by How the denier mind works.I've been debating with deniers for weeks on Twitter and it can be soul destroying, but I'm sure some are sockpuppets, that is, they are professional, paid deniers.It got interesting the other day when we got onto politics where I agreed with deniers about Hillary Clinton, but after that the liberals went mad at me. It was strange because now the conservatives were on my side about Putin, Hillary, and Russia, although it didn't last long.The liberals also started to attack China and as I don't like the demonisation of China I defended them, but after that, both the conservatives and the liberals were at my throat. It's a strange world because one conservative supported me about China. He was very anti-war and quite thoughtful.The liberals were hot-blooded and
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Andreas Cervenka och den svenska bostadsbubblan
Mike Norman writes Trade deficit
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Christmas thoughts about counting the dead in zones of armed conflict.
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking the balanced budget superstition
I've been debating with deniers for weeks on Twitter and it can be soul destroying, but I'm sure some are sockpuppets, that is, they are professional, paid deniers.
It got interesting the other day when we got onto politics where I agreed with deniers about Hillary Clinton, but after that the liberals went mad at me. It was strange because now the conservatives were on my side about Putin, Hillary, and Russia, although it didn't last long.
The liberals also started to attack China and as I don't like the demonisation of China I defended them, but after that, both the conservatives and the liberals were at my throat. It's a strange world because one conservative supported me about China. He was very anti-war and quite thoughtful.
The liberals were hot-blooded and aggressive. It seems they hate Trump so much that they are prepared to believe everything they have been told about Russiagate.
There is no ‘proof’ in science
In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.”
Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.
The Conversation
The thinking error at the root of science denial, by Jeremy P. Shapiro