Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts ? and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. This is why it is futile to argue with religionists. WTG wrote: That is obvious. Anyone who professes a belief in something unprovable (or provably false) is a denialist. In light of this, what should we call people who do not have belief in C02 based global warming? Denier No Longer Maru, Matthew ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Bos wrote: New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts ? and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. This is why it is futile to argue with religionists. WTG wrote: That is obvious. Anyone who professes a belief in something unprovable (or provably false) is a denialist. In light of this, what should we call people who do not have belief in C02 based global warming? Doesn't that depend on why they do not have belief? If they could cite evidence that CO2-based global warming is not happening, or that (beyond anything like the specious it's just a theory, after all smoke screen favored by Intelligent Design fans) there is contrary data that puts it in question, then we'd call them something other than mere denialists. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Matthew Bos wrote: New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts ? and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. This is why it is futile to argue with religionists. WTG wrote: That is obvious. Anyone who professes a belief in something unprovable (or provably false) is a denialist. Says the list's most tiresome dysangelist. Depends on what they deny, doesn't it? There are religious believers who manage — to their satisfaction, though not to yours (and why should they care?) — to maintain their belief alongside acceptance of science and whatever else it is that you imagine that they deny. Using the word denialist just to call them names strips it of real meaning. Might as well call them terrorists or communists or whatever other magic bad name is in vogue at the moment. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
The Ben Bernank and the quantitative easing
It's like watching a cartoon of train wreck... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-kfeature=player_embedded ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
