not quite.Originally Posted by koman
Its the difference between
wanting to know how things workand
wanting things to work they way we would like
The latter is part of the human condition, on the whole we are not interested in the truth, we just want someone else to tell use what we want to hear. Much of the scientific method is about minimising this bias, whilst the propagandist and dealnlist embrace it.
The real scientist, will gather data and evidence and create an all embracing logical argument that explains all the data. and as more data comes along they will modify their viewpoint to fit the data.
The propagandist and dentist does not need to do analysis of the data, they do not need to create this logical argument that explains the data. they already know what the truth should be and all they ever do is cherry pick and critique with laser focus. the ice sheet gets bigger.... proof that earth's not warming.... thats as far as a denialist will go.... they are not interested in finding out why its growing.... after all they already know the answer they want.
so it's not that had to tell the difference between a truth teller and a lier.... unless you want the lie to be true...
Arguming with a climate denier is about a fruitful as arguing with the previous generations of truthers, who believes asbestos, tobacco were harmless and ozone hole was a hoaks. That these movements start and die on vested industry funding that drys up after the fights been lost does not matter to them.
for them the conspiracy is a global conspiracy of academics on the lamb, it cannot be yet another atroturf campaign by vested interests to keep their investments and business modles..... after all given the value of the oil companies is based on the value of the reserves of oil in the ground..... what will they be worth if we kick our addiction to oil and leave it in the ground?
Its when sceptical thinkers go wrong and become an drag of society, rather than the promoters of change