 'turf' of the people who already know the answers -- for they are humble, and science is not.
Posted by: broboxley
|
March 4, 2010 1:29 PM
@Celtic_Evolution #32 let me help you out with a link
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19863 your average woo believing middle american only see's that side of the argument, not your side
Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded
|
March 4, 2010 1:30 PM
Another example of crank magnetism: Global warming was invented to justify abortion. AGW lets liberals think that they are doing good for the planet and not just their greedy selves by keepin the population down.
Heard that one on "Point of View" a wacko xtian public affairs talk radio program. (Sometimes I have to spend hours driving in Appalachia where I have a choice of 14 xtian radio stations.)
Posted by: Pen
|
March 4, 2010 1:37 PM
I think there should be an absolute block on non-evidence based arguments (including religion) being brought to bear in areas where evidence is available.
Doesn't it even occur to the moron you mention that whilst it is possible to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of human cloning, advantage is simply irrelevant when you're trying to establish a fact. Send the sucker back to school!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
March 4, 2010 1:38 PM
broboxley #41
I think you mis-threaded that post...
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
March 4, 2010 1:43 PM
Wow. Impressive.
:-S
You're sick.
For crying out loud! :-D
Ignorance produces fear, and fear produces conservativism. It's always the same.
Perfect. :-)
AFAIK this phenomenon is mostly restricted to the USA. That probably tells us a lot about its causes.
I don't get your point. I only see people walking on streets at your link.
Posted by: mtobis
|
March 4, 2010 1:47 PM
Speaking of such matters...
I don't know how you all feel about Al Gore, but I'm told this crowd likes to stand up to people who skew internet polls.
The climate denial crew is sending folks to a poll on whether Al Gore deserves his pending honorary doctorate from the University of Tennessee.
http://www.knoxnews.com/polls/2010/feb/al-gore-poll/results/
Lend a hand if you can.
Posted by: tsg
|
March 4, 2010 1:47 PM
It's because they don't understand what science is. They think it consists entirely of frazzle-haired men with big, bushy eyebrows in white coats and glasses scrutinizing test tubes in a laboratory full of machines that gurgle and go "ping". It's fine for making refrigerators, iPods, and (some) medicine, but is too short sighted to answer The Big QuestionsTM.
Posted by: broboxley
|
March 4, 2010 1:53 PM
@celtic_evolution sorry wrong poster correct post number
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
March 4, 2010 1:59 PM
broboxley #48
Ahhh... makes sense... no worries.
Posted by: broboxley
|
March 4, 2010 1:59 PM
@David Marjanović #45 the signs they were holding expressed revolution and socialism. In middle woo fearing America that leaves little brown stains in their shorts
Posted by: blf
|
March 4, 2010 2:04 PM
Except, of course, neither the existence of AGW nor the technological reasons it exists have anything to do with “strip them of their money and impose an unknown new order upon their lives.” Some of the underlying sociological causes might (read: rampant greed, not thinking of the future, yadda yadda…), but that is of course no reason to reject AGW as a concept, its existence, or the science of its existence and functioning.
The above “reasoning” is a straw-man. It takes something not said—“strip them of their money and impose an unknown new order upon their lives”—and attacks that. As Matt Penfold @21 essentially pointed out, that's a desire to keep on doing the same things, the same sociological causes, which helped create the problems. (Plural. AGW is a whole host of problems, climate change and its many effects.)
Or to put it another way, they've invented a fix (and/or the imagined consequences of a self-invented fix), and are attacking that: This fix and its consequences are no good, therefore the problems—AGW—don't exist.
I can do that too: I don't like the smell of fresh shite, therefore all xians have no idea how to use a toilet. The premise—I don't like the smell of fresh shite—is true, but that fails to lead to the “conclusion”—all xians have no idea how to use a toilet—however much I want that “conclusion” to true. I've invented something—xians cannot be the source of smelly shite because they all know how to use a toilet—and am attacking that, “disproving” it because I don't like the smell of fresh shite.
Sorry to rant, but this particular nonsense of the AGW-deniers is on my shortlist of Fecking Stupid SPRONG!!!1!
Posted by: Beth B.
|
March 4, 2010 2:12 PM
Keep up these excellent essays on science and religion, and the Templetonians are *bound* to take notice!
Perhaps in addition to their fellowships they also offer condemnations?
Posted by: broboxley
|
March 4, 2010 2:17 PM
blf #51
strawman, wrong whatever. Watch some of the teabag conferences, its real exists and is measurable....hey wait a minute :-)
Posted by: Midwifetoad
|
March 4, 2010 2:18 PM
I have noticed in the last couple of weeks a tendency for former opponents of nuclear power to change their minds.
Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog), Michael Douglas (China Syndrome)
And of course, Obama has long favored nukes, although many Democrats oppose them.
Posted by: calcinations
|
March 4, 2010 2:25 PM
Dave Marjanovic #45 - we have many such people in the UK, and they are definitely present across europe. Most would identify as conservative or libertarian. Few give any sign of actually trying ot understand the science, instead it is a kneejerk reaction to any attempt to limit what they think of as their freedom (in reality most are thirled to the status quo and stuff).
The origins of such thought include the last 30 years of propaganda from right wingers, and the vestiges of the last 200 years struggle for universal suffrage, which in the UK is only 90 years old.
Posted by: dNorrisM
|
March 4, 2010 2:27 PM
Some plants can use extra CO2 more efficiently than others, and it stands to reason that some weeds would be in that category. It also seems likely that domestication/cultivation might select against extra CO2 uptake. So, buy Roundup stock.
Posted by: rudy
|
March 4, 2010 2:31 PM
PZ blames, "goddamned religion".
There's the problem! The wrong kind of religion :)
They should really use the God-approved kind, not the kind that they use, um, downstairs.
While it's bizarre and scary to watch the creationists expand into adjacent niches, it's telling that even though the article quotes a "green" evangelical who diagnoses the problem as,
“This group already feels like scientists are attacking their faith and calling them idiots,” he said, “so they are likely to be skeptical” about global warming.
- PZ prescribes more of the same. One of these men is wrong.
Posted by: Bastion Of Sass
|
March 4, 2010 2:34 PM
Yesterday, one of my kids and I discussed the fact that several people we know who are the most highly conservative politically also seem to be highly religious, deny climate change, and, to top things off, are homophobic.
I don't know what the correlation is, but it's noticeable.
Posted by: KevinS
|
March 4, 2010 2:34 PM
Well I for one vote the for the elimination of our sewer systems because, like CO2, shit is a powerful fertilizer and a boon to plant life. From now on we all do our business wherever we happen to be standing. No need to sequester and filter it because, as these these really really really smart people say (smarter especially than the scientists who say otherwise!), it's good for the environment.
Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher
|
March 4, 2010 2:35 PM
Scientific findings are, by their nature, tentative... just not in the manner that the religiots choose to portray them. If you're basing your interpretation on the evidence, and the evidence changes, your interpretation can't be anything but tentative.Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
March 4, 2010 2:37 PM
Your side already lost due to the intransigence of India and China. Somehow I don't think that's related to creationism or American right wingers.
However, creationist enemies of science are using the misbehavior of some scientists to discredit science.
Not unlike warm-mongers using the antics of creationists to discredit those who would not be ruled by them.
I'm just waiting to see what will be the next pretext ("crisis") for implementing a "better" world.
To a boy with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. To a scientist with a taste for vicarious domination ...
Posted by: lesbianjesus
|
March 4, 2010 2:47 PM
It's about personal responsible
If it's all part of God's master plan, it's not our problem, he's responsible.
Posted by: applescrapple
|
March 4, 2010 2:48 PM
Thanks you, as usual P.Z.
Posted by: Haruhiist
|
March 4, 2010 3:09 PM
To a scientist with a taste for vicarious domination ...
Ahhahahahhahahaha know many scientists, do you? All of them power-hungry megalomaniacs?
I think you will find that the people with a taste for vicarious domination will go into politics sooner than science, because the former actually gives them an amount of power.
Posted by: Haruhiist
|
March 4, 2010 3:11 PM
hmm that should have been blockquoted...
Posted by: raven
|
March 4, 2010 3:24 PM
You need to lay off the LSD so early in the day.
Out of 550 or so US congresspeople, only 1 or a few are scientists. IIRC, the most common profession is lawyer, which both Clinton and Obama are.
Out of 550 or so US congresspeople, only 1 is an out of the closet atheist. The vast majority are xians.
If you hate scientists and science so much, why are you using a computer on the internet and consuming electricity? Free country, nothing to stop you from adopting a pre-science subsistence agriculture lifestyle.
Posted by: Anodyne
|
March 4, 2010 3:32 PM
I haven't the time to read through all of the responses, so forgive me if this has been previously stated:
Coming from a background of insane fundamentalist parents (i.e. YEC, "gays don't exist, they're just sinners", etc., etc., ad nauseum...), my hypothesis for most of the issues they "disagree with"--as if that magically nullifies the issue--is a lack of concern for others. Their attitude is "it's us against the world", which explains why adjectives such as "worldly" are seen as pejoratives.
The ooey-gooey saccharine message of love that they say is Christianity only applies to those they don't find beneath them.
It's not exactly "kill 'em all; let God sort them out" for a lot of them; it's more like "you sin, you get what you deserve". Explanations for natural disasters? "well, it's just that there's so much sin in the world". "Why does God let innocent children die?" Nevermind the children. Apparently they weren't so innocent if God killed them. Until they are old enough to declare a lifestyle/religion for themselves, they are automatically a clone in ideas, lifetyles and sinfulness as their parents. (This is somewhere in the Bible as I recall from years of being dragged to church, though I couldn't tell you where. "The child bears the shame of their fathers" or something to that effect.)
My mother is a very sweet and kind lady. She loves children and animals to a ridiculous degree. She's kind of smart too. ...But she's a fundamentalist. She doesn't even see how some of the things she says are ugly, cruel and disgusting. If it's in the Bible, then it's the word of God, so it can't be "bad" or whatever. There is NO reasoning with anyone who takes answers from an "infallible" authoritative source. Infallible means infallible. There is nothing you will ever say that will change your mind because you, scientists, doctors, etc. are all HUMAN. The bible was written by God, so obviously it is smarter than any stupid human. Any person seen as saying something that doesn't jive with their interpretation of Christianity is automatically, unquestionably wrong. If you are to seriously question any of it, you must question all of it. And if you're starting to question it, you're already on the slippery slope to hell...and the Christians aren't too keen on the idea of going there.
When you combine the lauding of "meek" ignorance, specifics as to what kind of person you have to be, who you can associate with, along with the threat of eternal pain, torture, and punishment? easy recipe for brainwashing. I really feel sad for them sometimes. It's the same bullshit cycle as with spousal (or other) abuse. "...but he loves me!" What a terrible shame.
So when it comes to AGW, insertion of religion into politics, schools, etc. the attitude is naturally "holier-than-thou" because their information is from a "holier" place than you and therefore cannot be questioned. If you try to question, you're obviously being influenced by (*gasp!*) the Devil.
The fact that the population of atheists is largely increasing in younger demographics gives me hope. And I agree- the only answer to this is to get at the root cause and not the symptoms. Doing otherwise would be like treating AIDS exhibiting the symptom of weight loss and advising them to put a ton of change in their pockets to bring their weight up instead of finding a way to address the actual disease. And just like that, if we continue to fight against only the symptoms that result from such worldviews, it has little to no effect on the disease itself.
We just have to keep pushing for higher standards of education. A prophylaxis for idiocy. It's like a condom for your brain. :)
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
March 4, 2010 3:34 PM
If that's the case, I challenge them to spend some time in a room full of Carbon dioxide and see how that goes.
Posted by: augustus mulliner
|
March 4, 2010 3:40 PM
Someone on the NY Times site had an excellent suggestion for the worthy Rep. Moore: Stick a plastic bag over your head and see how well that "beneficial ingredient" is working for you. On second thought, maybe not such a great idea ... the guy's evidently a potted plant. He'd love it.
Posted by: jon.richt
|
March 4, 2010 3:41 PM
That's a nice idea, but let's apply it to other problems and see where it leads us:
Problem: drug abuse. Root cause: the desire to numb our senses. PZ's solution: make everyone happy enough to care when they've numbed themselves too much.?
Problem: the quality of the justice you receive correlates with the amount of money you spend on getting it. Root cause: lawyers are paid for their services. PZ's solution: force lawyers to work for free?
Problem: only wealthy people get elected to the highest offices in this land. Root cause: speech is free, but it takes money to get yourself heard by the voters. PZ's solution: all elections are publicly funded?
Problem: traffic congestion. Root cause: too many people with vehicles and not enough room on the roads. PZ's solution: flying cars.
---
Sure, they're not perfect examples; I don't have the time to write a paper on this. My point is that there are PLENTY of problems society can't address the root causes of. I agree that we should at least be trying to address them, but doing so means we have to be ready for little-to-no return on the amount of time and energy we invest in addressing them.
You can't solve substance abuse by making people happier. You can't force lawyers to work for free. You can't turn us all into The Jetsons. So what exactly do you do?
GOOD FREAKIN QUESTION.
PS. religion is not what's causing people to believe in wacky things. I suspect it's the fact that people reject society; they're unhappy, and look for things that provide comfort. Religion, drugs, conspiracy theories - these are all merely symptoms of the problem.
Posted by: Paul
|
March 4, 2010 3:45 PM
Yes, kids that are indoctrinated into fundamentalist religion are really deep down rejecting society. Especially those religious homeschoolers. Society treated them wrong, so they turned to God.
Posted by: blf
|
March 4, 2010 3:49 PM
(My emphasis.) Tempting, but I suspect the average tumbleweed is a much smarter than the lot of “them”.
We should probably warn them about the dangers of DHMO, a dangerous substance known to be used by atheists, Muslims, Teh Gay, scientists, liberals, feminists, et al. DHMO has caused much death and destruction whereas AGW is “just a bunch of models and faked data”.
Posted by: BeamStalk
|
March 4, 2010 4:08 PM
"Yes, kids that are indoctrinated into fundamentalist religion are really deep down rejecting society. Especially those religious homeschoolers. Society treated them wrong, so they turned to God."
Actually, I think that is just a way to perpetuate the feeling jon is talking about. When their kids do grow up and look at the world it will be tainted by their parents and religion. They will then have to decide between accepting that their religion and upbringing was wrong or that the world is really out to get them as they were told all along. Thus in turn rejecting society on their own based on preconditioning done by their parents.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog
|
March 4, 2010 4:08 PM
@51 and @55---
I think it's wrong to dismiss out of hand the fears that a great many people (read: voters) have in regard to fixes for the various effects of AGW. The science and the technical analyses may be may be perfectly correct about what's happening with climate change and its causes. That's not really the point. What matters is what people will be expected to do to implement solutions--- how people's daily lives will change. People who see their own economic hold on life as precarious read about climate change and possible solutions and worry that they'll be asked to pay more--- taxes, fuel bills, retrofitting costs. They read about "sociological causes" and translate that into personal effects--- will they be able to drive to work? Will they be able to build a new house? Will their diets have to change? What will they have to give up for something that they can't immediately see?
Are people tied to the status quo? Certainly--- and lots of people have worked hard all their lives to get to that status quo. Is it so hard to understand their fears? Whether or not it's true--- lots of people fear that AGW fixes will leave them worse off.
Moreover--- casting "green" politics in moral terms will always generate resentment. I suspect that a lot of people read critiques of environmental problems and feel as if they're being pegged as morally deficient or flawed based on where they live (suburbs, floodplains, potential crop land) or whether they have air conditioning or fly by jet.
Okay, yes--- denying the problem exists to avoid the pain of potential fixes is self-destructive. But the fear and uncertainty and resentment are real. It shouldn't be hard to understand that even if all the science is completely accurate, and even if drastic changes are finally necessary, people will be angry and afraid at how their lives may change--- an angry at fixes that they see as leaving them worse off in their daily lives.
Posted by: tsg
|
March 4, 2010 4:13 PM
Well, let's see. Outspoken atheism is relatively new (at least in the quantities we're talking about) while mollycoddling belief has been going on for centuries. "More of the same" indeed.
Scientists aren't attacking their faith, reality is. It's a simple case of shooting the messenger. But the fly in the ointment is that these people will gladly accept science when it doesn't conflict with what they want to be true, so the assertion that they are skeptical about global warming because scientists are big meanies is simply not supported.
Posted by: Maslab
|
March 4, 2010 4:17 PM
Iron Knee had an interesting post on this.
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 4, 2010 4:25 PM
rudy #57 wrote:
I think it's the first, because I doubt very much that, over the long run, the fundamentalists are going to be fooled and wooed by superficial flattery. They're not that stupid -- at least, not in that way. The real problem probably lies deeper, in the irrational approach of religion, and the "us against the world" attitude Anodyne talks about in #67. "The world" doesn't just mean other people -- it means the actual, empirical world of reality which can be verified and tested by the senses of other people.
If you encourage that mindset, and try to set it apart as sacred and laudable, it will eventually grow monstrous and bizarre. There are no checks in reality to stop it.
john.richt #70 wrote:
But, in your analogies, you always have PZ picking a bad solution: try the same thought experiment, only this time have PZ hit on good solutions. Ta da!
Bottom line, the root cause of pseudoscience and 'crank' ideas is irrationality, spurred on and fostered by all sorts of emotional needs. You're never going to eliminate this, but when you've got a very large number of people believing in nonsensical things, then it's likely a good idea to look at the culture and see where it all starts, what's fueling it.
And at some point, they're going to have to be told to knock it off. Otherwise, you end up manipulating people like they're children, getting them to believe better lies, less harmful falsehoods, by feeding their prejudices and pandering to their weaknesses. You get a political approach to truth-seeking.
Sam Harris once wrote something to the effect that "no society has ever suffered because it began to be too reasonable."
Posted by: JHS
|
March 4, 2010 4:28 PM
I seem to recall reading something recently about Kentucky still struggling to remove references to dueling from its state constitution. I think that speaks volumes about what we're dealing with here.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
March 4, 2010 4:37 PM
@74, I think this:
is right on the money. I am completely on board with the need for major changes in industrial and agricultural practices to mitigate climate change, but even I'm tired of being scolded about the Huge! Moral! Issue! that confronts us. It's a practical issue with a range of possible solutions and survival strategies. So sit down and shut up, Al Gore.
Posted by: Titus Flavius Vespasianus
|
March 4, 2010 4:39 PM
This is an excerpt of a conversation with a "religious person", my case study for idiocy:
I don't know yet. I was thinking of opening the debate in your place or
church since when I'm at home there are many unavoidable interruptions. If I could have the elders of your church join the debate in public, it would be more educational.
If you insist in debating at my place, let me find the time, but remember that it could be in God's time: one second to God may be One Thousand years to You :)
From: Religious Person
To: Titus Flavius Vespasianus
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: Pix of relief for brothers in Haiti - January 18, 2010
Educational to whom, Titus? Of course, we are not debaters, as we believe the Truth is not debateable. Our willingness to engage someone as knowledgeable as you and as willing to participate in Bible discussions as you are has a purpose: the fulfillment of our commission at Matt 28:19, 20 and of the prophecy at Matt 24:14.
Debate the Good News? Consider 1 Timothy 2:4,8 and 6:4 and especially 1 Cor 14:33. I'm sure that one of my brothers would work something out with you as to a location w/few distractions. I mentioned our discussions to a brother named Matt Johnson. Let us know if you'd like to meet somewhere.
Religious Person
From: [email protected]
To:
Subject: Re: Pix of relief for brothers in Haiti - January 18, 2010
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:41:51 -0500
I'm confused here. Let me understand your reply. How do you establish good research without peer review and debate, and hermeneutic studies from a large spectrum of disciplines? Have you not established a multidisciplinary research committee where historiography, sociology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, etc., are coordinated to study the meaning of Scripture?
Do you mean to say that the thinking has already been done for you, and therefore there is nothing left for you to question? Do you understand that sustaining the Bible by citing the Bible is a very conspicuous fallacy, called "circular argumentation" (The suspect is innocent because the suspect says he is innocent...). In this particular, it is included the fallacy of proving a religious truth by resorting to religious thinkers. Breaking the vicious circle of circularism means a debate with secular researchers from
academia -for example-.
Is this a case of brainwashing, a case in intellectual fascism where the 'truth' is dictated from a dark office, and where dissenters are placed in a concentration camp, or ostracized as heretics?
If this is the case, well, I'm becoming afraid of a God that gives us a brain to think, but who at the same time forbids questioning. How about if the Bible was written by people with intended political agendas, what about if God is looking at the Bible with contempt because the Book does not represent Him? It could be this, or it could be the true Book, or it could be none of the above.
Without open research, both secular and clerical, the thing becomes a contempt of intellect.
What do you think? Remember the key word "Circularism" Remember Circular Argument".
What do you think?
Titus.
From: Religious Person
To: Titus Flavius Vespasianus
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: Pix of relief for brothers in Haiti - January 18, 2010
I think "debating" the Bible with intellectuals would be as productive as debating the merit of traffic laws with a wreckless, willfull, disrespectful teenager--under the influence.
At work; may be able to reply more thoroughly later.
Religious Person
Posted by: jon.richt
|
March 4, 2010 4:49 PM
Sastra (#77) responded to me as follows:
john.richt #70 wrote:
Whateverman: That's a nice idea, but let's apply it to other problems and see where it leads us
Sastra: But, in your analogies, you always have PZ picking a bad solution: try the same thought experiment, only this time have PZ hit on good solutions. Ta da!
Bottom line, the root cause of pseudoscience and 'crank' ideas is irrationality, spurred on and fostered by all sorts of emotional needs.
And it's these unmet emotional needs that are the root cause, correct? Hypothetically speaking, of course...
PZ's idea could lead to a viable solution, but I strongly suspect that he's incorrectly identified the root cause. "Irrationality" isn't going to be cured by getting rid of religion or improving education (the latter is definitely going to help, though).
No one I know is prepared to address why people choose to be irrational...
Posted by: jon.richt
|
March 4, 2010 4:52 PM
erg - sorry for the poor editing/formatting
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 4, 2010 4:55 PM
Titus Flavius Vespasianus #80 wrote:
That "debate" isn't going to happen. Heh.
If you're really interested in changing minds, or just moving them a bit, my suggestion is don't talk about having a debate -- call it a "discussion" or "dialogue." Listen a lot (even though you know what they're going to say, before they say it.) And then let your points dribble out slowly, here and there, where they fit in. It may still end in stalemate, but it'll be a more productive stalemate.
As it is, I think you're throwing too much at once, and scaring them.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
March 4, 2010 4:55 PM
Hmmm, not a moral issue ?
If you do not care that people in Pacific, in Bangladesh and other low lying places without the infrastructure to protect themselves from the effects of sea-level rise and increased frequency of tropical storms and if you do not care about the environmental legacy we leave future generations then I guess you are right, it is not a moral issue.
Posted by: Anodyne
|
March 4, 2010 4:56 PM
People CHOOSE to be irrational? That's news to me.
We're all products of genes and life experience. Somewhere in there irrationality takes hold. It's an error in the thought process.
That you view this as being a choice suggests that you're not well enough acquainted with people of this mindset. If my assumption is incorrect, please elaborate.
Posted by: Anodyne
|
March 4, 2010 5:00 PM
Oops that was a reply to comment #81.
Quote fail. :\
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 4, 2010 5:03 PM
I've only noticed a few people talking about the "Huge! Moral! Issue!" Unless you're referring to the issue that unchecked global warming will probably result in the deaths of millions of people.
Posted by: broboxley
|
March 4, 2010 5:09 PM
@Matt Penfold #84 perhaps I care more about the 200 open low skilled jobs available in the greater atlanta area of 4 million people where there is a lot of hungry homeless people and more being evicted from their homes every day than Bangladeshi's future boat people. Yeah, its not a moral issue at all
Posted by: Rweeks
|
March 4, 2010 5:13 PM
Great, as if us Kentuckians don't already need all the help we can get, what with the "museum" and whatnot. I promise you all there are are reasonable people in this state too.
Posted by: Sastra
|
March 4, 2010 5:15 PM
john richt #81 wrote:
They don't choose to be irrational as such; they think they're being rational. They're weighing evidence poorly, for a variety of reasons.
I think that at least one of those reasons has to do with the way religion encourages people to think very simply and superficially, when trying to understand the world, or trying to solve problems. It's a vicious circle, perhaps -- the magical mindset leads to religion in the first place, which in turn fosters the magical mindset.
And then there's the whole issue with believing in implausible conspiracies, because your faith tells you that this is how the world works. It's all good vs. evil.
PZ's strategy is basically one of truth-telling, and approaching people who disagree with the scientific consensus as if they were capable of changing their minds, given good reasons. Religion may inspire good action, but it tends to insulate people from thinking things through. Trying to use religion to support acceptance of science is a trick with mirrors. The entire method of 'faith' is anti-science to the core.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
March 4, 2010 5:16 PM
Still a bit of work to do:
They track IPs.
Posted by: echidna
|
March 4, 2010 5:25 PM
tsg@75 wins the thread for me with this pithy statement:
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NNElX.lopoxuMge1_bGvXqFvnkbkcEId0Nbpsg--#c96d1
|
March 4, 2010 6:07 PM
Royce Bitzer #39 said:
" .... 'Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,' the resolution said, 'but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.'
Whenever I hear such folks repeating this canard, I want to send them on a one-way trip to Venus"
That is very energy intensive! A much simpler soultion is to divert the exhaust from the car into the interior. There used to be adverts for car catalytic convertors claiming the 'air' coming out of the exhaust of a car with a catalytic convertor was cleaner than the air going into the carburettor. My view was that anyone making that claim would surely be pleased to have their cleaner 'air' fed back into their car for their own private use.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NNElX.lopoxuMge1_bGvXqFvnkbkcEId0Nbpsg--#c96d1
|
March 4, 2010 6:09 PM
Royce Bitzer #39 said:
" .... 'Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,' the resolution said, 'but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.'
Whenever I hear such folks repeating this canard, I want to send them on a one-way trip to Venus"
That is very energy intensive! A much simpler soultion is to divert the exhaust from the car into the interior. There used to be adverts for car catalytic convertors claiming the 'air' coming out of the exhaust of a car with a catalytic convertor was cleaner than the air going into the carburettor. My view was that anyone making that claim would surely be pleased to have their cleaner 'air' fed back into their car for their own private use.
Posted by: BrianX
|
March 4, 2010 7:20 PM
You know, there is a definite Red-baiting aspect to AGW denial. Eric S. Raymond (who went full wingnut after 9/11, though he still claims to be libertarian) claims that climate science is the result of some leftover KGB psyop to undermine capitalism.
Eric Raymond is a stopped clock...
Posted by: Kel, OM
|
March 4, 2010 7:37 PM
What annoys me about all this is that you can never use stuff like this to argue that religion is a bad idea. It's just fringe wackos, they don't represent the majority.
Posted by: ralphgentile3
|
March 4, 2010 8:12 PM
Couldn't leave a comment over at NYT.
Rent The Arrival and see one of the best, if little known, hard SF movies ever made. Spoiler: the head 'bad guy' essential says to Charlie Sheen "It's clear that you humans don't care for your planet, so we're happy to take it from you." And BTW, Charlie demonstrates that he really is quite an actor.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
March 4, 2010 8:52 PM
broboxley says, "perhaps I care more about the 200 open low skilled jobs available in the greater atlanta area of 4 million people where there is a lot of hungry homeless people and more being evicted from their homes every day than Bangladeshi's future boat people. Yeah, its not a moral issue at all"
WTF, And I suppose the fricking holocaust was just a dispute about poor ventilation! Dude, we are talking about a steady, continual degradation in the planets health and productive capacity even as human population reaches 10 billion. You say there are solutions. Well, bro, I'd sure like to hear them, 'cause it appears no one is doing FUCK ALL right now. We've lost 20 years debating science that's been known since 1896. And we have senators trying to jail climate scientists as we speak.
And just how does one utterly unrelated injustice justify consigning our progeny to try and survive Earth's sixth mass extinction event.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
March 4, 2010 9:08 PM
When the viability of one's worldview is contingent upon denial of reality, that's not what I would call a particularly strong endorsement of that worldview. When people tell me "God so loved the world--but only if the world is six thousand years old and there are talking snakes," I kind of lose interest in their pamphlets.
Likewise, when they tell me that capitalism is the greatest force for good in the world, but somehow it can't come up with a solution to the greatest threat human civilization faces, it really makes me wonder how much they believe what they are saying.
Really, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to accept the science and incorporate it into your worldview?
Posted by: ckitching
|
March 4, 2010 9:08 PM
Wow. I read a couple of the rants listed off his page at rationalwiki.com, and I honestly don't know what to say. He's gone completely off the deep end.
Posted by: rudy
|
March 4, 2010 9:41 PM
@98 And we have senators trying to jail climate scientists as we speak.
What?? Did I miss that story??
Posted by: DLC
|
March 4, 2010 10:24 PM
"The commissariat didn't like our inability to make an h-bomb so it ruled that the laws of physics must change." -- (statement widely attributed to Russian Nuclear Physicist Adrei Sakharov )
Point being, politicians sometimes attempt to make the true untrue and the untrue true by passing legislation. They have also used this power to declare that there are no poor.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
March 5, 2010 2:00 AM
This makes the assumption that the two injustices can not both be addressed. There's a limit to how many links we can put in a comment and also a limit to how many someone will follow. So I will keep it to one.
Prior to the economic crisis in 2008 it remained openly stated official economic policy in the U.S. for about 30 years to make sure we kept a large number of people unemployed as a way to control inflation. You can view articles on the Federal Reserve's web site, read about it in Forbes, Fortune, The Wall Street Journal and the business section of The New York Times. A search for the term NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) in databases containing these publications will bring up articles on the subject. Any interested in more detailed treatment of the subject can look at The Conservative Nanny State and follow the footnotes. We can address the unemployment problem without screwing over the rest of the world. We need not sacrifice one for the other.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
March 5, 2010 5:08 AM
Rudy asks about a senator trying to jail climate scientists. The crime: telling the truth
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/sister-soljah-moment.html
Posted by: BeamStalk
|
March 5, 2010 10:24 AM
#104 - James Inhofe is a complete nut. I live in Oklahoma. He is a good ol' boy and will get elected every time because of the morons in this state. There is no way he would ever be able to accomplish that. I don't take anything he says as sane. If he told me today was March 5th, 2010, I would check the calender to make sure.
Posted by: Titus Flavius Vespasianus
|
March 5, 2010 2:55 PM
Sastra |#83 Replied typing:
That "debate" isn't going to happen. Heh.
If you're really interested in changing minds, or just moving them a bit, my suggestion is don't talk about having a debate -- call it a "discussion" or "dialogue." Listen a lot (even though you know what they're going to say, before they say it.) And then let your points dribble out slowly, here and there, where they fit in. It may still end in stalemate, but it'll be a more productive stalemate.
As it is, I think you're throwing too much at once, and scaring them.
Satra, believe me, I've tried your advice for years, while I was in the Seminary and after that. Nothing seems to work. The result is all the same. Just when I thought I had made some dent in their gullibility, there they went again on their freakish literal interpretations: People lived 900 years in the old times :)::):)etc., etc.
Then, to change tactics, I decalred an all out high dosis of analysis on them: they suffered a mental collapse and became more irrational than before.
This irrationality needs study, since it represents a danger to the future of this Nation.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
March 6, 2010 10:07 AM
"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant," the resolution said, "but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life." And absolutely indispensable as an ingredient in the high fructose corn syrup fizzy drinks that encourage the growth of children and adults. Sideways, at least.