|2011-01-18 08:53:54||Skepticism vs denialism|
Nice summation from Lou Grinzo in an email (I think he also posted something to this effect on his website):
1. We're all born ignorant of everything. We all remain ignorant of many things throughout life, or only come to learn about them later in life than would be optimal. (Amish saying: We grow too soon old and too late smart.)
It might be worth clarifying that #3 is true as long as the person doesn't have some degree of expertise in the subject as well, and of course it's only true when the vast majority of experts agree.
I'm then reminded of the 'no trick zone' denialist blog Rob H. linked to (in General Chat for his warming vs. cooling wager with those frequenting the blog). The blog author keeps referring to a 'growing number' or even 'growing consensus' of 'scientists' predicting global cooling. Their argument is basically that as long as some 'experts' disagree with the consensus, there's reason to believe the consensus is wrong. The problem here is that they think guys like Don Easterbrook and Joe Bastardi are 'experts'. And of course since nobody frequenting that blog is in any position to accurately assess which 'side' is right (they make some really dumb arguments there), another question is why they think that minority is right. They really have no valid reason to believe it, because they don't even understand basic climate science. It then boils down to their biases, wanting the minority to be right. But of course they won't admit that, and therein lies the denial. They're convinced by dumb Bastardi-style arguments because they want to be convinced.
dana1981: "... another question is why they think that minority is right. They really have no valid reason to believe it, because they don't even understand basic climate science. It then boils down to their biases, wanting the minority to be right..."
Or because it is required, in order to cling to one's political/religious identity... objectives