An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

[really?]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Misha]

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.

[SydneyPSIder]

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.

[really?]

[Misha]

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

[NinjaPuppy]

[Misha]

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.

[NinjaPuppy]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Misha]

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]

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."

[Arouet]

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.

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]