I was just blogging about true believers and belief perseverance when I
learned of the Colin Ross case. The political arena is another fascinating
example, but there, pointing out you were wrong can be the kiss of death. In
science however, pointing out our limitations and mistakes is supposed to be
valued, but of course is not always so honored. I argued that a key issue is
the ideological framework that often provides identity and meaning to those
clinging stubbornly to beliefs with little or no strong evidence. I was
writing however, about so-called cult or extremist groups.
I know the science writer/skeptic Michael Shermer has suggested that smart
people are more skilled in rationalizations and self-serving meta-reflections
to counter evidence that contradicts their favored beliefs. It would be
interesting to see/test if that is the case. I have colleague/friends who still
hold out for psychic powers of some sort despite the lack of reliable
evidence. They typically employ an "You can't explain all the cases, or not
all the research is flawed, so there must be something to it" argument. I
agree, but point out the ad ignorantium issue here. I know T. Gilovich has
some research that might be relevant here, but do not know if the explanatons
or rationalizations of different types of folks have been examined. See: Why
People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions
of Our Time by Michael Shermer and Stephen Jay Gould (Paperback - Sep 1, 2002).
Interesting area to bring in to class discussion. Gary
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
