| Non-motoring > Denial - fascinating reading | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Statistical Outlier | Replies: 12 |
|
New Tue 8 Jun 10 18:26
Denial - fascinating reading - Statistical Outlier
|
|
As a scientist I found this fascinating reading. Thought that many on here might disagree but find it stimulating. tinyurl.com/35mje27 Links to article from New Scientist about Denial. |
|
New Tue 8 Jun 10 19:45
Denial - fascinating reading - Tooslow
|
|
It's the usual conspiracy theory stuff. A lot of people get over excited about the control exerted by secret organisations while overlooking the fact that much simpler explanations are available and therefore more likely. Usually "cock up". I notice it said thousands died of swine flu. Really? One day the human race will be seriously hit by a pandemic, but swine flu, bird flu and all the rest have all turned out to be serious but not on that sort of scale. So when it does happen we'll all either be blase or conspiracy theorists, not take our medicicne and die. That should get house prices down then. JH |
|
New Tue 8 Jun 10 21:28
Denial - fascinating reading - tyro
|
|
Yes, an interesting article. The sentence that got me was this: "The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. " By "trust", the writer basically means "faith", and by "science", she means "current scientific orthodoxy". Using the word "denialist" to describe someone who is sceptical about what the experts are saying about a particular topic is loaded. It's basically saying "These people are 'in denial'". Even the headline is odd: "Why sensible people reject the truth." I assumed that the use of the words "the truth" was tongue in cheek before I read the article. I read it and discovered that it wasn't. Interestingly enough, the article is dated 19 May. The following day the Oxford Union debated the motion "This House would put economic growth before combating climate change." The debate, in fact, was basically about climate change - the proposers were all climate change sceptics (or deniers if you prefer). The motion carried by 135 votes to 110. If that's a random sample, it indicates that today's Oxford University students are pretty sceptical about climate change. And one would assume are fairly critical thinkers. Deborah MacKenzie's article would be just a bit more convincing if it didn't simply assume that the sceptics must be wrong because they are rejecting the current orthodoxies of the scientific community. |
|
New Tue 8 Jun 10 22:04
Denial - fascinating reading - Manatee
|
|
>>Deborah MacKenzie's article would be just a bit more convincing if it didn't simply assume that the sceptics must be wrong because they are rejecting the current orthodoxies of the scientific community. Isn't the thrust of the article that just "rejecting the current orthodoxies of the scientific community" isn't rational on it's own, then going on to explore the reasons why people still do it? Al sorts of apparent feeble-mindedness seems to have ready acceptance - theism, superstitions, feng shui, homeopathy, intolerance, alien abduction, ghosts... the constant and confident assertions by people who know sod-all about it that climate change is a racket, men never went to the moon, the holocaust never happened, all come into much the same category for me. Yes, I still nod to a magpie on its own - but at least I know it's stupid! |
|
New Wed 9 Jun 10 00:14
Denial - fascinating reading - Harleyman
|
|
I've long suspected that the "current orthodoxies of the scientific community" are the ones which are most likely to attract either financial support or newspaper column inches. What this seems to be saying is that anyone who doesn't implicitly accept what so-called "experts" tell them is by definition half-witted. I find that overwhelmingly arrogant. I prefer to recall the late "Blaster" Bates' definition of an expert..... "ex" is something that has been and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure. Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 9 Jun 10 at 00:16
|
|
New Wed 9 Jun 10 00:42
Denial - fascinating reading - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> long suspected that the "current orthodoxies of the scientific community" are the ones which >> are most likely to attract either financial support or.... One suspects that in some cases that that is why they have become orthodoxies. Of course most such orthodoxies are quite uncontroversial. No one would bother to deny them. Not many people deny the existence of climate change as far as I know. The precise nature of the change and its future direction are not so easy to establish though. And the strident assertion that climate change consists of rapid global warming which will become 'irreversible' next week or next month seems profoundly dubious. As does the strident assertion that it is our fault, and the strident assertion that we had better pull our socks up and do something about it before doom descends. All these strident assertions look like total garbage to me. But politicians and do-gooding lobby groups like them, for obvious reasons, and like-minded scientists are willing to stretch a point a bit especially when their grants may be at stake. I can't help wondering how this hallucinatory issue is going to be woven into the campaign to reduce the national debt. We'll know soon enough I'm afraid. |
|
New Thu 10 Jun 10 11:46
Denial - fascinating reading - Cliff Pope
|
|
A good working rule of thumb is that "the majority is usually in the wrong". (Revd. Sydney Smith I think.) |
|
New Thu 10 Jun 10 12:59
Denial - fascinating reading - Zero
|
|
Denial of science has been around as long as the art of science itself. Much historical science has been branded as Heretical as the scientific facts went against someone elses financial, power or control interests. Alas, there has been much "science" that has also turned out to be far from the truth or factual. Scientists always need to be challenged. |
|
New Thu 10 Jun 10 19:09
Denial - fascinating reading - Tooslow
|
|
You pays your money and takes your choice. Science will say "we know this is true, here is the evidence". You can weigh up the evidence, how it was gathered and so forth, or you can take the short cut and go along with "scientific orthodoxy". Since most of us don't have the money, time, equipment or expertise to challenge such tests, we have to rely on the scientific community. You might also like to check who the scientist is who is offering this insight and did he get his doctorate off the internet. Science may also say, "oops we got it wrong". This may be accompanied by a new answer or "we don't know". I like "we don't know". It sounds honest. I'm not aware that scientists have ever killed anyone for not agreeing with them, though there have been some famous strops. Religion on the other hand has an answer for everything. God did it. Even if He did, that just moves the problem along really. "Have faith" you are told. "You will get your reward in heaven". Bit late, could I have a bit now please? "Give your money to me" they say. If you doubt me just look at all of those churches in Norfolk or the great cathedrals. Or the Maharajah's collection of Rolls Royces. And if you disagree? Well you could get killed by a variety of unpleasant methods if you happen to be in the wrong century or the wrong place. At the very least you will be "cast out". And you will burn in hell forever of course, 'cos you're not allowed in their gang. Seems to me that if God is this pleasant, forgiving fellow we're told about (touch of C of E here) then he greats unbelievers at the pearly gates with a big smile and shouts "Surprise!". So, the perpetual science v religion debate. Personally the language of religion sounds like the language of the con man to me. "Trust me", "Have faith", "Givvus yer dosh", "Your reward will come later". So I'll go for atheism. If you want to choose another path and it's a quiet, peaceful one that's fine by me. Don't start praying for me please. Keep it to yourself. JH |
|
New Thu 10 Jun 10 19:47
Denial - fascinating reading - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Not my letter, although I wish it was. I believe many of these points were also made rather forcibly on an episode of The West Wing.. Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan. James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia |
|
New Thu 10 Jun 10 19:51
Denial - fascinating reading - Tooslow
|
|
S, :-) Leviticus sounds a bundle of fun. Bet he got got hell at school. JH |
|
New Thu 10 Jun 10 19:51
Denial - fascinating reading - Bellboy
|
| mint |
|
New Fri 25 Jun 10 11:28
Denial - fascinating reading - Dog
|
|
I am a dedicated follower of conspiracy theories, the latest one I've come up against is David Ike's slant on the moon being hollow and used as a base for ET. I tend to keep my tongue firmly planted in my cheek but, I still keep an open mind to any outlandish idea. Now, take 9/11 ... possibly the conspiracy theory of all conspiracy theories, I'm not saying nuffink about this ere video, because, it - speaks - for - itself (IMHO) www.youtube.com/profile?user=creativewindspirit#p/u/2/EJAVMUMjr3Q |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
