Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

@Herald,
Quote: ? Why are we not allowed to debate the validity of the things

These guys are so ignorant, they can't see their own ignorance. All they do is repeat the same song without contributing any sources for their opinions - that challenges, but never proves. They may as well be brain dead! They probably are, but don't realize it.

2 Replies

@FBM,

sounds good, however it IS wromg

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

My guess is: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Mercier-Sperber-Why-do-humans-reason.pdf

The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. They don't care if they're right or wrong; they just want to be seen as winning the argument.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. They don't care if they're right or wrong; they just want to be seen as winning the argument.

It really looks like you are atalkin about religious-fundamentlist-evolutionist-hoax-believers.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Science builds its theories (NOT the same thing as guesses) from hypotheses that are tested.

... and what have you tested about the so called evolution, so far - its validity, its stochastic nature or perhaps its existence as a process in the physical world. If you are curious to know evolution is not too much different from the phenomenological stories, collected in the Bible.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

It is not. Searching for proof, maybe.

Obviously. If the Science is not searching for the truth ... about the world, about ourselves, and about the processes in which we are leaving, let it state that openly on the TV - We, the Science hereby, self-proclaim ourselves to be above the truth of the things ... and above the things in the general case.
All that we are looking for (and breaking the money of the taxpayers on) is the prosperity of our closed peer community, the discovery of as many evidences about our fake theories as possible, and their use exclusively in our personal gain and career promotion, for the sake of money and power acquisition, notwithstanding whether this is in damage of the society ... or in benefit to its self-destruction.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Stochastic, phenomenological...I do not think these words mean what you think they mean. Why do we have to get new flu shots every year? Because the flu viruses mutate. This can be tested. There is no way to test the veracity of Bronze Age stories about invisible deities and miracles.

2 Replies

@FBM,

When they are so blind to the obvious, how can they possibly understand science/evolution?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

lol

the one with blinders are the religious-neurotic-fundamental religionistic evolutionists-morons.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

When they are so blind to the obvious, how can they possibly understand science/evolution?

Well, it starts with inpatient care and therapeutic pharmaceuticals, then...

1 Reply

@FBM,

I just find it fascinating how some people can refuse to accept the obvious, and to provide excuses that aren't even credible. They fight hard with an empty weapon.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Did you read about the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning I posted a link to above? It seems to explain a lot...

1 Reply

@FBM,

No. However, I have concluded long ago that each individual's perception and beliefs are based on our gene and environment. We are influenced by our parents, culture, peers, and how the individual subjectively perceives them. How we perceive our environment is what we call our reality. It has nothing to do with intelligence; that's the reason why there are many variances of what we call religion/god(s) and politics. Everything we learn and act upon are subjectively decided.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't see anything I'd argue with in that. The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning comes from a different angle, though. In a nutshell, it says that people argue in order to win or to be seen to win, not to learn or to find the truth about anything. Once someone has an emotional attachment to a position, they will twist, deny, ignore, etc, whatever comes at them in order to "win." I think that statement of the theory is a little extreme in that it doesn't account for those who becomed disciplined in rational argumentation. OTOH, there are people like Linus Pauling...

0 Replies

Good read here: http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/the-varieties-of-denialism/

Quote:

The varieties of denialism
on OCTOBER 28, 2014

I have just come back from a stimulating conference at Clark University about “Manufacturing Denial,” which brought together scholars from wildly divergent disciplines — from genocide studies to political science to philosophy — to explore the idea that “denialism” may be a sufficiently coherent phenomenon underlying the willful disregard of factual evidence by ideologically motivated groups or individuals.

Let me clarify at the outset that we are not talking just about cognitive biases here. This isn’t a question of the human tendency to pay more attention to evidence supporting one’s view while attempting to ignore contrary evidence. Nor are we talking about our ability as intelligent beings to rationalize the discrepancy between what we want to believe and what the world is like. All of those and more affect pretty much all human beings, and can be accounted for and at the least partially dealt with in the course of normal discussions about whatever it is we disagree about.

Rather, the Oxford defines a denialist as “a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence,” which represents a whole different level of cognitive bias or rationalization. Think of it as bias on steroids.
...

3 Replies

@FBM,

Good article; it speaks to the reasons why our politics is so screwed up here in the US. I'll have to remember that word, "denialism."

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The forced ignorance of the Creationist and ID mind is NOT the purpose of Jimmy J's thread.

FM, you are so much blinded by the 'brilliance' of your fossil findings that you cannot even understand the question. The question was: why can't we dispute the validity of the statement before disputing why this one or that one is fond of it or denying it?
If the statement is really false, denying it makes sense. Even if the statement is true (our life is ruled step-by-step by a casino events) denying it might help find something else about it and around it. Only people, who are not interested in the truth, but are rather interested in their own fame and glory and career promotions, only those for prefer money and power to the truth may not be interested in the preconditions and the assumptions to whatever ... and it doesn't matter whether it is the Big Bang 'theory' or the Evolution 'theory' - with such people any theory will be at that level. There is a famous statement of one of these 'great scientists': if the facts don't match a given theory - so much worse to the facts. Are you at that level, FM?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

These guys are so ignorant, they can't see their own ignorance.

Ah, Mr. Accountant-in-Chief, when you fix the global financial system that is in absolute mess right now and has overturned our perception of the world and of economy at all you can pronounce who is ignorant and who is mega genius - hardly after that, and not before.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Stochastic, phenomenological...I do not think these words mean what you think they mean.

O.K., let's start from the very beginning: what are your personal definitions of stochastic system and phenomenology (science)? Forget about whether you believe in something or not (religion, big bang or whatever) - how do you classify the visions of the prophets (if objectively existed) as an atheist, for example?
BTW, where is your evidence that no information is missing in the Universe ... in the past 13.8 Bya for example (if the calibration of FM is valid ... and in case he has ever had any of the kind)?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Actually, it's 4.5 by, and fm is correct 99% of the time. As for you, well.....
you should have gotten the hint from all the challenges you received.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know