|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
yea..., i'm not doing it; i'll quote this thou http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare. ( http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=faculty_publications )full .pdf 'cause those fuckers ask money.
i stand by all my other statements.
|
On March 15 2016 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 07:29 Nyxisto wrote:On March 15 2016 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:
Your vision is nothing but class racism by the way (the poor don't think lolz, they react through their emotions ... sure !). Even the distinction between emotion and rational thinking is stupid, there is no such things in reality ; like there is a part of the brain that is strictly used for emotions and another for logic, and somehow the less educated have that part less developped right ? The AfD wants to privatize unemployment benefits. That's the most drastic break with the German welfare state since I don't know when. They're the most neoliberal party in the race. That is what he means when he says irrational. They are voting against their economic interests 'because Muslims'. That is actually the opposite of class struggle, it's reverse identity politics. If they were actually fighting for their rights they'd fight alongside immigrants because those actually share their economic realities. Yes, because you are thinking in utilitarian terms : economic interests, consumption power, wage, etc. This idea of rationality is incomplete : it's Max Weber who clearly explained that next to that utilitarian rationality (in finality), people had behavior that were rational in value. But sure, if you put the politics out of politics, I agree : those poor people are stupid as fuck. The nation or "fatherland" as a value for exemple is the brick on which the socialist movement crashed itself in 1914, and now europe (and Merkel) is doing the same.
Can you explain further the 1914 German socialism comment? European socialism was fairly internationalist until 1914 when German social democracy turned from being staunchly anti-militarist towards nationalism and went as far as supporting WW I because German socialists bought into the idea that the German state can further their proletarian interests better than the internationalist socialist community. They turned a class struggle into nationalistic wars.
If anything the complete opposite is true about Merkel today. Many people are again calling for the nation state when she is convinced that a European solution is the only way. Where is the parallel here?
|
Norway28747 Posts
On March 15 2016 08:47 xM(Z wrote:yea..., i'm not doing it; i'll quote this thou http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html Show nested quote +Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare. ( http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=faculty_publications )full .pdf 'cause those fuckers ask money. i stand by all my other statements.
I wanna thank you for linking these articles. To me they make a whole lot of sense, and this is really a better explanation than ignorance is.
Fact is, when I think about it, I think I'm on the right, scientific side of all these issues (gmo, vaccines, evolution, global warming), but it has nothing to do with my own scientific literacy. It's possible that I could understand global warming (or whatever field of science) calculations if I were to study them for an extended period of time, but I haven't. I just choose the scientific community as a group that I want to identify with, so I basically take their collective word as gospel.
|
On March 15 2016 08:49 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:On March 15 2016 07:29 Nyxisto wrote:On March 15 2016 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:
Your vision is nothing but class racism by the way (the poor don't think lolz, they react through their emotions ... sure !). Even the distinction between emotion and rational thinking is stupid, there is no such things in reality ; like there is a part of the brain that is strictly used for emotions and another for logic, and somehow the less educated have that part less developped right ? The AfD wants to privatize unemployment benefits. That's the most drastic break with the German welfare state since I don't know when. They're the most neoliberal party in the race. That is what he means when he says irrational. They are voting against their economic interests 'because Muslims'. That is actually the opposite of class struggle, it's reverse identity politics. If they were actually fighting for their rights they'd fight alongside immigrants because those actually share their economic realities. Yes, because you are thinking in utilitarian terms : economic interests, consumption power, wage, etc. This idea of rationality is incomplete : it's Max Weber who clearly explained that next to that utilitarian rationality (in finality), people had behavior that were rational in value. But sure, if you put the politics out of politics, I agree : those poor people are stupid as fuck. The nation or "fatherland" as a value for exemple is the brick on which the socialist movement crashed itself in 1914, and now europe (and Merkel) is doing the same. Can you explain further the 1914 German socialism comment? European socialism was fairly internationalist until 1914 when German social democracy turned from being staunchly anti-militarist towards nationalism and went as far as supporting WW I because German socialists bought into the idea that the German state can further their proletarian interests better than the internationalist socialist community. They turned a class struggle into nationalistic wars. If anything the complete opposite is true about Merkel today. Many people are again calling for the nation state when she is convinced that a European solution is the only way. Where is the parallel here?
Why germany ? It's the entire europe that turned nationalist. In France, there was this fairy tail that young french were happy to go to war with Germany, like it was a good thing. It's just that the idea of nation is hugely important to people, as a value, and that people who do not take that into consideration when they make their policies are always jumping in a pit to wake up the most dangerous of our instincts, our desire to "defend the society". The Europe and Merkel are just doing that right now with the migrant crisis (and the economic crisis before that, pointing out not the flaws of each nations but putting them in competition against another, claiming some were good exemples and others failures), they rarely really think of the social and political consequences of their actions, and blindly follow their ethics (which is ordo-liberal basically).
On March 15 2016 08:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2016 08:47 xM(Z wrote:yea..., i'm not doing it; i'll quote this thou http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare. ( http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=faculty_publications )full .pdf 'cause those fuckers ask money. i stand by all my other statements. I wanna thank you for linking these articles. To me they make a whole lot of sense, and this is really a better explanation than ignorance is. Fact is, when I think about it, I think I'm on the right, scientific side of all these issues (gmo, vaccines, evolution, global warming), but it has nothing to do with my own scientific literacy. It's possible that I could understand global warming (or whatever field of science) calculations if I were to study them for an extended period of time, but I haven't. I just choose the scientific community as a group that I want to identify with, so I basically take their collective word as gospel.
Weber said it all : in the end, politics is a war of gods. You can have rational reasons to prefer a god over another god, but there is no science that can objectively say which god is better. People who refute climate change, in the end, see man as a superior being, that own the planet and can "use and abuse" of its luxurious qualities and ressources, even to the point of completly destroying it.
|
On March 15 2016 09:11 WhiteDog wrote:
Why germany ? It's the entire europe that turned nationalist. In France, there was this fairy tail that young french were happy to go to war with Germany, like it was a good thing. It's just that the idea of nation is hugely important to people, as a value, and that people who do not take that into consideration when they make their policies are always jumping in a pit to wake up the most dangerous of our instincts, our desire to "defend the society". The Europe and Merkel are just doing that right now with the migrant crisis (and the economic crisis before that, pointing out not the flaws of each nations but putting them in competition against another, claiming some were good exemples and others failures), they rarely really think of the social and political consequences of their actions, and blindly follow their ethics (which is ordo-liberal basically).
I don't think Merkel is acting ordo-liberal here at all, at least not in any economic sense. She sees this as a humanitarian obligation. She conceives of refugees as real people no less valuable than any person in Germany. You do identify as a socialist right? In a way the second and third world is this century's proletariat tearing down capitalist borders, you should be the first person to empathize.
I'm also not sure the assertion that Merkel is acting blindly here is fair, she's pretty known for thinking stuff through and the consequences of her politics aren't exactly hard to predict. I guess in this case her beliefs just trump her usual pragmatism that she has practiced for ten years.
|
Arguing that Merkel tought this stuff thru seems a bit strange or has Germany come up with any plan to deal with this yet (intern, not eu wide)?
|
On March 15 2016 16:55 Velr wrote:
Arguing that Merkel tought this stuff thru seems a bit strange or has Germany come up with any plan to deal with this yet (intern, not eu wide)?
Merkel is a studied physicist, so you would think she is a logical thinking person who thinks things through before she does them. This is also what I assume. Yet in my opinion she didn't tell the public her plan - just speculation now why.
The people are perfectly safe in Greece and they were safe in Greece last autumn. The EU could have set up a fund to build camps in Greece and btw also stimulate the Greek economy this way. But no, they chose to open the gates in the name of humanity. Anyone who is of the older generations knows this is probably not the reason i.e. Germany is exporting weapons to Saudi-Arabia and to the Kurds (Peschmerga) directly to parties of the conflict zones - humanity my arse.
I am very thankful for the policy Austria and in person Mr. Kurz implemented. This madness is stopped and the people are taken care of in Greece. We all should help Greece in this so that they don't have extra costs because of the crisis. It's a better idea than throwing money at turkey in my opinion.
If you understand German you can listen to Mr. Kurz explaining the Austrian policy:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 15 2016 08:47 xM(Z wrote: This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare. That's the conclusion in full sentence as opposed to cherrypicking.
In essence, the article posits that opinions are formed by the cultural groups they most closely identify with. I don't see how this is in effect a form of reasoning/science as opposed to blind faith. Instead of identifying with opinions close to yourself, you are identifying with opinions close to your group.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that must be one terrible study. will read it later to see
okay here's the core problem,
We measured respondents’ “science literacy” with National Science Foundation’s “Science and
Engineering Indicators”26. Focused on physics and biology (e.g., “Electrons are smaller than atoms
[true/false]”; “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria [true/false]”), the NSF Indicators are widely used
as an index of public comprehension of basic science.
We measured subjects’ “numeracy”— their capacity to comprehend and use quantitative information—with
fourteen mathematical word problems11, 28-29 (e.g., “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The
bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”). We combined responses to the NSF
Indicators and the numeracy questions into a composite scale (α = 0.85), labeled “Science Literacy/Numeracy,”
to avoid collinearity in multivariate analyses of their association with respondents’ risk
perceptions30.
a guy who can score decently on these assessments is not the same as informed or literate on the issue of global warming. it's rather more likely a proxy of basic education competence.
obviously motivated belief mechanism still works to make ideologically pleasing conclusions more admissible in factual inquiry but this study does not suggest actual science literacy is irrelevant. it just does not capture that in any serious way
take a strawpoll in your physics department or something, not this shit
|
In a way the second and third world is this century's proletariat tearing down capitalist borders, you should be the first person to empathize.
I empathize as a man with those people, not because they tear down frontiers but because they flee conflicts. This situation has nothing to do with socialism : it is the capitalism (inequalities, war, etc.) that leads those people to tear down border actually, and the development of capitalism has always passed through the extension of the market above regional or local interests / culture.
You're mistaking socialism for libetarianism, and capitalism for conservatism, and it's quite insulting to be fair because you paint me as young idiot that vote the left whatever the reason because I'm somewhat sure of its moral superiority and not for the actual political proposals that the left may have and its actual effect in context. My point was exactly that Merkel decided her actions on ethics and ideology without thinking the consequences - much like with the Greeks.
You can welcome all the refugee you want, if you don't take into consideration the natives and their feeling/desires, it can only result to failure and violence.
|
On March 15 2016 21:53 oneofthem wrote:that must be one terrible study. will read it later to see okay here's the core problem, Show nested quote +
We measured respondents’ “science literacy” with National Science Foundation’s “Science and
Engineering Indicators”26. Focused on physics and biology (e.g., “Electrons are smaller than atoms
[true/false]”; “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria [true/false]”), the NSF Indicators are widely used
as an index of public comprehension of basic science.
We measured subjects’ “numeracy”— their capacity to comprehend and use quantitative information—with
fourteen mathematical word problems11, 28-29 (e.g., “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The
bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”). We combined responses to the NSF
Indicators and the numeracy questions into a composite scale (α = 0.85), labeled “Science Literacy/Numeracy,”
to avoid collinearity in multivariate analyses of their association with respondents’ risk
perceptions30.
a guy who can score decently on these assessments is not the same as informed or literate on the issue of global warming. it's rather more likely a proxy of basic education competence. obviously motivated belief mechanism still works to make ideologically pleasing conclusions more admissible in factual inquiry but this study does not suggest actual science literacy is irrelevant. it just does not capture that in any serious way take a strawpoll in your physics department or something, not this shit
look at this dude, lol; proving the inner-workings of IPC, shitting on nature.
but to get you started: Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record comprising the major high-quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy neutral. It does not offer policy options, and it does not make policy recommendations. SEI employs a variety of presentation styles—tables, figures, narrative text, bulleted text, Web-based links, highlights, introductions, conclusions, reference lists—to make the data accessible to readers with different information needs and different information-processing preferences .
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what is your point regarding the merits of the study? grow a brain and actually think about it
none of what you are quoting is relevant
|
those indicators include climate change issues. the respondents knew the science.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
where did it say that in the study?
it's like a measure of educational attainment not meant as a knowledge survey.
|
read the credentials from Supplementary Information References
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not about credentials it's about the material being orthogonal to the purpose of the study.
when you try to use math to prove the fucking mayan prophesy it's not the problem with the math that is at issue.
|
I just have an issue with
1) that identifying with groups and their cultural ideas is a sophisticated concept
2) that doing so is a reasoning/scientific way to think
3) that xM(Z only response is to quote the same article over and over because he thinks we are intimidated by a few long words. Quoting A and saying it shows B.
|
those were basic examples/questions from 14.National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010. (National Science Foundation, Arlington, Va., 2010) which contains a lot more math tests/quizzes and science prophecies, including climate issues.
About Science and Engineering Indicators
Chapters
Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and Science Education
Higher Education in Science and Engineering
Science and Engineering Labor Force
R&D: National Trends and International Linkages
Academic Research and Development
Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace
Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
State Indicators random, one of many(i've issues with .xls files  + Show Spoiler + N O T E S : T h i s t a b l e s h o w s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e n i n e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e t r e n d f a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f s c i e n c e s c a l e t h a t w e r e a n s w e r e d c o r r e c t l y . " D o n ' t k n o w " r e s p o n s e s a n d r e f u s a l s t o r e s p o n d c o u n t a s i n c o r r e c t . Q u e s t i o n s i n t h e t r e n d f a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f s c i e n c e s c a l e a r e l i s t e d b e l o w :
" T h e c e n t e r o f t h e E a r t h i s v e r y h o t . ( T r u e )
" A l l r a d i o a c t i v i t y i s m a n - m a d e . ( F a l s e )
" I t i s t h e f a t h e r s g e n e t h a t d e c i d e s w h e t h e r t h e b a b y i s a b o y o r a g i r l . ( T r u e ) o r ( i n 2 0 0 8 ) I t i s t h e m o t h e r ' s g e n e t h a t d e c i d e s w h e t h e r t h e b a b y i s a b o y o r a g i r l . ( F a l s e ) ( S p l i t b a l l o t i n 2 0 0 8 ; 1 , 5 0 6 s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d a b o u t " f a t h e r ' s g e n e " ; 5 1 5 s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d a b o u t " m o t h e r ' s g e n e . " )
" L a s e r s w o r k b y f o c u s i n g s o u n d w a v e s . ( F a l s e )
" E l e c t r o n s a r e s m a l l e r t h a n a t o m s . ( T r u e )
" A n t i b i o t i c s k i l l v i r u s e s a s w e l l a s b a c t e r i a . ( F a l s e )
" T h e c o n t i n e n t s o n w h i c h w e l i v e h a v e b e e n m o v i n g t h e i r l o c a t i o n s f o r m i l l i o n s o f y e a r s a n d w i l l c o n t i n u e t o m o v e i n t h e f u t u r e . ( T r u e )
" D o e s t h e E a r t h g o a r o u n d t h e S u n , o r d o e s t h e S u n g o a r o u n d t h e E a r t h ? ( E a r t h a r o u n d S u n )
" H o w l o n g d o e s i t t a k e f o r t h e E a r t h t o g o a r o u n d t h e S u n ? ( O n e y e a r ) ( A s k e d o n l y i f t h e r e s p o n d e n t a n s w e r e d c o r r e c t l y t h a t t h e E a r t h g o e s a r o u n d t h e S u n . )
S O U R C E S : N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n , N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r S c i e n c e a n d E n g i n e e r i n g S t a t i s t i c s , S u r v e y o f P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d a n d U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c i e n c e a n d T e c h n o l o g y ( 1 9 9 2 2 0 0 1 ) ; U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , G e n e r a l S o c i a l S u r v e y ( 2 0 0 6 1 2 )
the problem here is: why did you, instinctively believed that a study about climate change using people clueless on climate change, would be accepted by nature?.
|
On March 16 2016 00:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I just have an issue with
1) that identifying with groups and their cultural ideas is a sophisticated concept
2) that doing so is a reasoning/scientific way to think
3) that xM(Z only response is to quote the same article over and over because he thinks we are intimidated by a few long words. Quoting A and saying it shows B.
you're stuck on the previous page - semantics over the definition of confirmation bias(which i said it's based mainly on faith/beliefs/(non-scientific)hypotheses.
present another argument or let it go.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 16 2016 00:13 xM(Z wrote:those were basic examples/questions from 14.National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010. (National Science Foundation, Arlington, Va., 2010) which contains a lot more math tests/quizzes and science prophecies, including climate issues. Show nested quote +About Science and Engineering Indicators
Chapters
Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and Science Education
Higher Education in Science and Engineering
Science and Engineering Labor Force
R&D: National Trends and International Linkages
Academic Research and Development
Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace
Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
State Indicators random, one of many(i've issues with .xls files + Show Spoiler + N O T E S : T h i s t a b l e s h o w s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e n i n e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e t r e n d f a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f s c i e n c e s c a l e t h a t w e r e a n s w e r e d c o r r e c t l y . " D o n ' t k n o w " r e s p o n s e s a n d r e f u s a l s t o r e s p o n d c o u n t a s i n c o r r e c t . Q u e s t i o n s i n t h e t r e n d f a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f s c i e n c e s c a l e a r e l i s t e d b e l o w :
" T h e c e n t e r o f t h e E a r t h i s v e r y h o t . ( T r u e )
" A l l r a d i o a c t i v i t y i s m a n - m a d e . ( F a l s e )
" I t i s t h e f a t h e r s g e n e t h a t d e c i d e s w h e t h e r t h e b a b y i s a b o y o r a g i r l . ( T r u e ) o r ( i n 2 0 0 8 ) I t i s t h e m o t h e r ' s g e n e t h a t d e c i d e s w h e t h e r t h e b a b y i s a b o y o r a g i r l . ( F a l s e ) ( S p l i t b a l l o t i n 2 0 0 8 ; 1 , 5 0 6 s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d a b o u t " f a t h e r ' s g e n e " ; 5 1 5 s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d a b o u t " m o t h e r ' s g e n e . " )
" L a s e r s w o r k b y f o c u s i n g s o u n d w a v e s . ( F a l s e )
" E l e c t r o n s a r e s m a l l e r t h a n a t o m s . ( T r u e )
" A n t i b i o t i c s k i l l v i r u s e s a s w e l l a s b a c t e r i a . ( F a l s e )
" T h e c o n t i n e n t s o n w h i c h w e l i v e h a v e b e e n m o v i n g t h e i r l o c a t i o n s f o r m i l l i o n s o f y e a r s a n d w i l l c o n t i n u e t o m o v e i n t h e f u t u r e . ( T r u e )
" D o e s t h e E a r t h g o a r o u n d t h e S u n , o r d o e s t h e S u n g o a r o u n d t h e E a r t h ? ( E a r t h a r o u n d S u n )
" H o w l o n g d o e s i t t a k e f o r t h e E a r t h t o g o a r o u n d t h e S u n ? ( O n e y e a r ) ( A s k e d o n l y i f t h e r e s p o n d e n t a n s w e r e d c o r r e c t l y t h a t t h e E a r t h g o e s a r o u n d t h e S u n . )
S O U R C E S : N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n , N a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r S c i e n c e a n d E n g i n e e r i n g S t a t i s t i c s , S u r v e y o f P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d a n d U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c i e n c e a n d T e c h n o l o g y ( 1 9 9 2 2 0 0 1 ) ; U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , G e n e r a l S o c i a l S u r v e y ( 2 0 0 6 1 2 ) the problem here is: why did you, instinctively believed that a study about climate change using people clueless on climate change, would be accepted by nature?.
actually read the fucking thing. look at it. heliocentrism is not global warming knowledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
