Facts do not change people's minds

[Kershaw]

interesting stuff. maybe you guys will give up trying to tell gwb all the ways he's wrong about so many things in life. lol.

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

[Exodus_2pt0]

Well that does it, time to move to Mars.

[BraveUlysses]

interesting stuff. maybe you guys will give up trying to tell gwb all the ways he's wrong about so many things in life. lol.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Well that starts to explain what happens in the global warming thread

[Dozyproductions]

Your guys' farts are starting to smell that good huh?

[cale]

This post does nothing to change my belief that people will adapt their beliefs.

Thanks Dozy, I've actually been in contact with frebreeze to create a new scent, it's going to be called logical.

[iamsam]

Well that does it, time to move to Mars.

You are in luck, these people are recruiting.

http://mars-one.com/en/

[gwb72tii]

let me clarify what you're actually saying for any not in tune with the politics blog

you're saying i ignore facts.
translation - there's a 97% consensus that negates any and all discussion or question, even from those qualified to pose the questions, because there is a "consensus", even though science is not about consensus and never has been, even thought the 97% is a myth, but is still used as a bludgeon to silence dissent

you say i ignore the facts
translation - when presenting links to articles from websites that argue with AGW, they are ridiculed as crackpot, yet pro AGW websites from admitted left wing political hacks are truthful.

you say i ignore facts
translation - this arument is used when you have no convenient logical argument supporting your viewpoints, and the tiresome "if you're against the AGW hypothesis, you are pro-pollution" argument is rolled out as well.

example
no warming since 1998, which flies in the face of the IPCC models predicting exactly the opposite.
i'm the one ignoring the facts even though phil jones admits it, and laments that he cannot explain it.
and in the end, you would deny the facts and argue i'm the one lying

is that about it?

and rwh would continue to argue CO2 is a pollutant,because if you breathe it it will kill you.
yet somehow O2, which will kill you as well, is not a pollutant.
and this is held up supporting AGW, and i am ignoring the facts

[2761377]

and of course only we right wing nut jobs are influenced by 'motivated reasoning'?

and the article mentions 'most voters' as being susceptible to this problem- which could be construed as a popular vote majority.

[Fusion]

Accusing someone of being left or right wing based solely on their opinion of a certain topic itself lacks factual logic.

[cale]

You boggle my mind, you seriously must have Alzheimer's to be as fucking delusional as you are.

when presenting links to articles from websites that argue with AGW, they are ridiculed as crackpot

Your links are very often dissected and will have their faults pointed out to you, you then usually ignore the replies and change subjects....often back to a past argument. Cry victim more please, it's hilarious.

example
no warming since 1998, which flies in the face of the IPCC models predicting exactly the opposite.

The top five warmest years on record since the 1800's have all been 1998+, yet no warming since 1998 has taken place?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html

You're downright stupid.

*reply in gw thread if you need to share more of your misunderstandings

Accusing someone of being left or right wing based solely on their opinion of a certain topic itself lacks factual logic.

Truth

[z31maniac]

So does this mean those on favor of banning assault weapons will change their mind based on their frequency of use in crimes?

[mrsleeve]

^
No this only only applies to facts that libs like. Everything else is based on feelings

[gwb72tii]

The top five warmest years on record since the 1800's have all been 1998+, yet no warming since 1998 has taken place?

your ignorance is staggering, given even the AGW faithful know that the hottest year on record is prior to 1998. lulz
you make my point for me. what a dunce.

but never mind, this is not the AGW thread is it?

[BraveUlysses]

Good job proving the premise in the OP's article

[mar1t1me]

.....which explains why so many people still believe in an invisible man in the sky......