I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.
And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.
And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.
Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.
I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side
edit: not when coupled with an attitude of "every belief is equally ok!"
Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people
Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.
that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts
Look when you're the iron fisted ruler of a country and still look nice, you'll do the shirtless fishing pose and tranquing wild cats saving reporters stuff, because you can Nerd. BECAUSE YOU CAN!
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Aww are you guys having a hurf durf Atheist Jamboree? How cute.
So are you United Atheist League or Allied Atheist Alliance?
Wel it's not even atheism per se. Proper organised christianity is rather good at stopping the more kooky beliefs as well. A cardinal is going to tell you to fuck off with your ghosts idea.
They would instead suggest an exorcism.
Couscous on
0
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people
Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.
that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts
Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.
Thomamelas on
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Aww are you guys having a hurf durf Atheist Jamboree? How cute.
So are you United Atheist League or Allied Atheist Alliance?
Wel it's not even atheism per se. Proper organised christianity is rather good at stopping the more kooky beliefs as well. A cardinal is going to tell you to fuck off with your ghosts idea.
I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.
And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.
Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.
I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.
And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.
Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.
I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side
this really says all there is to be said
Abdhyius on
0
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I'm sorry, did you say something? I was too busy snuggling.
I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.
And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
polite, reasoned discourse is really successful at winning over the people that science already has.
it's similar to how reasonability and fairmindedness is really good at convincing moderate liberals to be moderate liberals. it's why conservatives and far-left libs objected to Jon Stewart's Rally For Reasonableness. They don't care much for reasonableness. If they did, they'd be moderate liberals.
that said, i don't know that something like science is really well-geared towards shouting and cheap shots. what it could use though is more appeals to emotion and self-interest. Like, constantly pointing out that this stuff works and it enables every life in the first world to the modicum of comfort that they have. For some reason this was big in the 50s and 60s (PLASTICS MAKE LIFE BETTER) and then the post-modern era happened and we just kind of forgot about promoting the basic utility of modern thought.
Irond Will on
0
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people
Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.
that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts
Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.
I know, I didn't mean to imply that he only does it to be some kind of meme
Nerdgasmic on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I don't think reasoned argument alone is enough. It's good, it's important, it's vital. But it isn't enough.
It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.
You have to be willing to also be the side that shouts louder and takes the cheap shots; these are time-tested, evidence-based methods for effectively capturing peoples attention. They are 100% science-backed promotional methods that the pro-science crowd, perversely, rejects.
And that's a deeply un-scientific attitude. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to anti-science proponents who are willing to do what it takes to get their message heard.
I think the pro-science crowd, when rejecting those methods, is doing so with a long-term goal in mind.
Those methods work because people are generally poorly educated and reactionary. I would think that continuing those methods just because they work right now would reinforce the behavior that they'd rather discourage.
I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side
edit: not when coupled with an attitude of "every belief is equally ok!"
No, every belief is NOT okay.
That is not what we are saying at all!
In fact, abdhy and I both probably would feel better if people didn't have weird beliefs, but that doesn't mean that just because someone believes in jew lizards you get to mock them when you are attempting to argue their beliefs with them
I was raised Catholic. Lapsing is just what we do.
hi5
Former Catholic's unite! My mother was a fairly lasped Catholic but in the last ten years she's gone back into the church and become one of those Catholics. She's put serious effort into finding out how my first marriage could be annulled by the church. Which would be surprisingly easy.
Man if you don't think there is a very real conflict going on between people who believe that there are things called facts and that science works and people who embrace ignorance and reject inconvenient facts, I don't know what planet you were raised on.
Senjutsu on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Putin ruins his whole shtick by being way too obvious about doing it for the exact kind of attention he gets from internet people
Nerd you do realize he has been linked to actual murders right? He's former KGB and not a very nice person at all.
that's all real, sure, but wrestling bears and fishing for salmon with his hands and all of that is a series of a fairly silly publicity stunts
Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.
I know, I didn't mean to imply that he only does it to be some kind of meme
mussolini did the same shit
went hunting shirtless and whatever else
Irond Will on
0
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Posts
doing this also makes you objectively a douche
I'm not convinced we'll survive long term if we continue to cede all effective means of influencing opinions in-the-large to the other side
edit: not when coupled with an attitude of "every belief is equally ok!"
Look when you're the iron fisted ruler of a country and still look nice, you'll do the shirtless fishing pose and tranquing wild cats saving reporters stuff, because you can Nerd. BECAUSE YOU CAN!
pleasepaypreacher.net
The guy was playing a worgen, and couldn't think of a good name.
yeah, we are
ludious is not because he sucks
They would instead suggest an exorcism.
Yes but not really aimed at the internet. He's strongly courting the Russian people and playing on a sense of insecurity and a longing for an age where they were a much more feared global power. Yes, it's over the top, but he's a master of making it sincerely over the top.
It's all those fucking schismatics fault
screw you, Martin Luther!
I'm sorry but their OOGABOOGAUNGABUNGAOOOOOO talk is just reeaalllllyyyyyyy crossing a line with me.
this really says all there is to be said
I'm sorry, did you say something? I was too busy snuggling.
you're doing that thing where you mischaracterize a line of discussion in a really silly manner
like how you're mocking senj and abdhyius and whoever else you please with really lame south park jokes
Great site!
polite, reasoned discourse is really successful at winning over the people that science already has.
it's similar to how reasonability and fairmindedness is really good at convincing moderate liberals to be moderate liberals. it's why conservatives and far-left libs objected to Jon Stewart's Rally For Reasonableness. They don't care much for reasonableness. If they did, they'd be moderate liberals.
that said, i don't know that something like science is really well-geared towards shouting and cheap shots. what it could use though is more appeals to emotion and self-interest. Like, constantly pointing out that this stuff works and it enables every life in the first world to the modicum of comfort that they have. For some reason this was big in the 50s and 60s (PLASTICS MAKE LIFE BETTER) and then the post-modern era happened and we just kind of forgot about promoting the basic utility of modern thought.
I've never seen Life of Brian. I liked Holy Grail OK. Then I stopped being 15.
I know, I didn't mean to imply that he only does it to be some kind of meme
that night, putin strangled that dog and ate it raw.
No, every belief is NOT okay.
That is not what we are saying at all!
In fact, abdhy and I both probably would feel better if people didn't have weird beliefs, but that doesn't mean that just because someone believes in jew lizards you get to mock them when you are attempting to argue their beliefs with them
Former Catholic's unite! My mother was a fairly lasped Catholic but in the last ten years she's gone back into the church and become one of those Catholics. She's put serious effort into finding out how my first marriage could be annulled by the church. Which would be surprisingly easy.
Man if you don't think there is a very real conflict going on between people who believe that there are things called facts and that science works and people who embrace ignorance and reject inconvenient facts, I don't know what planet you were raised on.
mussolini did the same shit
went hunting shirtless and whatever else
Mocking is a pretty strong word to use in this case, but you're doing that thing where you metamod, bee tee double you.
Thom, you are our pinch hitter if Preacher can't make it.
Everyone else, go post in an on-topic thread or have some lunch or whatever. I don't want to see a new chat thread before 2:40 Central time.
what is this?
why not just measure time in like the ancient sumerian clock?