View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby really? » 03 Oct 2012, 22:46

Something to read. And what do you think ?

It is known that people's propensity for conspiracist ideation is not limited to one
theory in isolation. Instead, the belief that AIDS was created by the government is likely
accompanied by the conviction that the FBI killed Martin Luther King or that the Air
Force is hiding evidence of extraterrestrial visitors...
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/l ... piracy.pdf
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby NinjaPuppy » 04 Oct 2012, 02:19

really? wrote:Something to read. And what do you think ?

It is known that people's propensity for conspiracist ideation is not limited to one
theory in isolation. Instead, the belief that AIDS was created by the government is likely
accompanied by the conviction that the FBI killed Martin Luther King or that the Air
Force is hiding evidence of extraterrestrial visitors...
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/l ... piracy.pdf

I think I don't understand the question or the PDF contents. :?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby Misha » 04 Oct 2012, 06:16

Hi Really & NinjaPuppy,

When exactly did this study come out on the blogs? When did the study convene? I'm interested considering I received from a friend in early September a PDF on this. Thanks, guys.

And, no. This is not about a "motivated rejection" either. :roll:
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby SydneyPSIder » 04 Oct 2012, 06:31

That's funny, I only believe in certain so-called 'conspiracy theories' that have a LOT of supporting and credible evidence and a motivation behind them.

Pseudosceptics seem to confuse scientific reasoning with accepting barely convincing cover-up stories from guilty parties. They seem to think that ALL people who have doubts must be confused or non-scientific thinkers. What they REALLY know and fear is that genuinely scientific thinkers with doubts represent the greatest threat to the elites and misplaced so-called 'patriotism' that violates basic and essential ethical principles, and may result in an overturning of the privileges enjoyed by those elites.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 05 Oct 2012, 09:33, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby really? » 04 Oct 2012, 10:33

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:Something to read. And what do you think ?

It is known that people's propensity for conspiracist ideation is not limited to one
theory in isolation. Instead, the belief that AIDS was created by the government is likely
accompanied by the conviction that the FBI killed Martin Luther King or that the Air
Force is hiding evidence of extraterrestrial visitors...
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/l ... piracy.pdf

I think I don't understand the question or the PDF contents. :?

The thrust of this paper is all summed up in the title. It explains why some people reject the facts of certain segments of science in preference to their own take on [self] fabricated falsehoods or fabricated falsehoods by others they agree with.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby Misha » 04 Oct 2012, 11:44

Hi Really,

Let's for the moment look at the Oklahoma bombing which is listed as an example in this study. I would also like to point out to the forum members that I know Ben Partin (Air Force explosive expert for 20 plus years) who told me point blank that the ANFO truck did not cause the extensive damage to the Alfred P. Murrah building. In fact, Partin's analysis is supported by the 55 page study which was conducted at Eglin Air Force base. Yes, Ben's wife, Cynthia, told me Ben had to check under his car each morning because he was fearful of the repercussions.

Take a look at this article. Is science in default or are we dealing with a cover-up of science? Can science be politicized for a desired outcome? If in fact science was in default and we are dealing with a cover-up of the facts, then it is fair to assume that the same modus operandi can be used again in other controversial cases. I guess we can call this repeatability according to the scientific method.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/16/us/re ... whitehurst
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby NinjaPuppy » 04 Oct 2012, 22:19

really? wrote:The thrust of this paper is all summed up in the title. It explains why some people reject the facts of certain segments of science in preference to their own take on [self] fabricated falsehoods or fabricated falsehoods by others they agree with.

Ahhhh, thank you.

Now onward and upward from your well explained quote. Let's start off with the terminology.... "some people". Yes, "some people" reject the "official" facts and prefer to their own self fabricated or outright falsehoods of other people. People will be people and that is a very broad spectrum of beliefs, personalities, intelligence, etc. Let's not forget the time available, on an individual basis, that "some people" have to devote to hobbies or pet projects and then add to the equation their individual drive and determination. Oh and let's not forget motivation. Individual motivation can be a very important factor in the equation. Especially those who find a way of making money or their 15 minutes of fame from a subject.

Next is "fabricated falsehoods". Yes. "Some people" prefer to take on "fabricated falsehoods". "Some people" make a career at "fabricating falsehoods" out of boredom just to stir the pot. "Some people" will explore these "fabricated falsehoods" to debunk or prove it's validity.

This is a direct copy and paste from the PDF and the errors that you will notice came up that way in the process and I ain't about to fix 'em all:
Sunstein and Vermeule (2009) discussed several potential counter-measures that are
at the disposal of government ocials, several of which mesh well with our nding. For
example, Sunstein and Vermeule suggested that instead of rebutting single conspiracy
theories, e orts should be made to rebut many at the same time|this meshes with our
nding that conspiracist ideation tends to be quite broad. Multiple rebuttals also raise the
complexity of possible conspiracist responses (not only must there be a conspiracy to
remove thermometers, but there must also be a conspiracy to launch a false \decoy"
theory about the absence of a plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11 in order to detract from
the real conspiracy, which was to destroy the Twin Towers, and so on.) Sunstein and
Vermeule (2009) note the possibility of addressing the \demand" rather than \supply" of
conspiracy theories; that is, rather than change the mind of actual believers,
communication should be directed at potential consumers of theories to inoculate them
against accepting such theories.

Similarly, Lewandowsky, Ecker, Farrell, and Brown (in press) o er a broad review of
\debiasing" techniques that are directly applicable to the rebuttal of conspiracy theories
and include suggestions about how to avoid various \back re" e ects that can arise when
people's worldviews are challenged by the corrective information. Some of those
suggestions, such as re-armation of a subset of beliefs among recipients of conspiracy
theories, were echoed by Sunstein and Vermeule (2009).


Why does any of this even matter in the grand scheme of things? "Some people" have been wrong in their beliefs since the beginning of time. "Some people" have been right and died for their "crazy" beliefs at the hands of those who believed they were wrong. "Some people" have been right but still wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say with all this is that Misha & Syd have proven that they bring an alternative attitude to these forums and that they express themselves in a very well read manner. "Some people" here may not agree with what they have literally "read" in the process of their journey to explore the subject matter but if you don't read everything available, it's not much of a debate.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby Misha » 04 Oct 2012, 23:09

Hi NinjaPuppy,

I think it is also important to point out that I have tried to meet with those I source. There is a reason for this. I want to be able to look them in the eye and measure their mental state. I want to know if they are lucid, para-frenetic, disillusioned, psychotic and a whole list of other maladies which might get in the way of the information.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Oct 2012, 00:13

Misha wrote:Hi NinjaPuppy,

I think it is also important to point out that I have tried to meet with those I source. There is a reason for this. I want to be able to look them in the eye and measure their mental state. I want to know if they are lucid, para-frenetic, disillusioned, psychotic and a whole list of other maladies which might get in the way of the information.

:D It sure doesn't hurt to personally observe the source.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Oct 2012, 09:36

Misha wrote:I think it is also important to point out that I have tried to meet with those I source. There is a reason for this. I want to be able to look them in the eye and measure their mental state. I want to know if they are lucid, para-frenetic, disillusioned, psychotic and a whole list of other maladies which might get in the way of the information.

I'm often struck by the calmness, lucidity and intelligence of many of the whistle-blowers, from Apollo to 9/11.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby Misha » 05 Oct 2012, 16:38

SydneyPSIder, by chance that is what brought me to this forum. I was looking for information on Jarrah White when I came upon SCEPCOP. All in all you guys go at it hard, but it is pretty civil compared to other forums.

What intrigues me is Jarrah's approach to the Apollo program. This young man has taken a beating and I have not seen him get dirty with those he disagrees with. Correct me if I am wrong.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby Misha » 06 Oct 2012, 01:23

Guys, I thought this might be of interest. The statement below comes from a professor of philosophy who I know very well. The professor's doctoral thesis was on Spinoza, by the way. I sent the PDF to him and ask that he comment on it:

""Multiple rebuttals also raise the complexity of possible conspiracist responses (not only must there be a conspiracy to remove thermometers, but there must also be a conspiracy to launch a false “decoy” theory about the absence of a plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11 in order to detract from the real conspiracy, which was to destroy the Twin Towers, and so on.) Sunstein and Vermeule (2009) note the possibility of addressing the “demand” rather than “supply” of conspiracy theories; that is, rather than change the mind of actual believers, communication should be directed at potential consumers of theories to inoculate them against accepting such theories.

That was from the end of the study. I've never quite figured out how one gets inoculated against thinking, perhaps that's what most vaccines accomplish! I think that it is a weak attempt by a guy writing and living in the middle of nowhere to get some recognition. I think people like him are the problem, looking at the psychology of critical thinking like it is some kind of disease, all the while trumping up how he is the only critical thinker in the room!


The only thing I disagree with is the "middle of nowhere" comment. Metaphorically most people who challenge the orthodox are in the "middle of nowhere."
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby Arouet » 06 Oct 2012, 01:52

Hey Misha - just wanted to say I appreciate your tone while discussing these topics. I'm not sure why people need to get so insulting when they disagree with people.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 10:27

Arouet wrote:Hey Misha - just wanted to say I appreciate your tone while discussing these topics. I'm not sure why people need to get so insulting when they disagree with people.

Maybe some people just don't suffer fools gladly. Is that a weakness or a strength?
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 10:29

Misha wrote:SydneyPSIder, by chance that is what brought me to this forum. I was looking for information on Jarrah White when I came upon SCEPCOP. All in all you guys go at it hard, but it is pretty civil compared to other forums.

What intrigues me is Jarrah's approach to the Apollo program. This young man has taken a beating and I have not seen him get dirty with those he disagrees with. Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I've seen him get a bit shirty on his 'rebuttal' videos with his opponents, and vice versa. He doesn't stoop to making ad hominem remarks to make his case or discredit his opponents though. I think he has too many important facts and findings to just reduce it to an argument over a suspicion. It takes a lot to enter that particular fray and you would have to expect to be attacked by Apollo fanbois. I think he's made some definite dents in the armour, if not delivered the coup de grace...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron