Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.

We talk about “science denial,� but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.

What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.

More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the world’s greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?

But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.

I don’t pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 148 by instantc]50% is just the gorilla experiment, an example. Memory is such a quirky thing, not to be trusted without empirical aids. Just look at how many people claim contradictory religious experiences.

I'm specifically talking about a situation where there are no contradictory experiences but a uniform consensus. In the world where I live in that is reliable evidence.

I don't know what planet you live on, in my experience here on Earth, even considering things that should even be patently obvious to an idiot (such as Darwinian Evolution) fail to meet that criterion.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 148 by instantc]50% is just the gorilla experiment, an example. Memory is such a quirky thing, not to be trusted without empirical aids. Just look at how many people claim contradictory religious experiences.

I'm specifically talking about a situation where there are no contradictory experiences but a uniform consensus. In the world where I live in that is reliable evidence.

I don't know what planet you live on, in my experience here on Earth, even considering things that should even be patently obvious to an idiot (such as Darwinian Evolution) fail to meet that criterion.

Not if the sample size is a thousand people and the result uniform.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

What we are supposed to be discussing is:

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

Not your inexpert ramblings concerning statistical theory that you do not understand but want to apply inapplicable "common sense" to.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You have not shown that you have neither any idea of what an argumentum ad populum is or isn''t.

You have not shown me (or anyone else) to be incorrect in any fashion, all you've shown is what you do not know.

You did hijack the thread and I regret being part of your foolishness.

If that's the last straw for you, excellent ... then we can move on.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You keep moving the goal posts.

I didn't claim to have seen it, I claimed that a situation where a thousand eye-witnesses observe a simple event and reach a uniform conclusion about it is possible. Thus, in that possible and very plausible scenario the eye-witness accounts would form reliable evidence.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You keep moving the goal posts.

I didn't claim to have seen it, I claimed that a situation where a thousand eye-witnesses observe a simple event and reach a uniform conclusion about it is possible. Thus, in that possible and very plausible scenario the eye-witness accounts would form reliable evidence.

I thought we'd gotten to your "last straw" and could move on ... I guess not, you still want to worry this badly gnawed bone ... OK, what's one more falsehood? We're used to that by now.

I do not move the goal posts, you tear down the stadium, and rebuild it so that the goal posts appear to be in a different place and then complain that the goalposts have been moved. An interesting variation on pigeon chess.

But stripping away all your guacamole, the bottom line is that, by your own admission, you're dealing in nonexistent hypotheticals. That's a waste of everyone's' time.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You keep moving the goal posts.

I didn't claim to have seen it, I claimed that a situation where a thousand eye-witnesses observe a simple event and reach a uniform conclusion about it is possible. Thus, in that possible and very plausible scenario the eye-witness accounts would form reliable evidence.

I do not move the goal posts, you tear down the stadium, and rebuild it so that the goal posts appear to be in a different place.

You dealing in nonexistent hypotheticals, a waste of everyone's' time.

But plausible hypotheticals refute negative blanket statements. Surely you know this, don't you H.Sapiens?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You keep moving the goal posts.

I didn't claim to have seen it, I claimed that a situation where a thousand eye-witnesses observe a simple event and reach a uniform conclusion about it is possible. Thus, in that possible and very plausible scenario the eye-witness accounts would form reliable evidence.

I thought we'd gotten to your "last straw" and could move on ... I guess not, you still want to worry this badly gnawed bone ... OK, what's one more falsehood? We're used to that by now.

I do not move the goal posts, you tear down the stadium, and rebuild it so that the goal posts appear to be in a different place and then complain that the goalposts have been moved. An interesting variation on pigeon chess.

But stripping away all your guacamole, the bottom line is that, by your own admission, you're dealing in nonexistent hypotheticals. That's a waste of everyone's' time.

But plausible hypotheticals refute negative blanket statements. Surely you know this, don't you H.Sapiens?

You're hypotheticals are hardly plausible, as I already observed ... a sample with an N of 1000 and a variance of zero? Not plausible at all. Let's move on.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 152 by instantc]
I have never seen sample size of 1,000 yield a score of 100%. But you've pulled the conversation WAY, WAY off course and I apologize for my part in aiding and abetting your hijack.

Seems like a tacit acceptance of my claim.

I point out your misuse of argumentum ad populum fallacy, you deny it saying that the popular opinion is never an indicator of truth. I show you wrong by giving a clear example of a situation where it is relevant, and your last straw is to accuse me of hijacking your conversation?

It is by no means acceptance of any of your clap-trap, I've never seen a data set of 1000 with a variance of zero, and I rather doubt that you have either.

You keep moving the goal posts.

I didn't claim to have seen it, I claimed that a situation where a thousand eye-witnesses observe a simple event and reach a uniform conclusion about it is possible. Thus, in that possible and very plausible scenario the eye-witness accounts would form reliable evidence.

I thought we'd gotten to your "last straw" and could move on ... I guess not, you still want to worry this badly gnawed bone ... OK, what's one more falsehood? We're used to that by now.

I do not move the goal posts, you tear down the stadium, and rebuild it so that the goal posts appear to be in a different place and then complain that the goalposts have been moved. An interesting variation on pigeon chess.

But stripping away all your guacamole, the bottom line is that, by your own admission, you're dealing in nonexistent hypotheticals. That's a waste of everyone's' time.

But plausible hypotheticals refute negative blanket statements. Surely you know this, don't you H.Sapiens?

You're hypotheticals are hardly plausible, as I already observed ... a sample with an N of 1000 and a variance of zero? Not plausible at all. Let's move on.

No? If a thousand sane adults were carefully observing a simple event, say for the sake argument, a man drinking a beer, is it not plausible that they would find a uniform agreement on what happened?