| Neil Armstrong, in Gemini 8 prior to his moon landing assignment |
Neil Armstrong died today. He left an example of courage and humanity as large, as bright and shining as the fullest, brightest full moon on which walked.
I hope that our nation never stops aggressively pursuing our exploration of space that he helped pioneer so bravely. I consider myself blessed to have been watching on television, in real time, when he walked on the moon, and as we have continued beyond with the exploration of mars.
I have nothing but pity in my heart for those silly conspiracy theorists who believe the event was staged. How much smaller their hearts, minds, and world experience is from the rest of us.
The Guardian in the UK had a fascinating article on the shared conspiracy theory tendencies of those who held right wing political and economic views to reject BOTH climate change generally and anthropogenisis specifically ALSO rejecting that the moon landing was real. I find that terribly sad, that people would delude themselves, thereby depriving themselves of enjoying and appreciating one of the greatest moments of human history. It clearly supports the well-founded scientific viewpoint of science journalist Chris Mooney, and many scientists studying the phenomenon, that all of us engage in emotional thinking rather than strictly rational thinking at least part of the time, but that in the case of conservatives, they are ideologically resistant and oppositional to change, and therefore reject anything which alters their status quo as threatening and bad regardless of facts involved. A human traveling to the moon, walking on the moon for a period of hours, and then returning is a significant change to our status quo - and therefore significantly disturbing to the comfort level of conservatives in direct proportion to how conservative, and therefore change resistant/ change oppositional they are.
Here is the article:
Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?
New research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked
Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and 'Buzz' Aldrin. Photograph: NASA/AP
It's time to come clean: climate change is a hoax. And the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and the CIA is hiding the identity of the gunman on the grassy knoll.
It might seem odd to lump climate change – a scientific theory supported by thousands of peer-reviewed papers and hundreds of independent lines of evidence – with conspiracy theories like these. But new research to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found a link between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of established facts about climate science.
In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.
Stephen Lewandowsky and his colleagues at the University of Western Australia posted a link to an online questionnaire on eight climate-related blogs with a diverse readership, in order to capture people's views about economics, science and conspiracy theories. Five "sceptic" (or "sceptic-leaning") blogs were also approached but declined to post the link – interesting in and of itself, given the frequent claim that sceptical views are excluded from mainstream debates.
What they found was remarkable. People who endorsed conspiracy theories such as "9/11 was an inside job" and "the moon landings were faked", were also more likely to reject established scientific facts about climate change, such as "I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperatures to an appreciable degree."
Clearly, a self-selecting sample of blog users is not representative of the wider population. But this is precisely why the researchers targeted this group: in the cut-throat world of climate change scepticism, this is undoubtedly where the action is.
Lewandowsky's research poses difficult questions for the climate sceptic community. Although they are not a homogenous group, they tend to coalesce around common themes relating to the reality and seriousness of climate change. The findings suggest that at least some proportion of the people who consider themselves sceptical about climate change are also willing to entertain conspiracy theories that are not taken seriously in mainstream society.
All scientists are sceptics: it is a healthy, everyday part of the process of systematically weighing up evidence and reaching a considered conclusion. But if vocal online opponents of climate change science also do not accept basic historical truths about society, can their position really be described as "scepticism"?
The findings provide yet more evidence that a rejection of climate science has more to with ideological views than scientific literacy, bolstering the well-supported finding that climate change scepticism is more likely to be found on the right, than on the left of politics. But they go a step further, adding an important layer of detail to the crude characterisation of climate change scepticism as a "conservative" issue.
The link between endorsing conspiracy theories and rejecting climate science facts suggests that it is the libertarian instinct to stick two fingers up at the mainstream – whatever the issue – that is important. Because a radical libertarian streak is the hallmark of free-market economics, and because free market views are popular on the political right, this is where climate change scepticism is most likely to be found.
The findings also suggest that talk of a 'consensus' on climate change is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the weight of scientific evidence showing that humans are changing the climate is a powerful argument for taking action to prevent its dangerous effects. But the very notion of consensual agreement is also a red flag to libertarians, who distrust statements about consensus on principle.
All of this suggests that the battle to overcome climate scepticism – if that is even a useful way of thinking about it – will not be won by simply restating the scientific facts. The problem is that "the facts" are not "the facts" for a small proportion of people – and the noise made by this minority group dilutes the otherwise clear signal about climate change received by the wider population.
Climate change is a scientific entity, but one given meaning through the social, political and economic lenses we view it through. The challenge of engaging with climate change sceptics is finding the lens that better fits their ideological views – not just shouting the science more loudly.
It might seem odd to lump climate change – a scientific theory supported by thousands of peer-reviewed papers and hundreds of independent lines of evidence – with conspiracy theories like these. But new research to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found a link between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of established facts about climate science.
In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.
Stephen Lewandowsky and his colleagues at the University of Western Australia posted a link to an online questionnaire on eight climate-related blogs with a diverse readership, in order to capture people's views about economics, science and conspiracy theories. Five "sceptic" (or "sceptic-leaning") blogs were also approached but declined to post the link – interesting in and of itself, given the frequent claim that sceptical views are excluded from mainstream debates.
What they found was remarkable. People who endorsed conspiracy theories such as "9/11 was an inside job" and "the moon landings were faked", were also more likely to reject established scientific facts about climate change, such as "I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperatures to an appreciable degree."
Clearly, a self-selecting sample of blog users is not representative of the wider population. But this is precisely why the researchers targeted this group: in the cut-throat world of climate change scepticism, this is undoubtedly where the action is.
Lewandowsky's research poses difficult questions for the climate sceptic community. Although they are not a homogenous group, they tend to coalesce around common themes relating to the reality and seriousness of climate change. The findings suggest that at least some proportion of the people who consider themselves sceptical about climate change are also willing to entertain conspiracy theories that are not taken seriously in mainstream society.
All scientists are sceptics: it is a healthy, everyday part of the process of systematically weighing up evidence and reaching a considered conclusion. But if vocal online opponents of climate change science also do not accept basic historical truths about society, can their position really be described as "scepticism"?
The findings provide yet more evidence that a rejection of climate science has more to with ideological views than scientific literacy, bolstering the well-supported finding that climate change scepticism is more likely to be found on the right, than on the left of politics. But they go a step further, adding an important layer of detail to the crude characterisation of climate change scepticism as a "conservative" issue.
The link between endorsing conspiracy theories and rejecting climate science facts suggests that it is the libertarian instinct to stick two fingers up at the mainstream – whatever the issue – that is important. Because a radical libertarian streak is the hallmark of free-market economics, and because free market views are popular on the political right, this is where climate change scepticism is most likely to be found.
The findings also suggest that talk of a 'consensus' on climate change is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the weight of scientific evidence showing that humans are changing the climate is a powerful argument for taking action to prevent its dangerous effects. But the very notion of consensual agreement is also a red flag to libertarians, who distrust statements about consensus on principle.
All of this suggests that the battle to overcome climate scepticism – if that is even a useful way of thinking about it – will not be won by simply restating the scientific facts. The problem is that "the facts" are not "the facts" for a small proportion of people – and the noise made by this minority group dilutes the otherwise clear signal about climate change received by the wider population.
Climate change is a scientific entity, but one given meaning through the social, political and economic lenses we view it through. The challenge of engaging with climate change sceptics is finding the lens that better fits their ideological views – not just shouting the science more loudly.
I'm posting this for democommie; our apologies to anyone else who is having problems with the anti-robot requirement. It is not in our control, but if it continues we will pursue a more aggressive complaint. In the interim, if you have a comment and cannot get it to work, please send it to our email account, and we will try to post it for you. Thanks!
ReplyDelete"dog gone:
You didn't bring it up but, pssst, evolution.
I used to think that conspiracy theorists on the order of birthers, truthers, AGW denialists and the like were otherwise rational people who might be thinking delusionally about a few things. I now tend towards thinking that they're delusional people who might think rationally about a few things."
Actually Democommie, what I am coming to appreciate is the theory that the reason so much of the right doesn't track with fact and objective reality appearss to be that emotion plays a significant factor in thinking -- ALL of our thinking, not just conservatives.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the specific area where liberals and centrists appear to diverge is that the more a person is emotionally invested, in their own identity or in their group identity, and then perceive that threatened in any way, the more they will find ways to either rationalize the reality to make themselves feel better/safer/less threatened, no matter how much they need to distort either fact or reality. It has to do with a comfort level that we all have.
But in the case with conservatives, which is by definition a group that tends to resist change, new things, change from the status quo, and especially anything which might alter the power dynamic of what is mostly old, white, and male individuals will trigger that reaction.
So for evolution, it triggers their resistance to anything that challenges their notions of the supremacy of religion. I would go futher and posit that to the extent they believe religious conformity is a requirement to avoid the old testament wrath of God descending on us, in what I described as superstition/ step-on-a-crack-break-your-mother's-back thinking, they have to more intensely and rigidly/rigorously resist evolution, even come up with a crackpot alternative like creationism or intelligent design. The same is true of climate change deniers; they can't handle the need for pollution regulation and changes from the traditional fossil fuel uses that are familiar, including a big emotional investment in cars.
When you have issues that involve less emotion, they are more rational and fact based, depending on where they are in the emotional involvement spectrum.
But as a group, they are afraid of so very much, and therefore willing to lie to themselves because they feel, typically, a much greater discomfort level with change than liberals and centrists do.
The research data on this phenomenon is surprising, and it explains a lot about why we have the polarizing and dysfunction we do.
So, long way round, your observation was spot on, per that research.