Thinking Errors

It’s kind of obvious, when you put it this way https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-at-the-root-of-science-denial-96099
This could be posted in any sub-forum, pseudo-science, religion, or here. This boils down the non-scientific thought process to a simple notion of dichotomous thinking; either it’s true or not true. Once you accept that, if there is one flaw in a theory, the whole thing is blown, all of science is a lie, and you can turn it around and accept any slightly true observation as confirmation of your pet theory being true.
The comparison to mental illness is frightening, and that does not work well in conversation. Calling someone “crazy” or even just a “conspiracy theorist” tends to throw the conversation off the rails. But this is the loop I’ve been stuck in a few times here, or other forums or sometimes in person. I keep responding to their random facts, either debunking them, or showing how they don’t support the overall theory. They don’t care, they just keep throwing stuff out there.
I’m hoping there’s some way to apply this analysis.

The article from my experience is absolutely true.
I would use TED speech of professor Dawkins as an example:
https://youtu.be/VxGMqKCcN6A?t=11m52s
“Asteroid theory” deniers used to mock scientists with notion they have “belief” in it, not that they speak about know proofs for the theory.
Most commonly is proof mistaken as an opinion, and vice-versa, opinions are presented as to have same value in discussion as proven facts. Belief is confused with conviction and vice versa. All this stems from “black and white” fallacy, where believers seek and supposedly find “absolute truth”, without any wiggle room.
LIke ma recent discussion with a guy who knows nothing about Czechoslovakia, and he went off the rails when he consistently maintained his lies.

Aside from the author’s psychobabble, I agree with what he’s describing and it is a problem when trying to communicate with people that are genuinely interested in the material but just unaware of the details; the problem seems to be most people you argue with are not like that.
IMO nothing can really be done about. I think that because scientists or scientifically-inclined laypeople are often poor socializers, they don’t see that most humans by nature aren’t scientific thinkers and they especially aren’t interested in dry, nuanced explanations on topics they’re probably not very interested in to begin with. Their disagreement stems mainly from an emotional source which is difficult to tap into.

So, we live in Idiocracy, that’s it?

So, we live in Idiocracy, that's it?
Sadly it does feel like that a lot. Though don't underestimate apathy, insecurity, fear, self-defensiveness?
Aside from the author’s psychobabble, I agree with what he’s describing and it is a problem when trying to communicate with people that are genuinely interested in the material but just unaware of the details; the problem seems to be most people you argue with are not like that. IMO nothing can really be done about. I think that because scientists or scientifically-inclined laypeople are often poor socializers, they don’t see that most humans by nature aren’t scientific thinkers and they especially aren’t interested in dry, nuanced explanations on topics they’re probably not very interested in to begin with. Their disagreement stems mainly from an emotional source which is difficult to tap into.
I disagree with "poor socializers" part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNe1HR8xkg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjsoX9ZMtnw I happen to know that many people on both videos are from overlapping groups of people (i know some personally), a lot of them knows Hitchens, Dawkins and are fans into sci-fi and real science. They just dont happen to profess their conviction towards real-life politics and social life. Which is a problem. I attribute that to overall shyness, which does not seem to affect people who make bold public statements about pseudoscience.

Sure, there are some people out there who may be, under a reasonable view, mentally ill, who have this kind of polar thinking. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who also have this kind of thinking, and in either case I think it’s a good idea to assume that education is a good therapy.

So, we live in Idiocracy, that's it?
I don’t think it’s that bad......but it seems impossible to make people think a certain way — especially if it doesn’t relate much to everyday life.
Aside from the author’s psychobabble, I agree with what he’s describing and it is a problem when trying to communicate with people that are genuinely interested in the material but just unaware of the details; the problem seems to be most people you argue with are not like that. IMO nothing can really be done about. I think that because scientists or scientifically-inclined laypeople are often poor socializers, they don’t see that most humans by nature aren’t scientific thinkers and they especially aren’t interested in dry, nuanced explanations on topics they’re probably not very interested in to begin with. Their disagreement stems mainly from an emotional source which is difficult to tap into.
I disagree with "poor socializers" part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNe1HR8xkg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjsoX9ZMtnw I happen to know that many people on both videos are from overlapping groups of people (i know some personally), a lot of them knows Hitchens, Dawkins and are fans into sci-fi and real science. They just dont happen to profess their conviction towards real-life politics and social life. Which is a problem. I attribute that to overall shyness, which does not seem to affect people who make bold public statements about pseudoscience.I don’t know if those videos will give the impression of good social skills to most people ;-P
I don’t know if those videos will give the impression of good social skills to most people ;-P
You would be mistaken :)
I don’t know if those videos will give the impression of good social skills to most people ;-P
You would be mistaken :)I take it you’re a fan of hardcore. Not my thing, though I like some metal. Music is always a matter of personal taste, but you must be really young if you think that message will appeal to wide array of people.
I don’t know if those videos will give the impression of good social skills to most people ;-P
You would be mistaken :)I take it you’re a fan of hardcore. Not my thing, though I like some metal. Music is always a matter of personal taste, but you must be really young if you think that message will appeal to wide array of people. First video is from a festival which was focused on world of Witcher (mainly games). I listen to really heavey types of music. There is quite a lot of people around me who are into fantasy books/movies/whatever and are at the same time into science or against hoaxes. The other video is from the most extreme music festival i know (its called Obscene Extreme for a reason), while usually same group of people visits both. I know people who say "i am getting too old for this", but its less matter of age, more matter of other life commitments.

I guess what’s confusing me is that,
becoming part of a mass audience to listen to music,
isn’t exactly what comes to my mind when I think about socializing skills.
I always thought of socializing as a interaction between humans,
rather than merely becoming part of swarm, or mob as the case may be.
But hey, in an over-populated world guess we do what we can. :slight_smile: