Skip to main content

View Diary: Science, “Epistemic Closure”, and How To Burst The Bubble. (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Many have admitted that they were wrong already. (3+ / 0-)

    Two examples:
    Newt Gingrich
    Dick Morris

    Now, I'll freely admit that they are rationalizing as much as they can. But, the scope of the rationalizations is diminishing. They are demonstrating that they will acknowledge reality when there is no other choice.

    •  It's unlikely the Repugs will stop rationalizing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bryce in Seattle

      It has been noted repeatedly that Democrats look for scientific analysis, facts, and statistics. Republicans look for a good story. It's a different mindset and a different logic.

      Your assumption is that humans are basically rational creatures. My experience is that humans are not rational creatures. When emotion walks in the door, any semblance of rationality flies out the window.

      Republicans seek to promulgate and bolster their story, which, in a nutshell, is that America is an exceptional, wonderful place, where happy [white, English speaking, Christian] families salute the flag and sing America the Beautiful while eating apple pie. It's a very attractive story.
      A lot of people want to believe it. That is why we have large Republican majorities in Kansas, Mississippi and South Carolina.

      By the way, the history of science shows that scientists are just as susceptible to emotion driven logic override as any other population.

      •  There is a reality based component to that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        la motocycliste

        A good story wins elections, as many voters follow their emotions.  So, it has worked in the past, so they continue to use it.

      •  science vs. scientists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bryce in Seattle

        The original diarist did not clearly shift from describing science and scientists.  Individual scientists, as true with all other humans, are susceptible to confirmation bias, conflicts of interest, and other emotional biases.  The scientific method, on the other hand, allows a group of scientists to determine which one hypothesis out of many competitors best describes reality.  Don't be fooled into thinking this is a cold and dispassionate process.  Far from it- I've been to several meetings which had loud, passionate and vigorous disputes over who was right.  Most of the time, reality wins. :)

      •  So - back to the original problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bryce in Seattle

        There are a lot of people in Red states. They tend to vote- they are very reliable voters. They are not interested in charts, complicated discourses on economics and many of them don't like science very much.

        How do we reach these people? I'm not talking about folks who go out after dark wearing sheets with eyeholes or owners of coal mines. I'm talking about everyday average folks who watch Fox News.

        •  How do we get an idealist to face reality? (0+ / 0-)

          This is likely an oversimplification, but please humor me. Assume Dems are realists and GOPers are idealists.

          Realists change their thinking to conform with their best assessment of reality. They are likely to spend time attaining a more accurate view of reality, possibly through science, or reading Nate Silver's blog. Idealists attempt to impose their ideal (basically a thought) on reality. They are likely to spent their time studying their chosen ideology. If the polls don't reflect their ideal, then the polls are wrong. That's not to say wrong as in not accurate, but rather immoral/evil/socialist. Blame falls on the pollsters, and make up their own.

          They say conservatism can not fail, it can only be failed. The only problem inside the ideology is that people are not conservative enough.

          So, I say make it a bet or a competition. But make sure the winner depends on an objective reality. In this way, a realist may lure a idealist into a stacked competition. It's stacked because the winner depends on how well he or she deals with reality. The more they are an idealist the greater chance of loosing. They fight themselves.

          Once the idealist looses, that there was a mistake becomes obvious. The idealist may blame a scapegoat (like Romney), work harder living up to the ideal (aka double down), or reconsider the ideal.

          With this strategy, all of the conservative political advantages become weaknesses. Message discipline become group think. Randian individualism becomes thievery. Christian morality becomes fundamentalist zealotry. And, that fractures the GOP.

          •  you lost me at (0+ / 0-)
            Assume Dems are realists and GOPers are idealists.
            That's not always true. Dems can suffer from the same confirmation biases as GOPers — but over different things.

            You can see it here. One doesn't dare do a diary that goes against some of the great "knowns" of the positions staked out by some acolytes.

            I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

            by samddobermann on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 03:20:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site