Jimbo
New Member
I ran across this article and I found it useful. A systematic debunking of global warming deniers. http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
I would like to see master-debunking articles like that here on metabunk. I wonder if adding a wiki is the right format for it. Though, the format at grist is pretty workable: it lets people comment on each sub-point that is delineated in response to the theory.
I'd also like to work up an article/wiki/forum about the psychology behind bunk-believers. I hope I'm not drifting outside the lines of the politeness policy. But like many, I have years of pent up anger at the assault on reason, and insulting behavior, coming from the bunkers. My point though is, can we summarize where they are coming from, and how to quickly and effectively stiff-arm or sidestep them in general. And this of course involves some psychology. And of course its fair game to analyze ourselves psychologically, or see what the bunkers say about our psychology, though of course its tricky to do this and stay polite. I mean I think this is why the debates get so heated, because its almost deeper than discussing religion or politics, its discussing people's bedrock beliefs.
I say this partly because, in my experience, when I say to them "can we just agree to disagree" they say NO WE CAN'T, and then they call me names. And thus in my experience, IT NEVER ENDS. I predict we will see this played out in this forum. Hear me now, believe me later. Thus, my interest in discovering the psychological underpinnings of the bunkers and conspiracy guys, and exploiting it. Either politely, or also by specifying how to best push their buttons or throw it back in their faces, e.g. by embroidering new theories or conflating their theories, in small or large scale reductio ad absurdum. Again I'm sorry if this is over the line but I really think it should be put on the table and faced squarely.
I would like to see master-debunking articles like that here on metabunk. I wonder if adding a wiki is the right format for it. Though, the format at grist is pretty workable: it lets people comment on each sub-point that is delineated in response to the theory.
I'd also like to work up an article/wiki/forum about the psychology behind bunk-believers. I hope I'm not drifting outside the lines of the politeness policy. But like many, I have years of pent up anger at the assault on reason, and insulting behavior, coming from the bunkers. My point though is, can we summarize where they are coming from, and how to quickly and effectively stiff-arm or sidestep them in general. And this of course involves some psychology. And of course its fair game to analyze ourselves psychologically, or see what the bunkers say about our psychology, though of course its tricky to do this and stay polite. I mean I think this is why the debates get so heated, because its almost deeper than discussing religion or politics, its discussing people's bedrock beliefs.
I say this partly because, in my experience, when I say to them "can we just agree to disagree" they say NO WE CAN'T, and then they call me names. And thus in my experience, IT NEVER ENDS. I predict we will see this played out in this forum. Hear me now, believe me later. Thus, my interest in discovering the psychological underpinnings of the bunkers and conspiracy guys, and exploiting it. Either politely, or also by specifying how to best push their buttons or throw it back in their faces, e.g. by embroidering new theories or conflating their theories, in small or large scale reductio ad absurdum. Again I'm sorry if this is over the line but I really think it should be put on the table and faced squarely.