Is is possible that we're all too biased to figure out what the truth actually is?

[Indygrrl]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

I like to think I examine all sides of issues and keep an open mind for the real truth, but this article makes me wonder how objective I actually am. It's really quite fascinating, and makes me think twice about some of the topics I'm opinionated and passionate about. I thought Dopers would appreciate it.

[Grumman]

Is is possible that we're all too biased to figure out what the truth actually is?
No.

[XT]

Yes, you all are. Not me of course, but the rest of you....definitely. :p

(don't usually go in for Mother Jones but will check out the article when I get home tonight)

-XT

[Lobohan]

I'm biased towards science and skepticism. So I generally don't have a problem. :D

[Mosier]

I just finished the article. The jist is "using facts in an attempt to convince someone against their deeply held beliefs often fails."

My response: Duh!

[thelabdude]

Well, the link is loading and loading and loading. I am afraid even the best of us let our own interests distort our view of the truth.

[smiling bandit]

It's obvious that Mother Jones doesn't understand the difference between fact and opinion, not to mention what a fact actually is.

Facts can be true to varying degrees and in varying ways. We're taught in school that the earth revolves around the sun. For centuries, people were taught that the sun revolved around the earth. But now, of course, we know better.

Well, no. The ancients were as right as we are, and as wrong as are. Any two bodies in space orbit each other is an even better way to put it. And we can approximate the relatiopnship between them with math. In short, what we learned from authorities was right in one way and wrong in another.

Now, I think Jenny Mcarthy is dead wrong on vaccines. I think she's mistakenly using a bad inference when we have good studies and data available. However, I do acknowledge that studies and data can be wrong, that they are facts but not reality. Nor do I expect everyone to interpret facts the way I do. The brain does not fool us, but it does use different weighting, and sometimes criteria that others simply can't understand at all.

Reasoning is not logic. It is emotion, because it involves value. No value, no reason. Not, "is hard," but outright impossible, because no fact can ever have a point without a frame of reason. The entire article isn't exactly worthless, but it's way overblown and in the end boils down to nothing more than, "If you want to argue to people, you have to find a way to talk to them." To which I reply, are you only just now getting this, Mother Jones? No wonder you suck so badly and your entire cause has been discredited.

[Budget Player Cadet]

The "Creation Museum" exists. No shit we're too biased.

[Grumman]

Well, no. The ancients were as right as we are, and as wrong as are.
You are wrong. The Earth does revolve around the Sun, or at least around a point well within the Sun's core. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth to any meaningful extent - the influence from Jupiter alone is 1,500 times greater.

It's the difference between believing Pi = 3.1415 and believing Pi = 57. The former might not be precisely true, but the latter's not even in the right ballpark.

[elucidator]

Sorta. Had my personal politics changed mostly by reading people who laughed at what I believed, then I laughed, and then pretty soon I no longer believed it.

[Budget Player Cadet]

It's obvious that Mother Jones doesn't understand the difference between fact and opinion, not to mention what a fact actually is.

Facts can be true to varying degrees and in varying ways. We're taught in school that the earth revolves around the sun. For centuries, people were taught that the sun revolved around the earth. But now, of course, we know better.

Well, no. The ancients were as right as we are, and as wrong as are. Any two bodies in space orbit each other is an even better way to put it. And we can approximate the relatiopnship between them with math. In short, what we learned from authorities was right in one way and wrong in another.

Now, I think Jenny Mcarthy is dead wrong on vaccines. I think she's mistakenly using a bad inference when we have good studies and data available. However, I do acknowledge that studies and data can be wrong, that they are facts but not reality. Nor do I expect everyone to interpret facts the way I do. The brain does not fool us, but it does use different weighting, and sometimes criteria that others simply can't understand at all.

Reasoning is not logic. It is emotion, because it involves value. No value, no reason. Not, "is hard," but outright impossible, because no fact can ever have a point without a frame of reason. The entire article isn't exactly worthless, but it's way overblown and in the end boils down to nothing more than, "If you want to argue to people, you have to find a way to talk to them." To which I reply, are you only just now getting this, Mother Jones? No wonder you suck so badly and your entire cause has been discredited.

What you're missing is that there's a big difference between a slight error, and a major failure. For example, if I were to say the earth is round, I would be wrong. But at the same time, I wouldn't be anywhere near as wrong as those who would claim it to be flat.

[Sitnam]

Reality is not subjective.

[elucidator]

That's just a theory.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Reality is not subjective.

'K, Prove it.

[Smeghead]

Quoth the late, great Better Off Ted:
That's just a fact, and facts are just opinions, and opinions can be wrong.

[Indygrrl]

I like to think I'm a skeptic who uses scientific evidence to figure out what's true, but I'm willing to consider that I've been wrong on certain things. Granted, I'm still 99.9% certain that homeopathy, chiropractic, vaccine panic, and almost all other woo are complete bullshit, but it's still something to think about. ;-)

[smiling bandit]

You are wrong. The Earth does revolve around the Sun, or at least around a point well within the Sun's core. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth to any meaningful extent - the influence from Jupiter alone is 1,500 times greater.

And yet, it is a fact. It is a compeltely unassailable fact. We think the facts we use now better describe reality. We also know they don't describe reality perfectly. Also, props for completely missing the point, while at the same time trying to ignore the actual factuals.

What you're missing is that there's a big difference between a slight error, and a major failure. For example, if I were to say the earth is round, I would be wrong. But at the same time, I wouldn't be anywhere near as wrong as those who would claim it to be flat.

On an aggregate scale, the Earth is round. It's just not spherical.

People, this is my basic point. We all have to adjust the facts for our own use. It's not distorting the facts, it's choosing which ones we can manage to use to best advantage.

If you want to communicate with someone, you have to understand their view enough to find some common ground. This has only been a part of rheotoric teaching for something like twenty-five hundred years (maybe more, but we don't have clear records about rhetoric before that). Thus, if you want to convince somebody, you must approach them on their level.

Most people appear to want instead, to lecture others. They ask, not "How do I approach this person?" but rather "How do I force them to believe what I say?" The Rhetorician approaches as a friend at your side. This, more than anything else, is why most protests fail, and why annoyed people get things done more easily than rioters. Annoyed, even angry people can still speak a coherent language. Rioters speak no language.

The best rhetoricians in modern times are probably found in the British Parliament (perhaps soon to be the English Parliament), who seem to love getting up and delivery aggressive, hard-hitting speeches. President Obama is actually quite good with some aspects, but is losing hsi touch. He has a very natural style, but one which focuses too much on the physical delivery and inspirational messages, which are only secondary aspects.

[John Mace]

I knew it was Obama's fault!

[MeanOldLady]

No.Yes.

[XT]

No.Yes.

Maybe...

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

Is is possible that we're all too biased to figure out what the truth actually is?

Now do you see the value of "consensus reality"?!

[BrainGlutton]

'K, Prove it.

Just did. Subjectively.

[Lobohan]

And yet, it is a fact. It is a compeltely unassailable fact. We think the facts we use now better describe reality. We also know they don't describe reality perfectly. Also, props for completely missing the point, while at the same time trying to ignore the actual factuals.



On an aggregate scale, the Earth is round. It's just not spherical.

People, this is my basic point. We all have to adjust the facts for our own use. It's not distorting the facts, it's choosing which ones we can manage to use to best advantage.

If you want to communicate with someone, you have to understand their view enough to find some common ground. This has only been a part of rheotoric teaching for something like twenty-five hundred years (maybe more, but we don't have clear records about rhetoric before that). Thus, if you want to convince somebody, you must approach them on their level.

Most people appear to want instead, to lecture others. They ask, not "How do I approach this person?" but rather "How do I force them to believe what I say?" The Rhetorician approaches as a friend at your side. This, more than anything else, is why most protests fail, and why annoyed people get things done more easily than rioters. Annoyed, even angry people can still speak a coherent language. Rioters speak no language.

The best rhetoricians in modern times are probably found in the British Parliament (perhaps soon to be the English Parliament), who seem to love getting up and delivery aggressive, hard-hitting speeches. President Obama is actually quite good with some aspects, but is losing hsi touch. He has a very natural style, but one which focuses too much on the physical delivery and inspirational messages, which are only secondary aspects.Yeah, your posts in this thread are complete nonsense. We know much more than the ancients, and are much more right than they were in pretty much every category.

There are one set of facts in the universe. People have differing degrees of understanding of those facts. But the Sun orbiting the Earth isn't correct in any meaningful way. The point of orbit is inside the sun.

[Shodan]

I like to think I'm a skeptic who uses scientific evidence to figure out what's true, but I'm willing to consider that I've been wrong on certain things. In areas like politics, there is usually no such thing as "the truth". It is mostly differing opinions based on differing values, and (very often) a selective interpretation of the facts. And no, one side is not more prone to this than the other.

Osama bin Laden was killed. Is that a good thing? No, every time you kill a terrorist you just recruit more to his side. Right?

Or else it is good, because we killed the guy who killed thousands of our citizens. Right?

Which of these is "the truth"?

Regards,
Shodan

[MeanOldLady]

You just blew my mind, dude.

[Lobohan]

In areas like politics, there is usually no such thing as "the truth". It is mostly differing opinions based on differing values, and (very often) a selective interpretation of the facts. And no, one side is not more prone to this than the other.

Osama bin Laden was killed. Is that a good thing? No, every time you kill a terrorist you just recruit more to his side. Right?

Or else it is good, because we killed the guy who killed thousands of our citizens. Right?

Which of these is "the truth"?

Regards,
ShodanI'd say most people aren't against killing terrorists. They are against bombings that target terrorists and kill civilians. So you don't appear to have a strong grasp on the left's position here.

In any case, obviously some things are opinions. But there are factual things in politics too. It's factual that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that there is Climate Change. The opinions come into play when we decide what to do about it. For instance the right's opinion is that they should pretend the problem doesn't exist.

It's factual that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue unless the taxes were very, very high. It's the right's opinion that they are going to pretend that they are currently that high.

So there are competing opinions, that's what politics is about. But they are supposed to have one set of facts to work on.

[jackdavinci]

But the Sun orbiting the Earth isn't correct in any meaningful way. The point of orbit is inside the sun.

Where the point of orbit is, is a handy taxonomic tool for people that like to put things in categories, but it has zero significance to physics.

[smiling bandit]

There are one set of facts in the universe. People have differing degrees of understanding of those facts. But the Sun orbiting the Earth isn't correct in any meaningful way. The point of orbit is inside the sun.

And there you just proved my point. In that sentence, you moved beyond actual reality into the realm of opinion. You discarded the element of fact you consider "meaningless," even though it's precisely as true as the every other part of it.

In other words, you have a view of reality which accepts certain things and discards others uin order to function with limited brainpower. Which is precisely what I spoke of. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly.

[Half Man Half Wit]

I've sort of just asked the same question, with a bit more math, in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=632703). The gist of it is, given any amount of data, it's possible to disagree rationally, depending on your prior justified beliefs; in particular, if you consider something a priori impossible, then you can't be convinced of its truth.

So yes, it is possible to be too biased to figure out the truth. But on the other hand, barring degenerate cases like believing things impossible, it's guaranteed that a rational treatment of the data you receive will lead you ever closer to truth.

[Pleonast]

The part that most people have understanding "facts" is that scientific statements (that is, things that are independently observable) have error margins and probabilities. Where we have greater understanding, the margin is smaller and the probability is more likely. But there is always uncertainty, even in our best-tested theories.

There is not one set of facts in the universe. Science is not so tidy that experiments never produce contradictory results. When the best scientific "facts" are inconclusive, we simply don't know what the correct answer is.

The other problem with "facts" is ambiguous language. "The earth orbits the sun" needs paragraphs of explanation to make it meaningful. The earth and the sun are not static objects. What's the boundary of the sun? Of the earth? Where you draw the boundaries changes the center of mass of the system, which changes the paths of the sun and earth. And of course, in reality, the sun and the earth are not an isolated system. Neither orbit the other, because their motions depend on the other bodies in the solar system.

A "fact" must be tailored to an intended purpose. "The sun goes around the earth" is good enough to describe why the sun rises in the east, traverses the sky, and sets in the west every single day. "The earth goes around the sun" is good enough for a big picture description of the solar system. If you want to send a robot to another planet, you're going to need a better description.

[Lobohan]

And there you just proved my point. In that sentence, you moved beyond actual reality into the realm of opinion. You discarded the element of fact you consider "meaningless," even though it's precisely as true as the every other part of it.

In other words, you have a view of reality which accepts certain things and discards others uin order to function with limited brainpower. Which is precisely what I spoke of. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly.I appreciate the attempt you're making here. But someone who says, "The Earth orbits the Sun." is correct. The fact is that the Sun is in the middle of our orbit. Someone from a primitive time saying, "The Sun orbits the Earth." is incorrect. Because his view of celestial mechanics is flawed.

The fact that the orbit point is between the two bodies is irrelevant. The first person is correct because his view of the cosmos is in line with reality. The second person is wrong because his view of the cosmos is in line with myth.

Someone who says that the point is actually between the two is also right. But it doesn't make the first wrong and the second right.

[Really Not All That Bright]

And yet, it is a fact. It is a compeltely unassailable fact. We think the facts we use now better describe reality. We also know they don't describe reality perfectly. Also, props for completely missing the point, while at the same time trying to ignore the actual factuals.
No. It is entirely without basis in fact. In some imaginary universe where all we have is a sun and the earth and no frame of reference, it would be a fact. Your argument wouldn't make sense then, because the ancients knew there were other heavenly bodies too, but your "fact" would be true.

However, this is not an imaginary universe, and there are a zillion other objects which allow us to determine which bodies are fixed relative to others and which are not. We know that the Sun's motion is not affected by earth's gravity.

I was once lured into thinking that germ theory must be wrong because every other theory about how diseases worked was wrong.

[Half Man Half Wit]

I appreciate the attempt you're making here. But someone who says, "The Earth orbits the Sun." is correct. The fact is that the Sun is in the middle of our orbit. Someone from a primitive time saying, "The Sun orbits the Earth." is incorrect. Because his view of celestial mechanics is flawed.
Well, you can of course draw up a model in which the Earth is stationary, and everything else moves around it, which will be equivalent in its predictions with the model in which everything revolves around the sun; it'll be somewhat more complicated mathematically, but ultimately, it's just a coordinate transformation.

[thelabdude]

I think part of the problem is massive funding behind obscuring the truth. Last I looked, the thread on saturated.unsaturated fats hadn't been resolved. There is some agreement that partial hydrogenation creates trans fats which are bad. So are saturated fats bad? Is it in the intrest of the meat business, dairy, and coconut oil producers to produce data showing saturated fats aren't harmful? It goes on and on. Look at how much the glass industry has spent promoting recycling. Yes, glass recycles. What else can you do with it besides store it in landfills? How much energy is used recycling glass?

An easy way to make money is to write a book full of sensational charges. If they fit enough people's world view, the money will roll in. Look at all the books on the Kennedy assassination.

The truth hardly stands a chance against economics and politics, not even at SD.

[smiling bandit]

However, this is not an imaginary universe, and there are a zillion other objects which allow us to determine which bodies are fixed relative to others and which are not. We know that the Sun's motion is not affected by earth's gravity.

You don't understand physics, then. There are no fixed objects relative to others. None. Not one in the entire universe.

I love how people keep proving me right. :D

[Lobohan]

Well, you can of course draw up a model in which the Earth is stationary, and everything else moves around it, which will be equivalent in its predictions with the model in which everything revolves around the sun; it'll be somewhat more complicated mathematically, but ultimately, it's just a coordinate transformation.Sure, and if you got in a spaceship and flew above our solar system and looked down, you would find out that the model is needlessly complex.

Saying that the perturbations our planet causes the Sun means that the primitives who thought the Sun went around the Earth were correct is such utter bullshit, it serves no purpose. They weren't right because they imagined the system wrong. If you can squint and say, "well maybe, they were sorta, kinda, in a way, if you think about it, a little, teensy-bit right" that's hardly useful.

[BrainGlutton]

In areas like politics, there is usually no such thing as "the truth". It is mostly differing opinions based on differing values, and (very often) a selective interpretation of the facts. And no, one side is not more prone to this than the other.

Osama bin Laden was killed. Is that a good thing? No, every time you kill a terrorist you just recruit more to his side. Right?

Or else it is good, because we killed the guy who killed thousands of our citizens. Right?

Which of these is "the truth"?

Regards,
Shodan

The bolded bit, to a sufficiently high degree of certainty.

[smiling bandit]

Sure, and if you got in a spaceship and flew above our solar system and looked down, you would find out that the model is needlessly complex.

Actually, if you were to get into a spaceship and venture out, you might find that a much more useful model, because space is extremely complex. Or so simple it's hard to understand. Either way. An earth-centric model has a lot of advantages for some kinds of travel priojections.

Likewise, you keep showing how I'm correct by the very words you use. "Models" only simulate reality in a convenient way, and that's what yourself acknowledge using. But they are not the facts. We hope to improve our understanding over time, but we never use the actual facts.

The bolded bit, to a sufficiently high degree of certainty.

One hopes. I actually beleived he'd died some time ago, as he was known not to be in good health and his "videos" became extremely vague and at times seemed to feature a double - in fact I'm not convinced some of them are genuine even now.

[Lobohan]

Actually, if you were to get into a spaceship and venture out, you might find that a much more useful model, because space is extremely complex. Or so simple it's hard to understand. Either way. An earth-centric model has a lot of advantages for some kinds of travel priojections.No. There is no model consisting of the Sun going around the Earth that's correct. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'd venture to guess that they use no Heliocentric models in their work. Look, as I say, I see that you're fixating on the perturbations and saying, "See, the ancients were just as right as us!" But that's simply nonsense. The orbital perturbations in no way have the Sun moving around the Earth. They cause the Sun to wiggle an imperceptible amount. In no way do the perturbations cause the Sun to actually track in the space around the planet.

You're so wrong you don't understand what you're saying.

Likewise, you keep showing how I'm correct by the very words you use. "Models" only simulate reality in a convenient way, and that's what yourself acknowledge using. But they are not the facts. We hope to improve our understanding over time, but we never use the actual facts. As I say, there are one set of facts in the universe. The more we learn the closer we get to those facts. There are some things we'll never know, like where a particular electron is. But we already understand orbital mechanics very well, and to say that the Heliocentric view is as correct as what we have today is simply drivel. It's a worthless statement.

[Lobohan]

Of course I meant Earth-Centered, not Heliocentric... This is what I get for posting too quickly.

See, I can admit when I'm wrong. Now it's your turn SB.

[Zeriel]

I think SB's line of argument isn't necessarily without merit, but at the same time, Asimov pretty much annihilated it a few decades ago (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm).

[smiling bandit]

(Sorry, I wished to edit and took slightly too long.)

No. There is no model consisting of the Sun going around the Earth that's correct.

Yes. yes there is. It's a perfectly valid way to interpret the data. It's much mroe work, which is why we switched to a mroe useful one. But it's is exactly as mathematical valid as the alternative.

In no way do the perturbations cause the Sun to actually track in the space around the planet.

Ah, but now you're changing the subject. The sun doesn't "track space" around Earth as I understand it, although I may be misinterpreting a vague statement.

But it can be validly described as orbiting the Earth by any measure. Our gravity pushes it to the side; the fact that the variance is smaller than the sun's own radius is irrelevant, since there's no inherent value in the scale of a thing according to gravity. That's substituting your own judgement - your own opinion. And even if you don't like it, you must acknowledge that there is no fixed point in space. You may on a whim take Earth as your starting point as much as the sun, or for that matter any arbitrary body. Using the sun is a convenient shorthand, but it remains a convenient fiction.

I say, there are one set of facts in the universe. The more we learn the closer we get to those facts. There are some things we'll never know, like where a particular electron is. But we already understand orbital mechanics very well, and to say that the Heliocentric view is as correct as what we have today is simply drivel. It's a worthless statement.

Ah, but I didn't say the Heliocentric model was correct. You said it is incorrect, which is a different thing, and my entire point.

In fact, the entire issue I've been trying to get across is the same thing that countless scientists say: we know better than they did, but that is not everything. Frankly, the level of scientific ignorance I've seen here from the supposed defenders of science appals me. You might want to try understanding what the Theory of Universal Gravitation says before you try to defend it.

We only get closer to the facts, but never entirely hold the facts themselves. Those who believed the sun went around the earth had a sliver of the truth, and we think we have a bigger chunk today. But in pretending they were wrong and we are right, we're not using good scientific thinking; we're just substituting one error for another. In fact, it's worse. Their solution fit all the facts, and was a reasonable deduction. Your solution as near as I can tell is to only admt those facts you learned as a child to try and wish away the new facts. Just as in Rhetoric, you must accomodate yourself to the reality you see, whether that's a scientific theory or a person. You don't get to pick someplace you like to simply stop.

I had thought I made this clear every time. Perhaps I'm more inscrutable than I realize, although some clearly understood what I was saying. Thus, I must apologize Zeriel, because I could ahve used that same letter as an argument on my side had I known of it.

[Zeriel]

I had thought I made this clear every time. Perhaps I'm more inscrutable than I realize, although some clearly understood what I was saying. Thus, I must apologize Zeriel, because I could ahve used that same letter as an argument on my side had I known of it.

I think we're misunderstanding your argument, because you are coming across as saying "because our conceptions of the universe are not perfectly in line with the facts, there hasn't been any advancement worth noting."

Case in point, bolding mine.

Facts can be true to varying degrees and in varying ways. We're taught in school that the earth revolves around the sun. For centuries, people were taught that the sun revolved around the earth. But now, of course, we know better.

Well, no. The ancients were as right as we are, and as wrong as are. Any two bodies in space orbit each other is an even better way to put it. And we can approximate the relatiopnship between them with math. In short, what we learned from authorities was right in one way and wrong in another.

Asimov would profoundly disagree with your bolded comment, I think--it is FAR closer to correct to say "the earth revolves around the sun" than it is to say "the sun revolves around the earth". Reason being, the barycenter of the Sun-Earth system is a miniscule distance from the center of the Sun, compared to its distance from the center of the earth.

To your larger point, which appears to be "we choose the interpretation of the facts that best suits our needs at the time", that interpretation has to still be accurate to the point it's useful. Again with your analogy, there are plenty of circumstances where the concept "The earth revolves around the sun" is as usefully correct as "The sun and earth revolve around a common barycenter that is within the sun's diameter", whereas there are very few contexts where anything correct can be said using the concept "the sun revolves around the earth".

[B. Serum]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

I like to think I examine all sides of issues and keep an open mind for the real truth, but this article makes me wonder how objective I actually am. It's really quite fascinating, and makes me think twice about some of the topics I'm opinionated and passionate about. I thought Dopers would appreciate it.

My view is that the human animal is not wired for dispassionate logic and that while it can be done, it requires a good deal of effort to do so. Complicating the matter is that even when we do make the effort to be dispassionately objective, many topics ripe for commentary require a specialized degree of study, if the information is even available at the time.

A lot of Mooney's Point of Inquiry podcast episodes (below) pursue the topic of "why we believe what we believe" and I find them terrifically interesting. Disclaimer: It's been a while since I've listened to some of these episodes — some links will no doubt be more directly salient to the subject at hand than others, but they help emphasize Mooney's exploration of the subject.

The Menace of Denialism - Michael Specter (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_specter_the_menace_of_denialism/)
Glenn Beck’s War on Reason - Alexander Zaitchik (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/alexander_zaitchik_glenn_becks_war_on_reason/)
Why Facts Fail - Brendan Nyhan (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/why_facts_fail_brendan_nyhan/)
The American Culture War of Fact - Dan Kahan (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dan_kahan_the_american_culture_war_of_fact/)
Among the Truthers - Jonathan Kay (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_kay_among_the_truthers/)
The Believing Brain - Michael Shermer (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_shermer_the_believing_brain/)
Did Reason Evolve For Arguing? - Hugo Mercier (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/did_reason_evolve_for_arguing_hugo_mercier/)


Moreover, while a far cry from an academic paper, this entertaining Cracked article 5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html) does a respectable Reader's Digest treatment on the phenomena too.

[cosmosdan]

And yet, it is a fact. It is a compeltely unassailable fact. We think the facts we use now better describe reality. We also know they don't describe reality perfectly. Also, props for completely missing the point, while at the same time trying to ignore the actual factuals.



On an aggregate scale, the Earth is round. It's just not spherical.

People, this is my basic point. We all have to adjust the facts for our own use. It's not distorting the facts, it's choosing which ones we can manage to use to best advantage.

If you want to communicate with someone, you have to understand their view enough to find some common ground. This has only been a part of rheotoric teaching for something like twenty-five hundred years (maybe more, but we don't have clear records about rhetoric before that). Thus, if you want to convince somebody, you must approach them on their level.

Most people appear to want instead, to lecture others. They ask, not "How do I approach this person?" but rather "How do I force them to believe what I say?" The Rhetorician approaches as a friend at your side. This, more than anything else, is why most protests fail, and why annoyed people get things done more easily than rioters. Annoyed, even angry people can still speak a coherent language. Rioters speak no language.

The best rhetoricians in modern times are probably found in the British Parliament (perhaps soon to be the English Parliament), who seem to love getting up and delivery aggressive, hard-hitting speeches. President Obama is actually quite good with some aspects, but is losing hsi touch. He has a very natural style, but one which focuses too much on the physical delivery and inspirational messages, which are only secondary aspects.

Some excellent points.

The Straight Dope, {peace be upon him/her} helped teach me that understanding someone else is as important as expressing yourself in communication.

I've learned a lot more by having discussions with people who didn't agree with me and were able to articulate their views and then back them up. It's also important to understand the limits of our knowledge and realize we still have things to learn, to recognize our own bias and factor it in when discerning the "truth"

I enjoyed the article in it's recognition of how inseparable emotion and intellect are. I realized some time ago that people's emotional investment in certain beliefs is indeed a barrier to growth and understanding and cannot be ignored if we want to progress.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Perhaps I am not understanding the argument, but everyone knows two objects orbit around a common center of mass right? It's the only accurate statement.

Saying the Earth orbits the Sun and leaving it at that is no different than the ancients saying the Sun orbited the Earth. Both are making models based on limited information. Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous conclusions.

It doesn't take many more words to describe the far more accurate observation than saying the incorrect thing, that the Earth orbits the Sun. The recognition of this accuracy allows the average person to readily understand how we detect extrasolar planets, by far the coolest observations in modern cosmology.

Holding on to the deficient understanding is the means by which the average person becomes less and less informed and unable to handle the changing world around them.

[cosmosdan]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

I like to think I examine all sides of issues and keep an open mind for the real truth, but this article makes me wonder how objective I actually am. It's really quite fascinating, and makes me think twice about some of the topics I'm opinionated and passionate about. I thought Dopers would appreciate it.

Thanks for posting the article. It's a subject I find quite interesting. The connection, or disconnection, between intellect and emotion. I tend to think of myself as a very reasonable and logical person, but I've come t recognize my own bias is several areas.

remember the biblical phrase "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free" ?

I think truth does have freeing power, but the process of knowing it and accepting it is long and not easy. The good news is , IMO , is that we go forward based on what we perceive to be truth right now, as honest as we can be with ourselves and others, and in the process, we will be exposed to the truth and have the opportunity to adjust our perception of what is true. Not just new data, but an awareness of our own emotional make up and how that affects our perception.

[cosmosdan]

Reality is not subjective.

If only we could perceive and comprehend it.

[Zeriel]

Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous conclusions.

If I owe you $1000, would you rather I pay you $999.90 or $99.99? Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous.

[thelabdude]

Doesn't having the sun orbit the earth have the other planets stopping and backing up?

[Mijin]

I think there's something you've all overlooked with the sun orbiting thing.

There is no absolute space. So it's not like the sun, the galaxy or anything else is a stationary point. You have to pick a frame of reference.

Choosing the earth as a frame of reference, the sun goes around the earth. Simples.

I'm not sure what the point of this tangent though...

[John DiFool]

I think part of the problem is massive funding behind obscuring the truth. Last I looked, the thread on saturated.unsaturated fats hadn't been resolved. There is some agreement that partial hydrogenation creates trans fats which are bad. So are saturated fats bad? Is it in the intrest of the meat business, dairy, and coconut oil producers to produce data showing saturated fats aren't harmful? It goes on and on.

Hell, look at the Pit Thread on Climategate (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=632809), where almost all the major points have been resolved, yet a vocal minority continues to insist that they haven't.

[elucidator]

Well, thats just a theory, its not falsifiable, and its only your opinion, man.

[thelabdude]

Hell, look at the Pit Thread on Climategate (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=632809), where almost all the major points have been resolved, yet a vocal minority continues to insist that they haven't.

Yeah, I just picked a thread I had opened. I bypass many threads here due to the closed minds.

[Lobohan]

Doesn't having the sun orbit the earth have the other planets stopping and backing up?Yeah, the retrograde motion thing.

As an aside, we do know that we are rotating around the Sun and not the other way around. There was the aberration of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light) thing from the 18th century. I think there's also a relativity method too.

[GIGObuster]

Well, thats just a theory, its not falsifiable, and its only your opinion, man.

It was not you of course, but what is really sad is that even that the demands of falsification from deniers are not new regarding the climate change issue; what is really, really sad is that the attacks are really just reheated baloney.

As Gavin Smith from NASA said back in 2006, using that fetishism of Popperian falsification on climate science is using the wrong tool for the task.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/on-mid-latitude-storms/

When are you going to accept that Karl Popper is right. If there is one exception to a law then the law is untrue. If the model cannot replicate one feature then it is wrong, no matter how many it gets right....

[.. rest of denialist tripe removed]

Response: That kind of simplistic Popperism only works for idealized 'clean' situations where the issue is black or white, right or wrong. That just isn't applicable to the real world where the issue is much more nuanced - how right? what is the tolerance for error? does a new feature reduce the error or not? Therefore models (in the generic sense) are supposed to increasingly match observations as they get closer to the underlying 'truth'. This is what happens - GCMs are better at storms than energy balance models, weather models are better yet. None are perfect. This is how it works in the real world - get used to it!

Over here I do think that we all have biases, but they are more likely to be a hindrance when one is not working on the matter at hand. As we can not be all experts on every matter, the fallback position IMHO is that we should look at what the experts are telling us, and in this era of the internet there is plenty of places out there to get in contact with the best sources on an issue. There is one important warning: When possible, look at the original sources or experts on the issue, and always verify if your sources of information are omitting important information. After some time you will then be able, if not to get the truth, at least get the most grounded in reality information.

One more point, a big part of what I do is to unceremoniously dump any source of information or reporter that I notice plays loose with the facts constantly, yes even if they are coming from the left, as I reported in the past also in this very message board. It really does wonders for the quest for the truth.

[Sitnam]

Reality is not subjective.
'K, Prove it.
Does becoming color blind change the wave length emitted from all objects in the universe?

I really have no other response if this is a point of contention for you.

[smiling bandit]

I think we're misunderstanding your argument, because you are coming across as saying "because our conceptions of the universe are not perfectly in line with the facts, there hasn't been any advancement worth noting.

No, I would certainly never say that. But there's advancement in the realm of human knowledge, and then there's advance of individual intellect. One problem is that too many believe the former implies the latter, and then follow-up by resting on their laurels and saying things which are patent nonsense.

Reason being, the barycenter of the Sun-Earth system is a miniscule distance from the center of the Sun, compared to its distance from the center of the earth.

Mathematically (which is the correct version as far as we know), that's a moot point. What I am saying is that you're interpreting (and simplifyin) the facts in a way which is convenient to helping you understand the situation. There's nothing wrong in that. But it's also not the same as actually understanding the situation.

To your larger point, which appears to be "we choose the interpretation of the facts that best suits our needs at the time", that interpretation has to still be accurate to the point it's useful.

I would say that we choose an interpretation we can comprehend at the time, and that we all hold deep-seated values which are above any fact - and should be above any fact. And I would say that if you want to argue with someone, you must understand their facts on their level, and consider strongly that you might be lacking something.

People here are trying to find some way to stamp on the Geocentric theory, which is irrelevant, because as is often the case, the theory isn't wrong, just less useful for most purposes. Thus, if you want to teach someone who holds that theory, you have to approach them with that in mind.

You might, for example, look at how it is a valid but very complicated model, and then look at a heliocentric model, and then a galacto-centric model, and then finally observe the universe as a whole.

Take it one step further. If you want to talk to Jenny McCarthy (God help you) you would be very unwise to attack her or say she's wrong, even if she is. The message probably isn't the problem: it's the medium. You come out and attack anyone's belief, and they clam up, because implicitly you're attacking them. That's why a wise rhetor doesn't do that, but rather argues around the belief.

[Lobohan]

People here are trying to find some way to stamp on the Geocentric theory, which is irrelevant, because as is often the case, the theory isn't wrong, just less useful for most purposes. Yes it is wrong. And to say otherwise devalues the concept of fact and fiction to the point of worthlessness.

[The Second Stone]

I'm a know-it-all, so I already know what the truth is, and anything contrary is ignorance or outright lies.

As for Mother Jones, their inability to be concise is really annoying.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

If I owe you $1000, would you rather I pay you $999.90 or $99.99? Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous.

Maybe not once, but if you keep borrowing $1000 and paying back $999.90 it begins to add up to where we have a real problem.

That analogy incorporates my whole post.

[Zeriel]

Maybe not once, but if you keep borrowing $1000 and paying back $999.90 it begins to add up to where we have a real problem.

That analogy incorporates my whole post.

Then your post is wrong. Because if I pay you 99.99 instead of 999.90, we have a problem NOW, not at some indeterminate point where you might need a few dimes.

[Zeriel]

Mathematically (which is the correct version as far as we know), that's a moot point. What I am saying is that you're interpreting (and simplifyin) the facts in a way which is convenient to helping you understand the situation. There's nothing wrong in that. But it's also not the same as actually understanding the situation.

You can say that, but the plain fact of the matter is that a person who says "the earth revolves around the sun" is both MUCH closer to the actual fact of the situation, and MUCH more likely to KNOW the actual fact of the situation--at least as compared to a person who says "the sun revolves around the earth".

There is significant value in being "close, but slightly wrong" compared to "not even close"

[brittekland]

"Don't confuse me with the facts. I've got a closed mind." Earl F. Landgrebe

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Then your post is wrong. Because if I pay you 99.99 instead of 999.90, we have a problem NOW, not at some indeterminate point where you might need a few dimes.

To take this silly analogy to its absurd limit I guess we can say there is no chance of you paying me back just 99.99 since that means you would have to teleport in from ancient times. So I guess I will worry about that dime.

[ProbablyProcrastinating]

Let's not confuse epistemology with metaphysics here.

Whether we know what exists beyond "I am" is quite different to whether anything beyond "I" actually does exist.

I'm tempted to go with the skeptical answer regarding "true knowledge". I think that we are extremely limited in what we know, even in terms of things like, "Does this really taste apply because of some sense or because I've been conditioned to think green candy with apples on it will taste apply?"

Still, just for operational convenience, I think that there is in fact an external world and that the universe operates basically on the laws of physics as we understand them in our incomplete way.

I think sociological, political and psychological claims are much harder to understand because we have a far worse perspective and it's hard to do research without violating people's human rights. But we are improving.

[ch4rl3s]

I think SB's line of argument isn't necessarily without merit, but at the same time, Asimov pretty much annihilated it a few decades ago (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm).

Thanks for posting this...

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.
...
To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat.

Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly speaking.
...

It's true, not everything is wrong to the same degree. But, even outdated theories can have their uses.

The earth is more nearly spherical than flat, more nearly oblate spheroid than sphere, more nearly slightly pear-shaped oblate spheroid, etc...
Yet... who here took a slightly pear-shaped oblate spheroid on their last cross country trip? Who took a flat map? The curvature being nearly zero, you can still go thousands of miles with a flat map and reach your destination. Still, flat is more wrong than sphere. I'm with Asimov, but I still use a map.

[Zeriel]

To take this silly analogy to its absurd limit I guess we can say there is no chance of you paying me back just 99.99 since that means you would have to teleport in from ancient times. So I guess I will worry about that dime.

There is nothing whatsoever silly or absurd about the analogy. You made the claim that small errors and large errors were equally wrong ("Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous conclusions"), and that the degree of wrong was irrelevant. The analogy proves that when you're not trying to make a philosophical point, the difference between "barely wrong" and "incredibly wrong" is in fact both relevant and useful to examine.

[Aeris]

Granted, I'm still 99.9% certain that homeopathy, chiropractic, vaccine panic, and almost all other woo are complete bullshit, but it's still something to think about. ;-)

Clearly you have never had back problems, sought help from a chiropractor, and then thought him a miracle worker. I have. If you were in my shoes you would not think that chiropractors are "bullshit".

[Zeriel]

Clearly you have never had back problems, sought help from a chiropractor, and then thought him a miracle worker. I have. If you were in my shoes you would not think that chiropractors are "bullshit".

This response is really what this thread is about--it's clear on some level, both from the article's research and from general experience, that humans tend to not understand the difference between useful statistical data and anecdotal data that's really only useful in aggregate when drawing a general conclusion. Furthermore, we have the tendency to greatly magnify the importance of data experienced personally by us or by our friends, while minimizing impersonally collected data about strangers.

Aeris, and I'm not asking this flippantly, how did you determine that it was chiropractors in general that cured your back problems? How did you determine the problem didn't merely coincidentally subside on its own? How did you determine that your chiropractor is not a uniquely effective fluke? How did you determine the efficacy of chiropracty compared to other therapies? How does it change your opinion to know that a chiropractor made my mother's back problems significantly worse, so that they could only be fully corrected by surgery?

[Untoward_Parable]

the sun does not rotate around the earth, it rotates around me clearly.

And yes the vast majority of people are incapable of finding the truth because of their own emotional baggage. Can't accept things that would disparage their family, culture, life-choices or vice versa, too primed by society to believe in Santa clause or the invisible hand ect.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

There is nothing whatsoever silly or absurd about the analogy. You made the claim that small errors and large errors were equally wrong ("Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous conclusions"), and that the degree of wrong was irrelevant. The analogy proves that when you're not trying to make a philosophical point, the difference between "barely wrong" and "incredibly wrong" is in fact both relevant and useful to examine.

Speaking of the specific datum under discussion, the last time anyone was incredibly wrong was so long ago it is not worth considering. The other erroneous conclusion, that our planet orbits the Sun instead of a common center of mass is now, relatively speaking, extremely wrong, and it prevents people from understanding commonly reported scientific information.

Generally speaking, it takes no special effort to present the best available knowledge. I fail to understand why, given the ease of relating exact versus proximate information, anyone who knows would argue for the proximate information. In other words, if you are going to pay back $999.90, what's so special about that dime that you need to hold onto it?

[Really Not All That Bright]

smiling bandit, I think I misunderstood your argument. You are correct, at least in the sense you're talking about, and I apologize.

[Aeris]

This response is really what this thread is about--it's clear on some level, both from the article's research and from general experience, that humans tend to not understand the difference between useful statistical data and anecdotal data that's really only useful in aggregate when drawing a general conclusion. Furthermore, we have the tendency to greatly magnify the importance of data experienced personally by us or by our friends, while minimizing impersonally collected data about strangers.

Aeris, and I'm not asking this flippantly, how did you determine that it was chiropractors in general that cured your back problems? How did you determine the problem didn't merely coincidentally subside on its own? How did you determine that your chiropractor is not a uniquely effective fluke? How did you determine the efficacy of chiropracty compared to other therapies? How does it change your opinion to know that a chiropractor made my mother's back problems significantly worse, so that they could only be fully corrected by surgery?


Let me preface my attempted answers to your questions by saying that I was not claiming that all chiropractors are miracle workers or even effective. I did not say "Chiropractors are good. Fact."
It's the same with anything else, there are good ones and there are bad ones. I was merely stating my experience. Obviously, your experience will shape your opinion which is what this thread is all about. I obviously have a bias about the situation because of my personal experience.

1) When I go to the chiropractor regularly I feel better than when I don't go to the chiropractor regularly.

2)It still persists and is only managed by going to the chiropractor.

3) The same reasons I already stated.

4) I'm not aware of any other methods of correction for the issue I was having other than chiropractors or surgery.

5) As I stated before and is probably common sense, not all of one thing is good or bad. They are like any doctor, there are good ones who help you and bad ones who don't know what they're doing. At the practice I was going to there were several different chiropractors and I only liked two of them. I would graciously say, "I'm sorry but I prefer to see Dr. ThatGuy or Dr. OtherGuy instead." And they all totally understood because lots of patients had a preference of doctor. So, to answer your last question, no it doesn't change my opinion.

[Zeriel]

Speaking of the specific datum under discussion, the last time anyone was incredibly wrong was so long ago it is not worth considering. The other erroneous conclusion, that our planet orbits the Sun instead of a common center of mass is now, relatively speaking, extremely wrong, and it prevents people from understanding commonly reported scientific information.

I highly disagree. Can you give an example of any "commonly reported scientific information" in which believing the earth revolves around the sun rather than a common barycenter very close to the center of the sun impacts understanding?

Generally speaking, it takes no special effort to present the best available knowledge. I fail to understand why, given the ease of relating exact versus proximate information, anyone who knows would argue for the proximate information. In other words, if you are going to pay back $999.90, what's so special about that dime that you need to hold onto it?

That dime, relatively speaking, is far larger than the error of the actual scenario. For the analogy to be accurate totally I'd somehow have to pay you on the close order of $999.999997--in other words, what's so special about the missing quantity is that I seem to have misplaced my supply of µ$ coins. The error is too small to care about in most circumstances.

There are certainly applications where that many significant digits matter. Basic scientific understanding is not generally one of them.

[Zeriel]

It's the same with anything else, there are good ones and there are bad ones.

How is one to determine which are which? Does everything have an equal quantity of "good ones" and "bad ones"?

I was merely stating my experience. Obviously, your experience will shape your opinion which is what this thread is all about. I obviously have a bias about the situation because of my personal experience. ... So, to answer your last question, no it doesn't change my opinion.

In other words, you are not making a decision based on the data available, you are making a decision based on a very limited subset of the data which is highly subjective.

Let's put it another way: my high school retained the services of a chiropractor. He did things which made my back feel better after the minor injuries and strains of playing on the line in football. I can STILL look at the broad sweep of data that is out there, and conclude that "chiropractors are bullshit", recognizing that my particular experience is anomalous.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

I highly disagree. Can you give an example of any "commonly reported scientific information" in which believing the earth revolves around the sun rather than a common barycenter very close to the center of the sun impacts understanding?

I stated it in my first post. If you do not understand that a planet and its star orbit around a common center of mass then looking for the wobble in detecting extrasolar planets will not make sense (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/sciam.html). "The Earth orbits the Sun" is a great $999.90 phrase for children who would have trouble with an abstract concept like "barycenter", but it is not a difficult thing to grasp for adults.

And Jesus Christ, you created the terms of the analogy, don't try to argue that it's actually a microcent or some crazy shit. That's the kind of stuff that makes philosophy seem like so much garbage.

[Aeris]

How is one to determine which are which? Does everything have an equal quantity of "good ones" and "bad ones"?



In other words, you are not making a decision based on the data available, you are making a decision based on a very limited subset of the data which is highly subjective.

Let's put it another way: my high school retained the services of a chiropractor. He did things which made my back feel better after the minor injuries and strains of playing on the line in football. I can STILL look at the broad sweep of data that is out there, and conclude that "chiropractors are bullshit", recognizing that my particular experience is anomalous.

Ugh internet problems. I had a whole response typed and POOF! Gone!
This response will so not be as good as that one. Argh.
Anywho...

Are you assuming that all chiropractors are crap except for the one you saw, the one I saw, and the ones everyone in my family has seen? I'm not sure why you think that our personal experience is anomalous.

Please understand that I don't mean to be disrespectful, I actually just don't understand your thinking.

[Zeriel]

Are you assuming that all chiropractors are crap except for the one you saw, the one I saw, and the ones everyone in my family has seen? I'm not sure why you think that our personal experience is anomalous.

I'm not really assuming anything. I'm going based on study data, which (in aggregate) seems to indicate that chiropractic care has some small benefit and short-term improvements in the case of chronic spinal and neck pain, and is otherwise no more beneficial than any other treatment or placebo.

Our personal experiences, in toto, don't sum up to the same amount of support for a theory as, for example, a survey of studies with 6070 total participants, which showed that "there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain."

There are any number of explanations for "why it works for one person" or even several people that don't involve "the treatment methodology is effective".

[Zeriel]

I stated it in my first post. If you do not understand that a planet and its star orbit around a common center of mass then looking for the wobble in detecting extrasolar planets will not make sense (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/sciam.html). "The Earth orbits the Sun" is a great $999.90 phrase for children who would have trouble with an abstract concept like "barycenter", but it is not a difficult thing to grasp for adults.

"Extrasolar planets" isn't a very common news item--hell, I consider myself interested in that sort of thing, and using wobble to detect them wasn't something I'd come across until years after it was being used.

As a second point, the phrase "the earth revolves around the sun" for the average educated adult who cares incorporates the idea of a barycenter.

And Jesus Christ, you created the terms of the analogy, don't try to argue that it's actually a microcent or some crazy shit. That's the kind of stuff that makes philosophy seem like so much garbage.

There's nothing crazy about it! Google tells me that the barycenter of the Earth-Sun system is 0.0003% of the distance between the Earth's center and the Sun's center (280 miles out of 93m miles). That's a tiny, tiny amount to be wrong.

And importantly, it's very tiny relative to "the Sun revolves around the Earth", which is 100% wrong.

[Aeris]

I'm not really assuming anything. I'm going based on study data, which (in aggregate) seems to indicate that chiropractic care has some small benefit and short-term improvements in the case of chronic spinal and neck pain, and is otherwise no more beneficial than any other treatment or placebo.

Our personal experiences, in toto, don't sum up to the same amount of support for a theory as, for example, a survey of studies with 6070 total participants, which showed that "there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain."

There are any number of explanations for "why it works for one person" or even several people that don't involve "the treatment methodology is effective".

Well from what I'm seeing so far in the American Journal of Public Health the trials done were not properly executed and so therefore are subject to criticism. Also, I'm still not understanding how you can say that if a method of treatment is only effective for some than it's "bullshit". Chemotherapy isn't totally effective for everyone either but they still use it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Are you assuming that all chiropractors are crap except for the one you saw, the one I saw, and the ones everyone in my family has seen? I'm not sure why you think that our personal experience is anomalous.
Because the data is not. Chiropractors (and, admittedly, certain more mainstream quasi-medical disciplines) produce the same results as not doing anything at all.

As far as the data is concerned, the only beneficial aspect of chiropractic care is that they'll refer you for diagnostic imaging that will at least determine the scope of your problem. We had a long thread about this a few months ago (in the Pit, I think).

[Aeris]

Because the data is not. Chiropractors (and, admittedly, certain more mainstream quasi-medical disciplines) produce the same results as not doing anything at all.

As far as the data is concerned, the only beneficial aspect of chiropractic care is that they'll refer you for diagnostic imaging that will at least determine the scope of your problem. We had a long thread about this a few months ago (in the Pit, I think).

I can see how you can claim that it is no more effective than other methods but I don't see how you can claim that it as effective as sitting on the couch. :dubious:

[Zeriel]

I can see how you can claim that it is no more effective than other methods but I don't see how you can claim that it as effective as sitting on the couch. :dubious:

I dunno, I can imagine bed rest will cure a host of spinal pain problems.


Well from what I'm seeing so far in the American Journal of Public Health the trials done were not properly executed and so therefore are subject to criticism.

Can you cite an accepted, well-regarded study that shows benefit from chiropractic? One sure sign (to me) of a therapy being potentially bullshit is when it is in widespread use without the benefit of clinical trials proving its efficacy.

Also, I'm still not understanding how you can say that if a method of treatment is only effective for some than it's "bullshit". Chemotherapy isn't totally effective for everyone either but they still use it.

How many is "some"? How does it compare to the placebo effect? That's the long and the short of it. Chemotherapy is effective at a much greater rate than placebos and other treatments. Chiropractic has not been shown to be so, and has often been shown to be not.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

"Extrasolar planets" isn't a very common news item--hell, I consider myself interested in that sort of thing, and using wobble to detect them wasn't something I'd come across until years after it was being used.

You're right its not as common as articles about Congress, you got me there. Except I was talking about Cosmology where such news articles are very common.

Here's a USA Today article abstract from 1994 concerning discovery of extrasolar planets and wobble (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/55236243.html?dids=55236243:55236243&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+22%2C+1994&author=Tim+Friend&pub=USA+TODAY+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Three+planets+found+outside+solar+system&pqatl=google). I don't even know why considerations of your anecdotal experience should be discussed, especially considering what you are saying about anecdotes of chiropractors.

As a second point, the phrase "the earth revolves around the sun" for the average educated adult who cares incorporates the idea of a barycenter.

So adults should only be educated on easy to convey information that they care about. Since most adults, in their lifetimes, couldn't care less about the Earth orbiting the Sun then it doesn't matter if they think the Sun orbits the Earth. So 100% wrong is no different than 99.999...% wrong.

There's nothing crazy about it! Google tells me that the barycenter of the Earth-Sun system is 0.0003% of the distance between the Earth's center and the Sun's center (280 miles out of 93m miles). That's a tiny, tiny amount to be wrong.

And importantly, it's very tiny relative to "the Sun revolves around the Earth", which is 100% wrong.

So wait, you owed me 93 million and short-changed me $280!!! That's a Corei7 2600K!!! I want my money dammit!

[Zeriel]

You're right its not as common as articles about Congress, you got me there. Except I was talking about Cosmology where such news articles are very common.

Indeed, and if one is interested in cosmology, they should probably be somewhat more educated on it than the average.

So 100% wrong is no different than 99.999...% wrong.

Amazingly, that's not what I said at all. I said, given a choice between 100% wrong and 0.0003% wrong, it's asinine to claim there's no difference whatsoever.

So wait, you owed me 93 million and short-changed me $280!!! That's a Corei7 2600K!!! I want my money dammit!

In other words, you're not interested in debating the issue. Thanks for informing me.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Indeed, and if one is interested in cosmology, they should probably be somewhat more educated on it than the average....Amazingly, that's not what I said at all. I said, given a choice between 100% wrong and 0.0003% wrong, it's asinine to claim there's no difference whatsoever....In other words, you're not interested in debating the issue. Thanks for informing me.

While I was coming home from work today I remembered this woman I worked with. She performed radioligand binding where it was necessary to use radioactive decay calculations to estimate how much radioactivity you still had after X time in storage. She regularly performed the kinds of calculations that are used to demonstrate the Earth is easily older than the 6000 years or so estimated from the Bible. She was also a Creationist and thought I was silly when discussing evolution. I used to enjoy the irony of her doing the work that proved her view of Earth's creation so incredibly wrong, but she was nice and hard working so I never really cared. She went on to become a pharmacist and probably does very well in her field. If she can work in a biochemistry laboratory and never make a major screw up in her experiments I don't see why any facts are important at all unless they directly affect you personally. So common center of mass, orbiting around the Sun, the Universe orbiting the Earth, who really gives a shit. It doesn't affect me directly so why should I care? Thanks for fighting my ignorance.

[Zeriel]

So common center of mass, orbiting around the Sun, the Universe orbiting the Earth, who really gives a shit. It doesn't affect me directly so why should I care?

Well, that IS the position you've been arguing all thread.

I will reiterate one more time: being closer to right is better than being wrong, even if you are not perfectly informed. Being within a few hundredths of a percent of correct is generally acceptable for day-to-day life, and being completely off is not.

Your example of the technician who thought the earth was 6000 years old, she's wrong. Unacceptably so. Contrariwise, if she thought the universe was 12 billion years old based on facts that were current when she learned it, I can't be bothered to call her ignorant even if the current data is closer to 15bil or whatever.

[Lobohan]

Just to harp on SB's nonsense. If the Earth-Centered view of the cosmos isn't wrong, what is? It creates a worldview where information is worthless, and all facts are true.

Question: Who was the leader of Germany during most of WWII?
Answer #1: Adolph Hitler.
Answer #2: A sheep.

According to SB, they're both right, because Hitler was a mammal. :rolleyes:

[JoelUpchurch]

Doesn't having the sun orbit the earth have the other planets stopping and backing up?

Yes, but it wasn't that big an issue when people thought they were weightless spheres of light. The Ptolemaic system created a system of epicycles to explain this. It is important to remember that most of the ancient astronomers were a lot smarter than the people who laugh at them today. It would have made a huge difference if someone had invented the telescope in the 2nd century B.C..

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Well, that IS the position you've been arguing all thread.

If that's what you think then obviously there is no effective means of communicating with you.

I will reiterate one more time: being closer to right is better than being wrong, even if you are not perfectly informed. Being within a few hundredths of a percent of correct is generally acceptable for day-to-day life, and being completely off is not.

No, now that you have argued effectively that I should accept a little wrong, I see now how it doesn't matter how wrong a statement is because thinking the Earth is flat with the Universe spinning about it is truly acceptable for day-to-day life. Only hobbyist cosmologists should worry about it.

Your example of the technician who thought the earth was 6000 years old, she's wrong. Unacceptably so. Contrariwise, if she thought the universe was 12 billion years old based on facts that were current when she learned it, I can't be bothered to call her ignorant even if the current data is closer to 15bil or whatever.

Sure its acceptable because it does not interfere with her day-to-day activities. She has a great job, a wonderful family, and great friends. So it simply does not matter.

[Galileo]

You come out and attack anyone's belief, and they clam up, because implicitly you're attacking them. That's why a wise rhetor doesn't do that, but rather argues around the belief.I guess it depends on what you think is "wise". ;)

It seems that some debaters do come out and attack someone's belief because they want the other side to clam up. They are not interested in exploring the merits of the other side -- they merely want to argue that their side is the only one that is right (or that could even be right) and they want the other side to shut up.

The Mother Jones article (http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney) referenced in the OP addresses some interesting research on the psychology of beliefs but there's little evidence of the practical applications of that research. I do like this, though:you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values — so as to give the facts a fighting chance.Seems like a good suggestion, if the intention is to convince, and if you know what the relevant values are.

[Zeriel]

If that's what you think then obviously there is no effective means of communicating with you.

Pot, kettle.

As I'd said, it's clear you are not interested in actually discussing anything, merely playing gotcha games.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Pot, kettle.

As I'd said, it's clear you are not interested in actually discussing anything, merely playing gotcha games.

Seriously, don't blame me because you don't like the implications of your own thought process. The reason why you can't see the interesting implication of what you are saying is because you don't debate, you just ignore. Your entire argument against mine is to ignore or minimize what I write.

I actually do agree with what you are saying, but I extended the logic to where I have to ask myself if I am comfortable with it. Sorry that the interesting implications of your thought process eludes you.

"The gotcha" games are thought experiments and the results of those have informed my view of the "truth" and what I came up with is that it doesn't matter. If you were interested in "debating" you would defend your position to and be able to argue why it is the best. Right now your argument amounts to "Cause it is".

In fact, what I am seeing your position reduced to is little more than an authoritarian command of which facts are important and truthful enough and which ones are not. It's little more than saying that this is the culture you must follow and no other reason is more important. It's a dictate without justification.

[Zeriel]

Seriously, don't blame me because you don't like the implications of your own thought process.

You have demonstrated no understanding of my point. A little wrong and a big wrong are not the same thing. A belief that is a few millionths of a percent off is acceptable in a way that a belief that is 100% wrong is not.

You can twist that to mean "any wrong is acceptable", but it just shows you up as being uninterested in actually discussing the matter. Hence, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain it as long as you keep trying to prove I've somehow said that.

[Galileo]

You guys are doing a great job of demonstrating the first the sentence in the Mother Jones article: A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. ;)obviously there is no effective means of communicating with you.As I'd said, it's clear you are not interested in actually discussing anything, merely playing gotcha games.Your entire argument against mine is to ignore or minimize what I write. it just shows you up as being uninterested in actually discussing the matter. Of course, there's also this useless comment:You guys are doing a great job of demonstrating the first the sentence ...