link
Do you agree with the authors that people have
a tendency to avoid inconvenient
scientific facts? Does this have
anything to do with the popularity of conspiracy theories? How can people best
debate issues or persuade others to change their positions in light of this
evidence? Do the studies which the
authors have carried out convince you?
Studies of human behaviour and human cognition of facts have for a long time been on my mind. That is also why I am really happy for this article and study to have been made. I think it is really essential for these kinds of texts to be spread and in my opinion especially in today´s world they are really important. Take as an example the referendum we had in Slovakia two months ago. It is a crowned example of using unreliable facts and then moving to the “feelings” layer when the truth presented by the facts turns not so true after all.
ReplyDeleteSo, firstly, there is no doubt that in today´s world, there is almost an abundance of information, from which a vast majority is referred to as testified. And as the article itself said, many people wonder why has not the bias and arguments based solely on faith disappeared yet. In the end, we have the data filed, the research done so why don´t people shift their beliefs and finally understand the testable and scientifically proven evidence? We would live in a happy society with no wrong beliefs at all! Is it not better than just give arguments based on feelings, or slightly better, old proverbs or such? I am as puzzled as the author why did it not happen yet.
In my honest opinion, all people actually understand and take facts as the most reliable form of argument in a discussion. We have come a long way since the time when scientists were crucified and the only real knowledge laid in the Bible. This is why we have found a new way to win a quarrel when the facts do not really play in to our cards. And I think that the research done by Mr Friesen and Mr Campbell has nicely pointed at it. If we cannot win an argument based on objectified facts, we just turn to unfalsifiable proofs – e.g. feelings or questions of faith.
To conclude, we are now much better off than in the past. In past, debates on controversial topics often ended in a “you cannot know that!” type of a sentence. On the other hand, today, we actually do know that. And we should act like it. Not fall back on the same old feelings side. A side that is not objective and cannot do any good whatsoever.
I really like this article, as I am interested in things like persuading people and an ability of critical thinking (from a psychological point of view). Even though the main topic does not have so much with study of persuading people, I simply put my thoughts into this topic. From the article, I would say that the beliefs are many times more than just facts. And when science polarizes your strong belief or opinion, you just naturally ignore it. The question is: why? Why do people have a tendency to avoid inconvenient scientific facts, or scientific facts at all? I think this is something what should have been discussed more in this article.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, in my opinion, there are people who many times ignore facts that are not suitable according to what they are used to. Affected by their entire life, they have something which I would call "the roots of life". These roots are the reasons for everything (why they do behave as they behave). When there is a piece of a scientific fact which polarizes the opinions they are used to, I am not surprised they ignore it or even fight against it. Our lives have worked well so far, so why would we change something just because of a single fact... Even the article says that everything can be scientifically proved these days (thanks to the diversity and colorfulness of life). We are able to bear in mind those facts just in case we know something does not work. There are people in this world who do not believe God exists (usually their parents are not Christians and do not teach them to this religion, so they are not educated to be Christians as well > they have atheistic "roots"). On the contrary, there are people who believe in God (those are usually taught to be Christians during their entire life > they are Christians and that is why they live the way they live). I am not saying they are worse or better educated. What I am trying to say is that everybody is somehow educated and has "roots" which he or she believes in. They will not stop to be Christians just because some scientific fact said "It is scientifically proved that God does not exist" (not true fact, just to imagine).
On the other hand, I think the main reason why people often avoid scientific facts is the way they are given the facts. The way the scientific facts are usually published is many times brief without extra explanation. For instance, imagine there is a night and you are staring out of the window. Then somebody enters the room and asks what you are doing. You tell him you are watching stars. Then he says that it is scientifically proved the stars you can see just above your head are not stars. Of course you would not do anything about this "scientific fact" or you would probably just laugh about such a false thought. The thing is that the fact is actually right. The problem is not in you. The problem was in the way you were told this piece of information. The problem is the missing explanation. Explanation why the stars are not there (they burned years ago) and explanation what you really see (just the light). This is just a primitive example, but I bet this works in every normal situation. Now even if you see the stars, you always know they are not real. This was thanks to the explanation. So when science says children raised by same-sex parents are worse off as children raised by opposite-sex parents as in the article, I am not surprised people do not care who is a child raised by (in this case).
Of course there are many other reasons why we are so stuck up and do not accept facts that are not suitable for us (for example doubts caused by the popularity of unreliable facts). But I know there are people who act like this. And in case facts match our beliefs, of course we care about them, as was proved in the article with those 174 Americans. That is why we do care about facts after all. There are always people who are interested... No matter which scientific fact will polarize this belief ;).
From Martina Sabova:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have to agree with Peter and anet on the point of this topic relevance and remarkableness. I have been, too, interested in psychology and the functioning of human´s brain for a long time especially this field, where irrelevant beliefs based on bias, feelings and ideologies clash with morally acceptable, entirely testable and empirically proven facts and science.
I am not going to mention the study again, I think we´ve all read it through several times, before writing this comment, but I will try to give my personal opinion supported by the facts and figures from the article. But first and foremost, I want to reply on tha last thing Peter mentioned in his comment and that is, in past, lot of quarells were ended badly or incorrectly because there were no scientific facts to prove one´s opinion. It was just about what did the people believe in and it was just claim against claim. Now, we´ve come a long way, and even though, we have these empirically based arguments and fancy science stuff, we, in the end turn back to our comfort zone, our strong irrelevant beliefs. Why is it so though? Why did 174 Americans in a study about same-sex marriage base their opinion and its relevance according to the information they were given? And this study, in particular, we see that, people, when given scientifically proven facts, don´t fight against them or try to reject them, they just change the base of their argument. Whether it is a strong belief or really a legit research, they seem to run off to the thing which seems more comfortable for them. And there is one very simple explanation for that. It is psychological, that we, as humans, hate losing, especially arguments and also, it is extremely hard for us to change our mindsets. If you have been forming an opinion aout something from a very young age, based on your religion or whatever else, one scientificly proven statistic cannot change it in an instant. Take an example of very strong orthodox Christians. They have their belief, they built every opinion, judgement and act on it and now you are trying to tell them it is wrong because science says otherwise.
It may appear foolish, but, psychologically it is totally justifiable and acceptable that people run off to irrelevant beliefs and opinions if that´s what they have built their whole life around. It is interesting though, how fragile human mind is and in contrast how strong in response and reflex it operates. Even if it knows, the thing you are believing in is unreal or irrelevant, in seek of comfort and balance it makes you confirm your irrelevant beliefs, because it refuses to accept anything different. The self defense of human mind alive, folks!