Right, left, wrong: People reject science because ...

Oct 03, 2013 by Stephan Lewandowsky, The Conversation
It doesn’t matter how much evidence you have, people have already made up their mind about science. Credit: Flickr/blakeimeson

You'd be forgiven for thinking science is under attack. Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics, vaccination rates are falling thanks to anti-vaccination movements, and GM crops are pillaged by anti-GM activists. But what determines why people take these positions?

Foremost is a person's "worldview", their basic beliefs in how society should be structured and operate. Recent research has shown time and time again that people who endorse extreme free-market economics are prone to reject with regulatory implications – such as the link between tobacco and lung cancer, or greenhouse gasses and .

On the flip-side are speculations that the anti-GM and anti-vaccination movement are the domain of the political left. Some commentators have even referred to a "liberal war on science", and have claimed that both ends of spectrum have their own selective blindness to evidence.

So, is the rejection of science politically symmetrical? If people on the right reject , do people on the left reject evidence inconvenient to their worldview?

A liberal war on science?

To date evidence for left-wing rejection of science has been scarce. One study found opposition to HPV vaccination is focused on the right. Similarly, a European study found opposition to GM to be the domain of the extreme right.

In a peer-reviewed paper, published today in the journal PLOS ONE, colleagues Gilles Gignac, Klaus Oberauer, and I report a survey of Americans that sheds light onto the role of personal worldviews and political opinions in science rejection.

Much like previous studies, we found that conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predict rejection of climate science. But personal politics did not predict attitudes to GM at all, and had a more nuanced effect on vaccinations.

Liberals were somewhat more likely to reject vaccinations than conservatives. But this was balanced by opposition to vaccinations arising from free-market endorsement. Thus, there appear to be two routes to resistance against vaccinations. On the political right, Libertarians were arguably resentful of intrusion into patenting and regulations. On the political left, people were perhaps suspicious of the "pharmaceutical-industrial" complex.

Taken together, the data do not provide terribly strong support for a "liberal war on science".

It's all a conspiracy

Our study examined another factor repeatedly implicated in science denial – conspiratorial thinking.

Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS frequently involves conspiratorial hypotheses, for example that AIDS was created by the US Government. Likewise, YouTube videos critical of HPV vaccinations and many anti-vaccination blogs are suffused with conspiratorial content.

And a United States senator recently wrote a book entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future – a title that makes it rather difficult to dismiss the possibility that conspiratorial thinking is involved in climate denial as well.

Indeed, our study found that rejection of all the science areas studied—GM, vaccinations, and climate science—was associated with conspiracy theories. The extent of this association differed between areas. It was modest for GM food and climate science, but rather substantial for vaccinations.

The likelihood that someone would reject was roughly three times greater if a person endorsed a conspiracy theory—for example that MI6 killed Princess Diana—than if they did not.

We also looked at the proportion of people who believed conspiracies directly related to science. 10% of respondents thought that "U.S. agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and administered it to Black and gay men in the 1970s." 20% believed climate change is a "hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research".

And 15% thought that the "alleged link between second-hand tobacco smoke and ill health is based on bogus science and is an attempt by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers to replace rational science with dogma." These figures show that the conspiratorial element in science denial cannot be ignored.

Why is there an association between science and conspiracy theories? Conspiratorial thinking in science denial may serve two distinct roles.

First, a conspiracy may help dismiss findings that are inconvenient or threatening for other reasons. For example, the tobacco industry has referred to medical research on the health effects of smoking as "a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel."

The invention of a conspiracy can also explain away a scientific consensus—as in the case of climate change. If a person cannot accept that researchers independently converged on the same, evidence-based view, then a conspiracy among researchers provides an alternative explanation.

Conspiracies are also antithetical to scientific reasoning. While consistency is a hallmark of science, conspiracy theorists often subscribe to contradictory beliefs at the same time – for example, that MI6 killed Princess Diana, and that she also faked her own death.

While science relies on evidence to guide theory – including revision where necessary – conspiracies reinterpret data to match theories. And while science considers all available data to develop hypotheses, theorists dismiss evidence that supports the "official" account, instead relying on small pieces of anomalous data. The fact that Timothy McVeigh's car lost a licence plate is given more weight than the entire body of evidence that identified him as the Oklahoma City bomber.

When worldviews and conspiracies determine people's attitude towards science, it is perhaps unsurprising that simply providing more evidence isn't enough to alert people to the risks they are facing—be it from smoking, HIV, or climate change.

Explore further: For GM food and vaccinations, the panic virus is a deadly disease

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What motivates rejection of (climate) science?

Aug 23, 2012

(Medical Xpress)—Researchers from The University of Western Australia have examined what motivates people who are greatly involved in the climate debate to reject scientific evidence.

Believing the impossible and conspiracy theories

Jan 26, 2012

Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories ...

Scientists' role in swaying public opinion studied

Nov 05, 2012

(Phys.org)—Whatever their political persuasion, people are more likely to believe that global warming is caused by humans if they find out that most climate change scientists believe this is the case.

Recommended for you

Study finds law dramatically curbing need for speed

Apr 18, 2014

Almost seven years have passed since Ontario's street-racing legislation hit the books and, according to one Western researcher, it has succeeded in putting the brakes on the number of convictions and, more importantly, injuries ...

Newlyweds, be careful what you wish for

Apr 17, 2014

A statistical analysis of the gift "fulfillments" at several hundred online wedding gift registries suggests that wedding guests are caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to buying an appropriate gift for the ...

Can new understanding avert tragedy?

Apr 17, 2014

As a boy growing up in Syracuse, NY, Sol Hsiang ran an experiment for a school project testing whether plants grow better sprinkled with water vs orange juice. Today, 20 years later, he applies complex statistical ...

Creative activities outside work can improve job performance

Apr 16, 2014

Employees who pursue creative activities outside of work may find that these activities boost their performance on the job, according to a new study by San Francisco State University organizational psychologist Kevin Eschleman ...

User comments : 85

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Kron
1.5 / 5 (30) Oct 03, 2013
People reject science because something about the conclusions made by scientists feels wrong. Since scientists are usually privy to the same data, their conclusions are usually the same (if their math and logic skills are up to par). So usually, there is a consensus between scientists within a specific field of study. But science is not a fact based game but a game of probabilities. With build up of empirical evidence theories which at one point seem viable get debunked.

People rejecting theories feel like something is missing from the big picture.

With climate science there is a consensus among scientists, yet nature does not fully seem to be following the climate models. (the rise in global temp has not matched predictions). Therefore, the skeptics believe that pertinent data is missing. The Earth seems to be dealing with the increase in greenhouse gases quite well, and is mitigating the climate change process predicted to be affected by said gases.
ET3D
1.7 / 5 (20) Oct 03, 2013
I think people should see http://www.ted.co...ibe.html .

It's an example from just one field, but it's a reason why people shouldn't believe all science claims. People are skeptic for many reasons, and most of them are valid. Publication bias is one, public reporting of science is another, since it's even more biased and is often done by people who don't understand the research.

The way scientists conduct themselves also affects public perception. Studies such as this one are more likely to provoke negative responses towards science, because a scientist is accusing skeptics of irrationality. Following climate science over the years, I saw a lot of ad hominem attacks on skeptics, which affected my trust in the attacker's opinions.
no fate
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 03, 2013
I would encourage everyone to be skeptical of everything. I would also encourage everyone to recognize when their skepticism is no longer warranted. The article makes the comparison between honest skepticism and the kind of fingers in the ears eyes closed denial of evidence seen at this forum daily. It is the difference between debating the facets that form your opinion vs. continuously stating your opinion. Scientists sometimes learn as much from debate with those of opposing viewpoints than they do from their own research.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (28) Oct 03, 2013
It is not science that is being rejected it is the conclusions, ostensibly backed by the process of science that are being questioned.
How many times do we have to hear that coffee is bad for you, wait, no this science says its good for you, wait, no, this says .....
Of course this depends upon the subject matter and how easy it is to have a control group and whether the system under study in a complex, emergent, chaotic system.
Humility and honesty on those conducing and reporting science may help to build trust.
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (26) Oct 03, 2013
This is another biased and flawed article published by Physorg.
It is NOT science that is being challenged. The problem is deeper and than those science made by press release don't contribute for cleaning the reputation of present "science".
If you are really interested on the subject, there is a brilliant book by Lee Smolin: The Trouble of Physics (http://www.amazon...891868X)
Medicine is plagued by the same problem.
Environmental sciences also have huge problems with unscrupulous "scientists" fighting for their carriers and grants cooking data to support their theories.
Unfortunately, the great majority "believe" instead of analysing data.
Therefore you can see movie stars bringing millions with their shallow scientific knowledge but their huge charisma and persuasion power.
If you analyse the billions of dollars in play you will reach a tough conclusion: money, greed are old and powerful enemies of science.
FMA
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2013
I know a friend who is just like that, he doesn't believe global warming, vaccination ...etc, but believe in some unknown religious or "mysterious force". There is no way anyone can change him.
TransmissionDump
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2013
How many times do we have to hear that coffee is bad for you, wait, no this science says its good for you, wait, no, this says .....


Yep. Bugger the science on that one, I'm drinking coffee regardless because it tastes yummy.
alfie_null
4.1 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2013
Interesting to see who posted critical comments. Sensitive aren't we?

One important distinction needs to be elaborated. Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus, these are all laypeople. Sites like this, where anyone can post an opinion, provide a feeling of parity, but in relation to what is produced by experts who have devoted significant time and effort to their disciplines, these opposing views are of little value
nowhere
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2013
It is not science that is being rejected it is the conclusions, ostensibly backed by the process of science that are being questioned.

When the conclusions are derived by scientists in the relevant field, and those conclusions reach a concensus, why do you as a lay person get to reject those conclusions?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (36) Oct 04, 2013
Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus [.....] in relation to what is produced by experts.....


There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling. At one time there was a consensus that aether must exist, that the universe was static, that phlogiston existed, that ulcers are caused by stress, and on and on.

The principals underlying the Scientific Method are not contingent upon the mechanism of "consensus". History has demonstrated that an almost religious'esque consensus has actually hindered progress.

A propaganda campaign calling right wingers anti-science, is not itself respectful of skepticism which is fundamental to science. To lump everyone who questions the nearly omniscient climate knowledge claimed by climatologists (to tenths of a degree per decade) and who question the hysterical alarmism and left wing politics associated with proposed solutions, is propaganda and is essentially an ad hominem attack on skeptics.r
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 04, 2013
It is not science that is being rejected it is the conclusions, ostensibly backed by the process of science that are being questioned.

When the conclusions are derived by scientists in the relevant field, and those conclusions reach a concensus, why do you as a lay person get to reject those conclusions?

Because they can't demonstrate their conclusions for decades, but we should trust them.

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 04, 2013
"There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling." - NumenTard

No there wasn't. And you have been called on that lie time after time after time, and yet you continue to dishonestly repeat it.

Why do you continue to lie, knowing full well that you will be caught?

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 04, 2013
"Because they can't demonstrate their conclusions for decades" - RyggTard

With 98 percent of scientists convinced, on what factual basis do you conclude that the conclusions haven't been demonstrated?

Are you saying they haven't been demonstrated sufficiently to your personal satisfaction?

That may be true, but no one cares what a ideologically driven scientific illiterate like yourself chooses to believe.

Do you have such a poor memory that you forget that your ideological here - Ayn Rand - held that smoking didn't cause cancer, and then died from lung cancer caused by her habitual heavy smoking?

What a moron.

no fate
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2013
The article makes the comparison between honest skepticism and the kind of fingers in the ears eyes closed denial of evidence seen at this forum daily
I don't think, just the examples provided are good evidence of dishonest skepticism. In particular, the whole anthropogenic global warming science will face the deep disgrace, if the period of global warming http://www.syracu...ld.html.


Interesting example. The bottom line on climate is that the math says as a whole it can't cool under present conditions. When you factor in human input from all sources in the terms of energy, we add more through the sum of our activities than can be absorbed by the system. There's no system in physics that cools when you add energy to it. Why would the earth system be exempt from this?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 04, 2013
The bottom line on climate is that the math says as a whole it can't cool under present conditions.

What is the 'math'?
There are limits to numerical integration for equations that are well known. Couple this with numerically integrating poorly understood equations over decades and the uncertainty is high.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 04, 2013
Because they can't demonstrate their conclusions for decades, but we should trust them
Conversely, your religions have never demonstrated their conclusions EVER, and yet millions are willing to kill and die for them nevertheless. Why is that ryggy? What does this say about the gullibility of the typical human being?

I'll tell you what it says. We have been bred for 1000s of gens to let others do our thinking for us. Tribes with a strong methods of leadership, able to convince their followers to suffer and die for the good of the tribe without a second thought, were more apt to prevail over those that did not.

Most people are uncomfortable making their own decisions. Religions have the advantages of tradition and compelling promises and impressive architecture. And they have also been selected for their effectiveness in doing what they do.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2013
The real danger of fossil fuels is in the political instability (i.e. the risk of fossil fuel wars which may escalate into global nuclear war), which their dependency implies. But the biofuels aren't a solution of the energetic crisis, as they increase this dependency, not decrease. In 2007, one-fifth of the USA's grain harvest was transformed into ethanol, but the 8.3 billion gallons of ethanol produced that year supplied less than 4 percent of the automotive fuel. Moreover, it takes http://www.theoil...de/6575. Everything else is just a job generation for close lobbyist groups.


Your facts don't lie; with one stipulation, it's ethanol from corn that is not competitive with oil based gasoline on a CO2 scale. There are a lot of factors for it, however it burns cleaner and creates less smog producing pollution. However, that is just ethanol from corn. Other bio-fuels sources are much more efficient, so its a NET PLUS in the end.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2013
Here is the data:

http://www.afdc.e...ov/data/

You decide if bio-fuels are acceptably green. They look OK to me. Certainly better than coal and the fossil fuels. There is room for improvement though, no denying that.

Neinsense99
2 / 5 (19) Oct 05, 2013
This is another biased and flawed article published by Physorg.
It is NOT science that is being challenged. The problem is deeper and than those science made by press release don't contribute for cleaning the reputation of present "science".
...
Environmental sciences also have huge problems with unscrupulous "scientists" fighting for their carriers and grants cooking data to support their theories.
Unfortunately, the great majority "believe" instead of analysing data.
Therefore you can see movie stars bringing millions with their shallow scientific knowledge but their huge charisma and persuasion power.
If you analyse the billions of dollars in play you will reach a tough conclusion: money, greed are old and powerful enemies of science.

Which 'carriers' are those? The Battlestar Galactica? I'd fight for the core of a battle group too. :)
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (20) Oct 05, 2013
Most of objections against official science come just from another scientists. The GW skeptics are usually scientists too. The people, who are opposing the vaccination are scientists and physicians - they just don't work for Big Pharma companies. The cold fusion researchers are normal physicists (some of them are professors at the MIT and another universities) - they just oppose the mainstream physics. The opponents of string theory are another physicists, who work at the LHC collider, which is disproving the string theory predictions. More than 90% of results in medical research are proven wrong - again, this analysis comes from another scientists, not laymen.
..science is not a fact based game but a game of probabilities
Often it's just a political game. In particular, the climate research is very soft science from this perspective.

"Often it's just a political game." Because it is for you, it must be so for them, lest your self-image collapse.
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 05, 2013
Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus [.....] in relation to what is produced by experts.....


There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling.

You never state who allegedly held this consensus view, but the context of the thread implies you mean the majority of climate researchers or the wider scientific community. As such, that is an outright falsehood.
Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (19) Oct 05, 2013
"Because they can't demonstrate their conclusions for decades" - RyggTard

With 98 percent of scientists convinced, on what factual basis do you conclude that the conclusions haven't been demonstrated?

Are you saying they haven't been demonstrated sufficiently to your personal satisfaction?

That may be true, but no one cares what a ideologically driven scientific illiterate like yourself chooses to believe.

Do you have such a poor memory that you forget that your ideological here - Ayn Rand - held that smoking didn't cause cancer, and then died from lung cancer caused by her habitual heavy smoking?

What a moron.


Ryggy selectively confuses 'demonstrate' with getting him to agree. A dictionary can only do so much...
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 05, 2013
How many times do we have to hear that coffee is bad for you, wait, no this science says its good for you, wait, no, this says .....


Yep. Bugger the science on that one, I'm drinking coffee regardless because it tastes yummy.

Indeed, TD, how many times do we have to hear m0r0ns misinterpret disparate studies over decades and mass media stories on the subject of nutrition as a flimsy excuse for casting doubt on completely unrelated subjects in an effort to promote perceived self-interest? If only we could dump those transmissions...
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 05, 2013
It is not science that is being rejected it is the conclusions, ostensibly backed by the process of science that are being questioned.

When the conclusions are derived by scientists in the relevant field, and those conclusions reach a concensus, why do you as a lay person get to reject those conclusions?

They feel that they've earned the right by all the sleepless nights of study required to qualify for an anonymous email account and a connection to the Internet.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (35) Oct 05, 2013
Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus [.....] in relation to what is produced by experts.....


There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling.

You never state who allegedly held this consensus view, but the context of the thread implies you mean the majority of climate researchers or the wider scientific community. As such, that is an outright falsehood.


Yes, I was wrong on that one,... but the general point remains.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2013
Much of this article conflates US government propaganda as science, while ignoring empirical data such as the fact that Oklahoma bombing blew OUTWARD from the building. Indeed McVeigh's truck would have been a safer place than the building. ATF and DEA had arsenal rooms on the 9th floor. Explosives that did not belong in a public building. Witnesses report several bombs still lingering in the building during rescue efforts that bomb squads removed. Of course proponents of this article would argue that people should place more faith in BIG government and stop asking questions. A government that can't even keep it's buildings open now! Very scientific!
freeiam
1 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2013
I think people should see http://www.ted.co...ibe.html .

It's an example from just one field, but it's a reason why people shouldn't believe all science claims. People are skeptic for many reasons, and most of them are valid. Publication bias is one, public reporting of science is another, since it's even more biased and is often done by people who don't understand the research.

The way scientists conduct themselves also affects public perception. Studies such as this one are more likely to provoke negative responses towards science, because a scientist is accusing skeptics of irrationality. Following climate science over the years, I saw a lot of ad hominem attacks on skeptics, which affected my trust in the attacker's opinions.


Nicely put.
Science is based (by definition) on skepticism, and it shouldn't matter where it comes from.
EyeNStein
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 06, 2013
People will always reject anything which projects 'absolute' (in this context provable) truth. Truth removes their right to believe and defend any absolute garbage that supports their chosen lifestyle. Folk want to be able to shag anything without getting AIDS; so HIV cannot be the cause for them. Folk want to consume resources in luxurious quantities and Jet around the world 'eating drinking and being merry' so global warming cannot possibly be their responsibility.
We are such a sick, sad, race, but only too late and in retrospect do we admit our faults. And even then we expect our children to pay the price of our selfish failures.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2013
Of course, science should never be questioned. It is blasphemy!

Why, if science were subject to skeptical views, the whole edifice might fall! We would return to the Dark Ages!

Unfortunately, most people forget that science had its origins in skepticism. It was the credulity of the ancient world that it was skeptical of, and the scientific method was its instrument to defeat unproven assertions, such as the Earth is flat, etc.

Without skepticism, there would be no science.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2013
"the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he "witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process". Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995. "
http://www.telegr...oup.html
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2013
"the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he "witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process". Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995. "
http://www.telegr...oup.html

Frederick Seitz, shill for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., SDI, etc.?
http://rationalwi...ck_Seitz
http://tobaccodoc...ern=fred
And The Telegraph as a source? Thanks for the dark comedy.
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2013
This is an example of politically motivated pseudoskepticism....
You were on solid ground that far. You should have stop with that unintended admission before delving into a Gish Gallop loaded with verbiage and pontification on concepts you clearly do not grasp.

http://rationalwi...epticism
Neinsense99
1.8 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2013
Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus [.....] in relation to what is produced by experts.....


There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling.

You never state who allegedly held this consensus view, but the context of the thread implies you mean the majority of climate researchers or the wider scientific community. As such, that is an outright falsehood.


Yes, I was wrong on that one,... but the general point remains.

Play move the goal posts much?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (33) Oct 06, 2013
Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus [.....] in relation to what is produced by experts.....


There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling.

You never state who allegedly held this consensus view, but the context of the thread implies you mean the majority of climate researchers or the wider scientific community. As such, that is an outright falsehood.


Yes, I was wrong on that one,... but the general point remains.

Play move the goal posts much?


The core point hasn't changed, so I never moved it. You moved the goal posts, by picking out one example out of several listed, thus changing focus TO my wrongly held belief that global cooling was a consensus at one time, FROM the salient point that the scientific method is not dependent upon the mechanism of "consensus" to work.
Neinsense99
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2013
Aside from what drives these people to reject consensus [.....] in relation to what is produced by experts.....


There was also a consensus in the 70's that there would be global cooling.

You never state who allegedly held this consensus view, but the context of the thread implies you mean the majority of climate researchers or the wider scientific community. As such, that is an outright falsehood.


Yes, I was wrong on that one,... but the general point remains.

Play move the goal posts much?


The core point hasn't changed, so I never moved it. You moved the goal posts, by picking out one example out of several listed, thus changing focus TO my wrongly held belief that global cooling was a consensus at one time, FROM the salient point that the scientific method is not dependent upon the mechanism of "consensus" to work.

"So my hand is in the jar again, you had dessert yesterday!"
Duude
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2013
What is incredibly unfortunate is so many universities would seek to silence university scientists with a differing view than the consensus view on a number of issues. This doesn't make for good scientific analysis but it does make for a continuing stream of government grants.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2013
What is incredibly unfortunate is so many universities would seek to silence university scientists with a differing view than the consensus view on a number of issues. This doesn't make for good scientific analysis but it does make for a continuing stream of government grants.

"...continuing stream of government grants", or so goes the continuing scream of Tea Bagger rants...
Forestgnome
2.2 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2013
Scientists are people too, and are subject to human flaws. To say that scientists only gather raw data and form a theory based on that data is ludicrous. Most scientists gather data based on what they believe to be true. I guess that makes them a bunch of conspiracy nuts.
Andreas
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2013
People flee from science through feeling sidelined, through the lack of understanding of it, and the unwillingness to understand it.

These people feel manipulated and herded by those with more knowledge, and resent it. They hate being excluded and yet exclude themselves.

By believing that the locus of control of their lives and futures is outside them they ensure that it remains so! And there are enough of them that their very numbers result in the Luddites feeling at home!

There is so much in the saying "Ignorance is bliss"!

djr
4 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2013
Noumenon: "Yes, I was wrong on that one,... but the general point remains."

As Vendi points out - this is not the first time you have published that lie - and been called on it. So the only conclusion is that you knew it was a lie - and chose to try to slip it through again. In other words you are despicable, and a deliberate liar. We should of course not waste our valuable time having serious discussion with you - and just follow Vendi's example - and refute your lies.
EyeNStein
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 07, 2013
For 'healthy scepticism' read subjectivism, the one thing science must NEVER contain: But That is what the 'I don't want to believe' sceptics really mean.

If you DO want subjective then: 'The words of the prophets are written on the subway wall' of the economist magazine cover:- http://www.econom...ide-hell
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (34) Oct 07, 2013
Noumenon: "Yes, I was wrong on that one,... but the general point remains."

As Vendi points out - this is not the first time you have published that lie - and been called on it. So the only conclusion is that you knew it was a lie - and chose to try to slip it through again. In other words you are despicable, and a deliberate liar. We should of course not waste our valuable time having serious discussion with you - and just follow Vendi's example - and refute your lies.


I had already admitted I was factually wrong on that point above,... but yet you still maintain that my aim was to lie?

It turns out that only around 10% of climate scientists thought that there would be future global cooling. My error was in using the phrase "consensus".

If you weren't bias you might actually see actual lies, not mistakes, falling out of VendicarE's ass on a constant basis.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2013
"I had already admitted I was factually wrong on that point above,... but yet you still maintain that my aim was to lie?" - NumenTard

How many times have you made the same mistake and been corrected for it over the last couple of years? 5, 6, times? If not more...

Making 1 mistake makes you human.
2 makes you absent minded.
3 makes you a fool

More than that makes you either brain dead, or a liar.

Take your pick.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2013
"If you weren't bias you might actually see actual lies, not mistakes, falling out of VendicarE's ass on a constant basis." - NumenTard

And yet you have had years to find a single one and haven't managed to succeed even once.

Clearly you don't live in the reality based community.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2013
"It turns out that only around 10% of climate scientists thought that there would be future global cooling." - NumenTard

How far in the future? 1 year? 10? 10,000?

Be specific and provide some references, because, once again, you or your source are lying.

Cin5456
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2013
I haven't commented at physorg for over a year, and I see that the same conversational thread of the last two years continues unchanged. It's like walking out of a room, coming back a year later, and finding the same discussion with the same people saying the same things. I find it disheartening that none of the personalities, viewpoints, or talking points have changed. The surreal, Twilight Zone sameness is too eerie.

Nobody has been convinced by evidence or rhetoric to change their mind here. Since discussion is futile why do you continue?
PeterParker
2.6 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2013
"why do you continue?" - Cin5456

I abhor liars and the willfully ignorant.

Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (19) Oct 07, 2013
Of course scientists are immune to worldview bias....

It's only average human beings who tend to lead with their preconceptions, culture, and countless iterative fictions in filtering facts and making decisions....

*rolls eyes*
djr
4 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2013
Noumenon "I had already admitted I was factually wrong on that point above,... but yet you still maintain that my aim was to lie?"

How might it be that you do not understand the point I was making? I think it is fine to make an error - and to be willing to be corrected on that error. It is not fine to then go ahead and repeat the same error on the next thread - yes that is called lying. You are correct - I have a very strong bias. I am biased in favor of science. That is why I read physorg. Like Vendi - I am troubled by the number of wilfully ignorant that post on this board - so I take a minute to push back.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
If you weren't bias you might actually see actual lies, not mistakes, falling out of VendicarE's ass on a constant basis. - My Superior, Noumenon


And yet you have had years to find a single one and haven't managed to succeed even once.


Besides that very response, here are some more lies, just from a single thread (!),....

"The enemies of America have no greater friend than the tea-Bagger treason party." -VD

"Republicans hate science as much as they love to destroy their own nation." -VD

"according to the Republicans, [...] America is at it's greatest when the greatest number of Americans are corporate wage slaves." -VD

"Republicans and American Corporations tried to make it illegal for people to collect rain water for their own consumption" -VD

"The Republican goal is a Fascist state where the people are as free as the corporations will permit" -VD

.......
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
.....

"Republicans are pure hate. Everyone knows that." -VD

"Republicans have been quite open in their plans to destroy the national economy through their "Starve the beast" program of national economic sabotage." -VD

"It is clear that Republicans are fiscally incompetent." -VD

"Cruz is working for his constituents, but his constituents are [...] the enemies of America." -VD

"Reagan's crusade against free speech goes all the way back to his days as governor of California." -VD

.....Lies come out of you like shit out of a horse.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
If you weren't bias you might actually see actual lies, not mistakes, falling out of VendicarE's ass on a constant basis. - My Superior, Noumenon


And yet you have had years to find a single one and haven't managed to succeed even once.


Here is another one you've been repeating for decades even after having been told countless times that Rand never received welfare,...

" Ayn Rand, was a welfare queen" -VD

Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
Clinton tried to solve the fiscal problems made with previous republican government and he presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion.


Not exactly true. Clinton tried to solve the fiscal problems WITH the then republican controlled congress,... more due to the democrats NOT controlling congress. IOW the congressional context was fiscal conservatism given the republican majority.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
It turns out that only around 10% of climate scientists thought that there would be future global cooling." - Noumenon


How far in the future? 1 year? 10? 10,000? [...]once again, you or your source are lying. - VenDicAre


According to this study, of papers published in the 1970's that specifically made projections of time scales from decades to a century,... 10% projected cooling, 28% projected no change or cited that not enough was known to make a prediction, and 62% projected warming,... 38% specifically did not project warming as a conclusion. The citations of these papers were 12% for the cooling papers, and 27% for the non-warming papers.

kochevnik
2.9 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2013
Here is another one you've been repeating for decades even after having been told countless times that Rand never received welfare,...

" Ayn Rand, was a welfare queen" -VD

False. Rand had spent the last eight years of her life receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Like any fascist you just make shit up when the facts don't back you. When Fuks Newz does it it's for profit. What's your excuse?
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
I had already admitted I was factually wrong on that point above,... but yet you still maintain that my aim was to lie?"


I think it is fine to make an error - and to be willing to be corrected on that error. It is not fine to then go ahead and repeat the same error on the next thread - yes that is called lying.


No it is not, it is called being wrong, and unless one knows they are in fact wrong, they may be inclined to repeat the error until they correct it. If you hadn't noticed it is extremely rare occurrence here for one to admit they are wrong.

There was, as a matter of fact, global cooling alarmism during the 1970's. My error was not researching enough or not being careful enough, (until Niensense99 admonished me), to differentiate between the environmentalist media driven alarmism, from the scientific justification, which was evidently quit lacking.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
Here is another one you've been repeating for decades even after having been told countless times that Rand never received welfare,...

" Ayn Rand, was a welfare queen" -VD


False. Rand had spent the last eight years of her life receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits.


That is not Welfare. Those are social insurance programs that she was forced to pay into.

...
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
....

She was never against the use of gov services if they already existed on her account, as she was not against accepting the food rationed to her by the communist government when she lived in the USSR, but yet rejected communism.

"The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money [taken from them by force] exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it. The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. - Ayn Rand own words years before she reluctantly accepted SS.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2013
"Republicans are pure hate. Everyone knows that." -VD

"Republicans have been quite open in their plans to destroy the national economy through their "Starve the beast" program of national economic sabotage." -VD

"It is clear that Republicans are fiscally incompetent." -VD

"Cruz is working for his constituents, but his constituents are [...] the enemies of America." -VD

"Reagan's crusade against free speech goes all the way back to his days as governor of California." -VD

What American Capitalism has done to the American People...

US adults are dumber than the average human

http://nypost.com...e-human/
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
,..... there is no proof she received medicare, just SS.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2013
"Rand had spent the last eight years of her life receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits." - Kochevnik

After spending her adult life telling people that people accepting government assistance were parasites, vermin and worthless.

It is quite telling that the pile of cash, that Americans spent on keeping Immigrant Rand alive was spent trying to keep her alive after she contracted lung cancer - caused by decades of being a three pack a day smoker.

Rand was a denialist claiming that lung Cancer was not caused by smoking and that the scientists who claimed otherwise were just in it for the money, were part of a communist conspiracy, were socialist dupes, were anti-freedom, etc, etc. etc...

Exactly the same paranoid idiocy that we see coming from Climate Change Denialists today.

If Rand wasn't as much a hypocrite as she was a fool, she should have died pennyless, and in a cold, wet, ditch, where she belonged.

She was a disgusting, loathsome human being.

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2013
".. there is no proof she received medicare, just SS." - NumenTard

Liar...

it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
What American Capitalism has done to the American People...

US adults are dumber than the average human

http://nypost.com...e-human/


That is what the government education system has done. Clearly. Only a denier and liar would blame anything except the union backed government public education system, the deliberate reduction of educational standards by liberal racist patronization, the protest and perpetual victim culture advocated by the left.

It is a colossal failure of that entity that has assumed responsibility for public education; the government, and those who support big government.

The USA government spends more money per student than many countries combined, but has failed abysmally. It is really simple, when there is no one 'behind the counter' making a profit, there is no one that cares about quality. Public education is a public bathroom.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2013
"That is not Welfare." - NumenTard

Medicare is welfare and so is social security
http://www.thepeo...ial.html
"Socialized medicine is welfare.Forced 401Ks are welfare. Anything the government gives you that you did not earn is welfare. He has promised 1 trillion dollars in spending." - http://www.topix....LTC/p175

Socialized medicine is welfare on a stick. I pay for my health care and it is sufficient. You need to pay for yours and quit whining about not getting a free ride." - grouchyjohn

http://www.cbsnew...;blogId=

"Socialized medicine is welfare" - NRAJohnnie

http://answers.ya...5AA3bU2H

"Socialized medicine is welfare all over again" - Brian T

http://www.colleg...-care/p2

Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
".. there is no proof she received medicare, just SS." - NumenTard

Liar...

it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).


Not according to this site, which refers to the same interview.

"Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits. A similar FOI request was unable to either prove or disprove the Medicare claim."

What some social worker stated is not proof. Proof is in independent verification.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2013
Paul Ryan likens Medicare to 'welfare'

http://blog.reidr...welfare/

"MEDICARE IS WELFARE. Always has been, always will be."

https://www.faceb...69982423

"There is no doubt that Medicare is welfare." Travis Buhler - U.S. Libertarian Journal

http://www.eaucla...archive/

Odd how Libertarian/Randites like NumenTard repeatedly claim that Government funded health care is welfare, but deny it is so when the same equality is applied to Welfare Queen, Ayn Rand.

Duplicitous Liars.

Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
"That is not Welfare." - NumenTard

Medicare is welfare and so is social security
http://www.thepeo...ial.html



You managed to find more people that are wrong, good work.

SS is NOT welfare, it is a form of insurance paid into by the recipient. If it were welfare, do you think wealthy people would be able to collect? 47,535 millionaires received Social Security benefits in 2010.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
Paul Ryan likens Medicare to 'welfare'

http://blog.reidr...welfare/

Odd how Libertarian/Randites like NumenTard repeatedly claim that Government funded health care is welfare, but deny it is so when the same equality is applied to Welfare Queen, Ayn Rand.

Duplicitous Liars.



There is no proof that Rand accepted Medicare, only SS, which is NOT welfare. Your entire contention is that by accepting gov assistance she was being hypocritical. This is a logical fallacy. She never advocated one NOT take back what they put in, in taxes.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Oct 08, 2013
What American Capitalism has done to the American People...

US adults are dumber than the average human

http://nypost.com...e-human/


The greatest threat to personal liberty is the 'liberal progressive', the social engineer, and their army of statisticians.

The only statistical studies that the political left ignore, are those that expose their abject ideological failure.

Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2013
....

She was never against the use of gov services if they already existed on her account, as she was not against accepting the food rationed to her by the communist government when she lived in the USSR, but yet rejected communism.

"The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money [taken from them by force] exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it. The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. - Ayn Rand own words years before she reluctantly accepted SS.

Yet denialists repeatedly demand that people who accept the consensus on climate science discard all motor transport, live in shacks, etc., or else be hypocrites. Now THAT is hypocritical!
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (30) Oct 08, 2013
Yet denialists repeatedly demand that people who accept the consensus on climate science discard all motor transport, live in shacks, etc., or else be hypocrites. Now THAT is hypocritical


I'm trying to disentangle the recursive nature of the 'hypocritical' charges here,... are you saying that you agree with Ayn Rand, or not agreeing with those 'denialists'?

I don't recall myself calling those who accept AGW alarmism (I accept the science, not the hype), hypocrites, though I have suggested that there are enough of them to effect a reduction in CO2, if only they reduced their standard of living, rather than blaming " denialists".
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (13) Oct 08, 2013
Paul Ryan likens Medicare to 'welfare'

http://blog.reidr...welfare/

Odd how Libertarian/Randites like NumenTard repeatedly claim that Government funded health care is welfare, but deny it is so when the same equality is applied to Welfare Queen, Ayn Rand.

Duplicitous Liars.


@Noumenon There is no proof that Rand accepted Medicare, only SS, which is NOT welfare. Your entire contention is that by accepting gov assistance she was being hypocritical. This is a logical fallacy. She never advocated one NOT take back what they put in, in taxes.
That's what everyone does net. All Rand did differently was squawk like a chicken in facetious protest. So what is your point? Your true argument is eugenics

Rand accepted Medicare under an assumed name so as to hide her hypocrisy
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (32) Oct 08, 2013
She accepted SS (no proof of Medicare), under her real name. Why would she accept it under her pen name?
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2013
She accepted SS (no proof of Medicare), under her real name. Why would she accept it under her pen name?
Because she was a welfare queen and a hypocrite, and yet the best libertarian that existed
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2013
Noumenon: "No it is not, it is called being wrong, and unless one knows they are in fact wrong, they may be inclined to repeat the error until they correct it."

Yes it is called lying - when one publishes a falsehood - that falsehood is pointed out - and you then one goes ahead and publishes it again. We are tired of the denialist community repeating the same falsehoods over and over - and it does not matter how many times we point out the lies -they just reappear. Noumenon, and Ryggy, and Uba et al all play the same game.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (30) Oct 08, 2013
My error was in not researching enough or not being careful enough to differentiate between the environmentalist media driven global cooling alarmism (which existed as a matter of fact in the 1970's), from the scientific justification for it, which was evidently quit lacking.

This does not equate to lying, despite your vitriol. Unless you know as a fact that I knew that there was NO global cooling predicted according to the majority of scientists of the 70's and yet stated there was a consensus anyway, you are not in a position to call me a liar. Afterall there WAS global cooling hysteria by environmentalists and the media in the 70's. So I thought it was 'justified' by science.
djr
3.2 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2013
This does not equate to lying,

Noumenon and Ryggy are two peas in a pod. They get busted - and start squeeling like stuck pigs.

The issue is simple. Noumenon posted a falsehood. Vendi pointed out the false nature of the information, and also the fact that Nouenon has posted this same information multiple times in the past - and has been made aware of the false nature of the information - but continues to post it regardless.

A mistake is when it happens one time. Multiple infractions equals lying. Squeek squeek squeek....
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2013
"My error was in not researching enough' - NumenTard

Your error was in being caught telling the same lie, over and over and over again.

I have never encountered a Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

NumenTard is no exception to that observation.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2013
"Why would she accept it under her pen name?" - NumenTard

To avoid hiding the fact that she was a Welfare Queen who spent her adult life vilifying, and denegrating people who accepted welfare.

In the end, and by her own words, and ideology, she was a filthy, worthless, parasite as well as one of the worlds greatest fools.

Ayn Rand. Welfare queen.

Neinsense99
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2013
"My error was in not researching enough' - NumenTard

Your error was in being caught telling the same lie, over and over and over again.

I have never encountered a Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

NumenTard is no exception to that observation.

I'm not totally convinced by your claim that it is congenital. After all, a pattern of repetitive, almost-compulsive malarkey peddling could have started after birth. :)
Neinsense99
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2013
This does not equate to lying,

Noumenon and Ryggy are two peas in a pod. They get busted - and start squeeling like stuck pigs.

The issue is simple. Noumenon posted a falsehood. Vendi pointed out the false nature of the information, and also the fact that Nouenon has posted this same information multiple times in the past - and has been made aware of the false nature of the information - but continues to post it regardless.

A mistake is when it happens one time. Multiple infractions equals lying. Squeek squeek squeek....

Regardless of intent to lie, credibility must take a hit.
Neinsense99
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2013
Noumenon: "No it is not, it is called being wrong, and unless one knows they are in fact wrong, they may be inclined to repeat the error until they correct it."

Yes it is called lying - when one publishes a falsehood - that falsehood is pointed out - and you then one goes ahead and publishes it again. We are tired of the denialist community repeating the same falsehoods over and over - and it does not matter how many times we point out the lies -they just reappear. Noumenon, and Ryggy, and Uba et al all play the same game.

I bet they have emails where they encourage posters to "Hide the denials."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2013
Seems to me SS is a way of forcing people to save for retirement who would otherwise be spending everything they earn. It is an acknowledgement that the vast majority of people 'think not for the morrow' as the bible instructs, but instead relegate their future security to non-existent providence.

Most people do not plan for their futures. This is a relatively new skill needed when humans began living in northern climes and planting crops. But religion encourages this tendency in order to compel people to make babies and pay tithes they cannot afford.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2013
401ks are a particularly insidious way of exploiting this tendency to 'think not for the morrow'. People believe they are putting their money someplace safe but as we have seen, 401ks are easy to gut.

Further, they include the ingenious method of making us feel responsible for this loss because we didn't manage them properly. This is not new - religions have been making us feel guilty for our misfortunes because we did not pray enough or trust god enough to provide for our futures.

Democracy makes us feel guilty because we voted for the people responsible for our misfortune, or we did not work hard enough to get the right people elected. Capitalism itself convinces us that we are simply not hard-working enough or enterprising enough or smart enough to have what others have.

Guilt runs the world. It us the most effective way of managing the herd.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2013
Hi Teech2,
Your comment is spot-on!
A good example is the very famous Einstein formula E=mc2 after George Gamov shown Einstein that as per his equation the universe could not be static as Einstein intended (he was the last truly Newtonian).
In order to correct that Einstein spend months to counter act that realisation and finaly introduced the horrible "Cosmological constant" to freeze all things into place.
Years letter Einstein states that it was his biggest blunder in life! He just prostituted his elegant equation with that ugly constant.
Nowadays people are trying to reactivate that acknowledged mistake made by the author!
They call it "Dark Energy". One of the freakiest ad hoc stupidities on our present cosmology...

More news stories

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...

UAE reports 12 new cases of MERS

Health authorities in the United Arab Emirates have announced 12 new cases of infection by the MERS coronavirus, but insisted the patients would be cured within two weeks.