> It is very popular. Rememember, it was once scientifically-supported objective fact that smoking was perfectly safe.
Sure, but that's why you update your beliefs based on new information. You don't consider an institution being wrong once as a complete repudiation of everything else. Consensus reality based on division of labor and a web of trust in our authorities, combined with peer review and criticism, is the only way for society to function.
Our institutions can be wrong, but what is argument are placing your trust in hearsay, innuendo and rumor? If you want to be skeptical of what the scientific authorities say, that is fine and healthy. It is quite another thing to go from skeptical to believing in unproven conspiracy theories with no authority behind them and no history of being right.
In other words, you're going from a source of information whom you might think is wrong sometimes, to a source of information with practically no reason to trust it.
When 97% of the world's climate scientists say global warming is a threat, when the basic thermodynamics of the situation, the paleo-climate data, even the recent temperature records, and flooding, lead you to give credence to their conclusions, and take reasonable precautions, shouldn't it encourage you to take it seriously even if it turns out wrong, instead of assuming it's all an elaborate hoax driven by wealthy scientists trying to get government grants?
I mean, there's a real false equivalence that keeps coming up when people discuss these issues. They act like the repercussions and risks on both sides are the same, and that both sides are being equally reasonable.
But the other side, for example of the climate debate, makes fully unsubstantiated claims about the massive harm that addressing climate change will have (if it is wrong), when there is not much evidence for these claims, other than very mild slightly lower GDP growth numbers. So if the scientific community is right, climate change leads to massive ecosystem disruption, massive economic losses, a refugee crisis, probably more wars, and if they're wrong, a fraction of a % of future GDP growth is lost.
It's crazy to me to go from "some people have been harmed by our institutions" to "whatever they say, I'm going to believe the opposite, even if it is a looney conspiracy"
There's no way to call what's happening right now rational. And the "priors" you're talking about, have largely been manipulated by conservative media for financial benefit. Fox/Murduch, Mercer & Koch funded media, Limbaugh, Hannity, Clearchannel, largely spend a great deal of their time undermining trust in Western scientific institutions, largely by gaslighting.
Healthy skepticism is what people should aim for, not cult beliefs. You know, when a new medical study comes out and claims that chocolate extends your life, or another comes out and says it shortens it, you're right to question it, and be skeptical, and ask for more confirmation. What you don't do is go "fuck scientists, my uncle told me that Trump said chocolate protects you from the effects of the Deep State chemtrails"
> Consensus reality based on division of labor and a web of trust in our authorities, combined with peer review and criticism, is the only way for society to function.
Is this also an objective fact?
Pascal's wager is similar to the climate change risk/reward function. And yet atheists still exist. If the risk magnitude is tied to the assumptions of a belief system, these arguments do not convince non-believers, just reaffirm what is already believed.
It's easy to talk dispassionately about "lower GDP growth" and "some people who have been harmed" when these are things that happen to other people. When they happen close to you, it is hard maintain trust in institutions that actively harms you. It's not just Trumpists. For example, vaccine support is low among urban black communities who typically have poor experiences with the medical system. Have these people have been gaslit too? Or are their voices valid?
If you want to start a conversation that can actually change someone's mind, you have to start with empathy for other positions. You cannot simply dismiss other beliefs as lies spread by the devil and/or Kochs. If, however, you are starting out from the position of "my way is the only way," then there is no dialogue possible, only repression of heterodoxy. It may be catharthic to tell someone all the ways in which they are wrong, but it doesn't win friends. It is historically not a winning strategy.
Sure, but that's why you update your beliefs based on new information. You don't consider an institution being wrong once as a complete repudiation of everything else. Consensus reality based on division of labor and a web of trust in our authorities, combined with peer review and criticism, is the only way for society to function.
Our institutions can be wrong, but what is argument are placing your trust in hearsay, innuendo and rumor? If you want to be skeptical of what the scientific authorities say, that is fine and healthy. It is quite another thing to go from skeptical to believing in unproven conspiracy theories with no authority behind them and no history of being right.
In other words, you're going from a source of information whom you might think is wrong sometimes, to a source of information with practically no reason to trust it.
When 97% of the world's climate scientists say global warming is a threat, when the basic thermodynamics of the situation, the paleo-climate data, even the recent temperature records, and flooding, lead you to give credence to their conclusions, and take reasonable precautions, shouldn't it encourage you to take it seriously even if it turns out wrong, instead of assuming it's all an elaborate hoax driven by wealthy scientists trying to get government grants?
I mean, there's a real false equivalence that keeps coming up when people discuss these issues. They act like the repercussions and risks on both sides are the same, and that both sides are being equally reasonable.
But the other side, for example of the climate debate, makes fully unsubstantiated claims about the massive harm that addressing climate change will have (if it is wrong), when there is not much evidence for these claims, other than very mild slightly lower GDP growth numbers. So if the scientific community is right, climate change leads to massive ecosystem disruption, massive economic losses, a refugee crisis, probably more wars, and if they're wrong, a fraction of a % of future GDP growth is lost.
It's crazy to me to go from "some people have been harmed by our institutions" to "whatever they say, I'm going to believe the opposite, even if it is a looney conspiracy"
There's no way to call what's happening right now rational. And the "priors" you're talking about, have largely been manipulated by conservative media for financial benefit. Fox/Murduch, Mercer & Koch funded media, Limbaugh, Hannity, Clearchannel, largely spend a great deal of their time undermining trust in Western scientific institutions, largely by gaslighting.
Healthy skepticism is what people should aim for, not cult beliefs. You know, when a new medical study comes out and claims that chocolate extends your life, or another comes out and says it shortens it, you're right to question it, and be skeptical, and ask for more confirmation. What you don't do is go "fuck scientists, my uncle told me that Trump said chocolate protects you from the effects of the Deep State chemtrails"