A moment of clarity

[andygates]

Politics and religion start from a priori assumptions and go from there to their conclusions, methods and so on.  Science starts with observations; this, I think, is why political and religious types often fail to grok science: they're starting on arbitrary foundations and they know that it's really all opinion.  Thus, when they hit a scientific consensus that is unpalatable - such as climate change and the responsibilities and requirements that come from it - they have great difficulty in parsing what to do.  An ecclesiastical-religion viewpoint would find accommodation; a political one would just shout it down or use rhetoric to get around it.  It's only the fundamental, dogmatic, wild-eyes-and-beard religions that are as implacable.

And thus, this accusation of "global warming religion" -- it's nothing of the sort, but the accuser can't think of anything in their plastic worldview that's as immobile.  They've likely never come across something as immovable that is also unpalatable (gravity, after all, never offended anyone).  The only mental model that's available is religion. 

Science always wins, because science is based on facts.  No amount of wishful thinking would make Lysenko's comradely wheat grow.  No amount of snark will stop CO2 absorbing heat.

it makes me wonder if the cognitive dissonance and plain dumb fury that the denialsphere are feeling is similar to what geocentrists felt when Copernicus presented, and Kepler and Galileo later confirmed, that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Comments

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Consider this "they know that it's really all opinion" to be an a priori judgement, remove it and consider the observers need to accept their observations (including a priori) as Truth(tm).

Thus we can project a likelihood that the politicians and religious types make their a priori deliberations on all observations.

So subjects like climate change (or ANYTHHING with a scientific basis) is in their minds just another "point of view" and as it is unpleasant to think about they Project their a priori type thought system on to you and decide that you must really be after something that fits in their worldview. After all their personal worldview is immobile for them (Heisenburg) and totally consistant at their level of observation (eg it is "wrong to question faith") <- given these two points :. any scientific reason must be wrong/inconclusive. Of course their points only appear like that because of the "a priori" factor.
And since they are "Right" and "Consistant" then your obervation must be incorrect. Afterall their is only "Right" and "Wrong" in "Science" and since they already know they are "Right" then you must be trying something on. That you need scientific theories to back your judgements up, and those scientific theories question "known truths*" then you must be wrong. Even worse is the layfolk who have already fully or partially integrated "scientific truths" into their worldview (warning signs include: a belief in absolute scientific observations as "Truths") because the consider themselves informed and aware of science; when they have a priori'd the actual scientific process completely out the window by coming from the a priori assumption that "Science reveals Truths(tm)"**

*ie a priori assumptions
** rather than science shows trends and tests observations and can be used to predict probable outcomes. ie once it's "truth" it's no longer science, as science questions.