Why People "Fly from Facts"

[Tinark]

“There was a scientific study that showed vaccines cause autism.”

“Actually, the researcher in that study lost his medical license, and overwhelming research since then has shown no link between vaccines and autism.”

“Well, regardless, it’s still my personal right as a parent to make decisions for my child.”

Does that exchange sound familiar: a debate that starts with testable factual statements, but then, when the truth becomes inconvenient, the person takes a flight from facts.

...

Our new research, recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, examined a slippery way by which people get away from facts that contradict their beliefs. Of course, sometimes people just dispute the validity of specific facts. But we find that people sometimes go one step further and, as in the opening example, they reframe an issue in untestable ways. This makes potential important facts and science ultimately irrelevant to the issue.

Let’s consider the issue of same-sex marriage. Facts could be relevant to whether it should be legal—for example, if data showed that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off—or just as well-off—as children raised by opposite-sex parents. But what if those facts contradict one’s views?

We presented 174 American participants who supported or opposed same-sex marriage with (supposed) scientific facts that supported or disputed their position. When the facts opposed their views, our participants—on both sides of the issue—were more likely to state that same-sex marriage isn’t actually about facts, it’s more a question of moral opinion. But, when the facts were on their side, they more often stated that their opinions were fact-based and much less about morals. In other words, we observed something beyond the denial of particular facts: We observed a denial of the relevance of facts.

In a similar study using 117 religious participants, we had some read an article critical of religion. Believers who were especially high (but not low) in religiosity were more likely to turn to more untestable “blind faith” arguments as reasons for their beliefs, than arguments based in factual evidence, compared to those who read a neutral article.

These experiments show that when people’s beliefs are threatened, they often take flight to a land where facts do not matter. In scientific terms, their beliefs become less “falsifiable” because they can no longer be tested scientifically for verification or refutation.

For instance, sometimes people dispute government policies based on the argument that they don’t work. Yet, if facts suggest that the policies do work, the same person might stay resolvedly against the argument based on principle. We can see this on both sides of the political spectrum, whether it’s conservatives and Obamacare or liberals and the Iraqi surge of 2007.

Basically TOL in a nutshell

Read more here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-fly-from-facts/

 

[The Berean]

Yet, you continue to post here at TOL? :think:

 

[Tinark]

Yet, you continue to post here at TOL? :think:

Somebody's got to light the candle in the dark and keep the flame burning against all the attempts to blow it out :chuckle:

Eventually someone will find the warmth and the glow of the flame appealing.

 

[The Berean]

Somebody's got to light the candle in the dark and keep the flame burning against all the attempts to blow it out :chuckle:

Eventually someone will find the warmth and the glow of the flame appealing.

How "Christian" of you since, interestingly enough, Jesus Christ said something very similar.

Matthew 5:14-16
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

 

[Tinark]

How "Christian" of you since, interestingly enough, Jesus Christ said something very similar.

Matthew 5:14-16
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

I was thinking more along the lines of Carl Sagan: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

However, Jesus definitely had some things right. Not everything, but we should definitely embrace the good bits that are supportable by logic, evidence and reason and also grounded in humanistic values :cheers:

 

[Lon]

Somebody's got to light the candle in the dark and keep the flame burning against all the attempts to blow it out :chuckle:

Eventually someone will find the warmth and the glow of the flame appealing.

Er, one study does not a fact make. Lest you say I'm 'supporting' the premise :nono: I'm actually commenting on the irony of reporting such a report! :noway:

We do know that we ALL resist change when it comes to our values. This study paints that in a bad light, without sensitivities toward those. Shoot, I'd much rather hammer it out on TOL than get someone's blended babyfood opinion about the matter.

Summation: 1) They rightly observe data, that we all are committed to values. They must have run out of dollars though, because they didn't study that phenomena further and made some hasty summary remarks without real conclusions. For instance, on the vaccine issue they gave, someone might say that just to gain more time from a high-pressure sales. Really, someone a person trusts is a better surveyor, than a field study, so there should have been a couple of double-blinds. 2) data collection is still in need of more work, although these researchers have degrees and should know they need it.

 

[Lon]

I was thinking more along the lines of Carl Sagan: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

More about pseudo-science and skepticism against myth as it directly pertains to science and the scientific method.

However, Jesus definitely had some things right. Not everything, but we should definitely embrace the good bits that are supportable by logic, evidence and reason and also grounded in humanistic values :cheers:

Not even border-line, this is blasphemy. You have an opinion-noted. This opinion could be stated as opinion rather than an empirical statement (irony at the fullest). Having had this infraction before, you need to be more aware of where you are when talking about the Lord of Glory. This isn't going to, and shouldn't fly here on TOL. You know better, especially in a thread about exactly that: your opinion and especially after talking Sagan's book about believing or offering unsubstantial opinion. Everything about the Lord Jesus Christ was right.

Poor form.

 

[Tinark]

More about pseudo-science and skepticism against myth as it directly pertains to science and the scientific method.



Not even border-line, this is blasphemy. You have an opinion-noted. This opinion could be stated as opinion rather than an empirical statement (irony at the fullest). Having had this infraction before, you need to be more aware of where you are when talking about the Lord of Glory. This isn't going to, and shouldn't fly here on TOL. You know better, especially in a thread about exactly that: your opinion and especially after talking Sagan's book about believing or offering unsubstantial opinion. Everything about the Lord Jesus Christ was right.

Poor form.

Spoken like a true religious fundamentalist zealot - to offer any sort disagreement with the fundamentalist literalist position is blasphemy and should be penalized - you are a disappearing minority in the developed world, and thank goodness for that.

 

[Lon]

Spoken like a hapless...?

Spoken like a true religious fundamentalist zealot - to offer any sort disagreement with the fundamentalist literalist position is blasphemy and should be penalized - you are a disappearing minority in the developed world, and thank goodness for that.

Ah, so you fulfill end times without 'knowing' implicitly that you'd be doing so (if such were the case)? :doh: You can't win, you can only assert and feel smug about yourself. There is a God. I KNOW there is a God, and you can't really do diddlysquat about that.

What I am saying RATHER is, if you come to, let's say a pro-marriage website and say "Marriage is a bad idea," You'll rightfully be banned for it.

If you come on Mother's day to a maternity thread and say "meh, nothing really special about babies" you deserve to be drop-kicked with your tail flying.

There is NOTHING like an atheist thinking he doesn't deserve a ban when he/she so obviously, absolutely does.

So easy to think it is the other guy, isn't it, Tinman? :think: :bang:

Having had this infraction before, you need to be more aware of where you are when talking about the Lord of Glory. This isn't going to, and shouldn't fly here on TOL. You know better, especially in a thread about exactly that: your opinion and especially after talking Sagan's book about believing or offering unsubstantial opinion. Everything about the Lord Jesus Christ was right.

Tinboat:

Poor form.

Unfortunately, I can't teach you manners over the internet.

I'll try: Talk about my wife, mother, family, and God with respect. I will be in your area in September with a couple of new students, so let me know if I can do this a bit more directly. -Lon

 

[Tinark]

Spoken like a hapless...?

Ah, so you fulfill end times without 'knowing' implicitly that you'd be doing so (if such were the case)? :doh: You can't win, you can only assert and feel smug about yourself. There is a God. I KNOW there is a God, and you can't really do diddlysquat about that.

What I am saying RATHER is, if you come to, let's say a pro-marriage website and say "Marriage is a bad idea," You'll rightfully be banned for it.

If you come on Mother's day to a maternity thread and say "meh, nothing really special about babies" you deserve to be drop-kicked with your tail flying.

There is NOTHING like an atheist thinking he doesn't deserve a ban when he/she so obviously, absolutely does.

So easy to think it is the other guy, isn't it, Tinman? :think: :bang:



Tinboat:

Unfortunately, I can't teach you manners over the internet.

I'll try: Talk about my wife, mother, family, and God with respect. I will be in your area in September with a couple of new students, so let me know if I can do this a bit more directly. -Lon

You are worse than the Islamists I've debated with. They are willing to hear out disagreements and challenges to their theological position. Where they draw the line is direct insults to their revered figures, for which they have little tolorance. You, on the other hand, have a thinner skin than the Islamists. You might want to think about why you are so insecure with your beliefs. If I get banned from TOL for any of these posts, so be it - it will just reflect a general trend toward thin-skinnedness systematic of a victimization and insecurity mentality that is on the rise among fundamentalists. I hope that TOL hasn't been dragged down that low but, if it has, it is no longer a place for me.

 

[Lon]

You are worse than the Islamists I've debated with. They are willing to hear out disagreements and challenges to their theological position. Where they draw the line is direct insults to their revered figures, for which they have little tolorance. You, on the other hand, have a thinner skin than the Islamists. You might want to think about why you are so insecure with your beliefs. If I get banned from TOL for any of these posts, so be it - it will just reflect a general trend toward thin-skinnedness systematic of a victimization and insecurity mentality that is on the rise among fundamentalists. I hope that TOL hasn't been dragged down that low but, if it has, it is no longer a place for me.

Apparently your mother nor father chose to instill these kinds of considerate values in you. You need to learn them.
Go ahead, call my mother or wife a name. We'll see tough guy. What if I did that to yours? You know better, just choose to trample that which you could care less about because your empathy level is pathetic. That's all on you. You deserve to be taught lessons in life because you trample their loves and concerns as if they were pavement to be walked over. In some houses, you have to take off your shoes you uncultured kid, adult that should know better...

If I always told you my mother was awesome and one day you said "no, she wasn't awesome, just sometimes, but only when I think so," I'd be busting your chops about it. There is no difference here. I'm saying Jesus was always right. Every other Christian on here says the same. Why would you argue the point other than to malign? Even if you don't believe it, but know we do, why offer such opinion? To what end? To what purpose? It looks like purposeful bad form and bad manners.

 

[kiwimacahau]

People on this site are endemically habituated to using emotive arguments and believing that to be sound, scientific / theologically correct thinking.

 

[john w]

..., but we should definitely embrace the good bits that are supportable by logic, evidence and reason and also grounded in humanistic values :cheers:

Translated: We should definitely embrace the good bits that are supportable by my logic, my evidence and my reason, and also grounded in my humanistic values, and accept my presupposition that Christianity is not based upon logic, evidence and reason, and thus, only a moron would debate me, Tinark, given my presuppositions.


No charge.

Thanks for checkin' in.

 

[The Berean]

Translated: We should definitely embrace the good bits that are supportable by my logic, my evidence and my reason, and also grounded in my humanistic values, and accept my presupposition that Christianity is not based upon logic, evidence and reason, and thus, only a moron would debate me, Tinark, given my presuppositions.


No charge.

Thanks for heckin' in.

End if thread, john?!!

 

[john w]

End if thread, john?!!

Yes, rean of Ber!:

EOT. DOA. RIP. CLOSED. NO ENTRY. QED.

 

[rocketman]

Somebody's got to light the candle in the dark and keep the flame burning against all the attempts to blow it out :chuckle:

Eventually someone will find the warmth and the glow of the flame appealing.

There is only one light you should concern yourself with and that is "the light of the world" Jesus Christ...without Him there is no light at all.

 

[Lon]

People on this site are endemically habituated to using emotive arguments and believing that to be sound, scientific / theologically correct thinking.

Kind of ironic, given you give nothing but assertions. lain:

(IOW, You are in the same company)

 

[kiwimacahau]

Speaks the man whose idea of an good argument is emotion-laden attacks on the person holding an opposing viewpoint.

 

[Lon]

Speaks the man whose idea of an good argument is emotion-laden attacks on the person holding an opposing viewpoint.

I said "company," no? I am emotionally as well as spiritually and intellectually against abortion. It is murder. You honestly don't care whether it is or not, you've said you advocate rights and choice of the killer. Your words, your choice.

 

[patrick jane]

Speaks the man whose idea of an good argument is emotion-laden attacks on the person holding an opposing viewpoint.

well, looking back, your first sentence was "this should be fun", right then i knew i couldn't believe anything you type - atrol: