The bigger picture

Jousting with denialists is kind of silly but diverting I guess. My impression is they have little interest in facts and to the extent that they are acquainted with a few they seldom relate to any serious point even if they mightily insist they do. "2+2=4 is true therefore AGW is a hoax" seems to be part of the denialist style. I guess I justify the exercise because it gives me the opportunity to bring a few relevant facts and links into play and it can be even kind of fun once you get over the expectation of getting a rational response.

However looking at all this from a broader perspective it gives me a chance to see the denialist reality rejection as really a subset of a broader phenomenon, something similar to the evolution of the Republican Party and its allies. The economist Paul Krugman discusses the matter. You would have to be blind not to see the similarity to what is going on in this forum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/opinion/krugman-the-boehner-bunglers.html?_r=0

 

Continuing the theme of terminal denialism this piece discusses the problem of "backfire", the tendency of fact and logic to have the perverse effect of cementing mythical thinking. An attempt at least to break through that process is discussed here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf

 

I love how the left thinks that hiding a major insult behind some sceientific name makes it okay.

The dunning kruger effect is simply too stupid to know you are stupid. Its an insult veiled as psychology.

Reported!

 

No person here was attacked however using insults to individuals as the standard I could have reported you many times.

 

A weak attack... Which do you think is more ethically wrong; insulting one person whose views you disagree with, or insulting an entire group of people whose views you may or may not disagree with? I'd call it juvenile either way, but attacking an entire group and trying to hide it as a psychological problem, is juvenile and pathetic..

 

The principal element of my posts are links. Without mentioning any names the fact that some folks might fit into their pattern I think is worth discussing. If the shoe fits wear it, if not don't worry about it.

 

You are not the first on this forum to try and hid behind the phrase Dunning Kruger effect. It means quite simply too stupid to know you are stupid and is a rule 2 violation.

 

I have offered two links discussing group psychology. Unless the negative elements associated with group psychology are out of bounds then I have violated no rule. The issue of for instance climate denialism and the psychology behind it is widely discussed in academic circles. To make that out of bounds would make for a very unfortunate inhibition on the serious examination of a real issue. You are trying to reduce serious matters to the level of a personal insult. Your hurt feelings should not rule the matter.

 

There is no justification for accusing your opponents of being too stupid to know you are stupid. Using big words to hide what you are saying doesn't make it any less against the rules.

 

Repetition is not insight. I offered links and made some general comments about some postings here. If you feel under the gun, that's on you. I was discussing denialism and the willfull ignorance that attaches to it backed up by serious links. I think that is worth discussing.

Now go ahead and repeat yourself again.

 

when you debate science with people who link scientific evidence with politics you're wasting your time...it's a global socialist conspiracy concocted by AL gore and Margret thatcher to steal our money according to one poster...
and then there are those who don't have a clue as to the simplest scientific principles..one claims you can have an action without a reaction!...they'll deny long established scientific facts as unverified(CO2 isn't ghg)...then there those who can't even interpret a simple grade school level graph(according to one poster a trend is a single data point on a graph)...where do you begin with people like that, it's like debating nuclear physics with headhunters......

 

I've definitely heard the global socialist conspiracy behind the global warming "hoax". Al and co. apparently want to take away their property. The most common type denialist response I would get was something like a cold record was recorded in Buffalo and therefore AGW was debunked. They never seemed to get variation occurring within a longer term trend. It was so persistent I started wondering whether there might be some kind of math deficit involved. Maybe some folks don't grasp certain concepts even as simple as averages. Something keeps Las Vegas going. The variation on the CO2 cluelessnes is heat causes CO2 rise but CO2 can't cause heat rise. They are adamant that it is only one way because of something they read incompletely about coming out of the ice age.

 

Here's the problem... It's not a genuine or real condition or diagnosis..It was awarded the LG Noble Prize in 2000.. Know what that is? It's the parody of a Nobel Prize.. A joke..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize

The effect was treated as ridiculous, and awarded accordingly...

Now you just tried to use your fake psychological condition, twice, to insult people on here.. The worst part is, you didn't even know it wasn't a condition anyone took seriously.. Let me guess, you heard it from Al Franken,and then looked it up on wikki? Yeah wikki tries to give the implication it's real but they tell on themselves when they talk about it's awards...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Easy list of awards, there was only the one...

Again, a fake condition treated as a joke in the scientific community, and you just tried to imply it was an innocent pointing out of a psychological condition, when in fact it was a direct insult..

Next time read the fine print..

 

I'll go with that.

 

Harking back to a couple of earlier posts, one aspect of denialism appears to be what the historian Hofstadter called the paranoid style. Here back in 1964 he lays it out.

http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics

This kind of rings a bell. The old socialist conspiracy bit pushing the climate "hoax", an explanation so loved by many denialists.

 

This thread is closed, as per Rule two, insults also extend to political groups...Flame Bait

Thank you
flounder