|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Dunning-Kruger effect.Thanks for linking to that paper. It was one of the better things I've read in a long time. Errol Morris interviewed Dunning for his blog at the NY Times ( link).
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,554
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,554 |
Now here's some fun you boys can have: Without degradating the source, disassemble the information presented in this news article...bet you can't.  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26603
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,916 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,916 Likes: 2 |
----please, draw me a sheep----
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,554
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,554 |
Yes Luke, it does ramble on, but that is just bad writting.
And with regard to the information content...?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
The critical difference is that skeptics are open to evidence, whereas denialists have made up their minds are just looking to justify their beliefs. By my understanding, for example, apologists are denialists.
The skeptic will want to know more about a particular thing, before coming to a conclusion whether firm or tentative. He may or may not acquire that requisite knowledge. The denialist, OTOH, before he has anything approaching a sufficient understanding is either dismissing evidence or exaggerating it in accordance with his preconceived emotional attachments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
FF, my computer security is blocking the download, and at this point I'm leery of overriding it. Any chance you could copy the piece and send it to me by PM?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655 |
The critical difference is that skeptics are open to evidence, whereas denialists have made up their minds are [sic] just looking to justify their beliefs. I've heard this from both sides of the bench, and it's always the other person who is the denialist (a neologism to dismiss those who disagree, apparently derived in modern usage from "Holocaust denier," which nobody was able to write without it appearing French) and one's self who is the skeptic, regardless of the topic. Knowing the definition of either or both words does not guarantee that we won't work real hard convincing ourselves that we are in the desirable category.
"I don't know which is worse: ignorance or apathy. And, frankly, I don't care." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Knowing the definition of either or both words does not guarantee that we won't work real hard convincing ourselves that we are in the desirable category.
One isn't in the category based on one's answer to the question. One is categorized correctly by how one approaches evidence - or even the idea of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 655 |
That's not my point. We all know what constitutes evidence, we all (especially the skeptics among us) decide what is convincing and what is not. We are not told this. One is placed in one or the other of the categories by oneself and by the one with whom one disagrees. The self-placement is always as skeptic. The name-calling is reserved for one's opponent.
And by the way, once one becomes convinced of the veracity of a particular matter, one is no longer a skeptic concerning that matter, by definition, so one must choose a new descriptor.
"I don't know which is worse: ignorance or apathy. And, frankly, I don't care." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Certainly, some people are deluding themselves. If a person makes up their mind on a subject prior to even seeing the evidence, he is hardly a skeptic no matter what he wishes to call himself.
And while there are people who are legitimately skeptical - there are others who clearly have made up their minds, as evidenced by their willingness to accept any stupid claim offered and promulgate that claim without doing any critical thinking on that claim themselves. The person can call himself the Virgin Mary, but it doesn't make him a skeptic.
A person can approach a subject skeptically and then become convinced by the evidence. Still, the person is a proper skeptic, if not on that subject - at least he examined the evidence prior to developing an opinion. There are those who make up their minds and then demand unreasonable evidence for the contrary, but accept (and repeat and repeat and repeat) literally any stupid claim they happen to hear that appears to agree with them. Again, the person may call himself a skeptic in the same way that mob boss might call himself a businessman.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
688
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
