Logic vs. emotion

[PeteMcK]

An interesting article on why logical argument doesn’t always work (relevant to a lot of the posting on DIY Audio):

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science | Mother Jones

[jkeny]

IQ Vs EQ

[abraxalito]

Yep - people make decisions based on emotion then dream up all kinds of 'logical' stories for why they've made those decisions. No amount of argument can possibly dislodge those stories. They might, in extremis get subject to modification but because the reason for their existence is the original emotion, they can't be totally eradicated.

[c2cthomas]

Try child psychology on 'em. Nooooooo - I'm not kidding...

[jkeny]

Yes they can & nothing you can say will change my mind

[c2cthomas]

Originally Posted by jkeny

Yes they can & nothing you can say will change my mind

I'll bet that you can be bribed with a big lolly-pop - or maybe a case of stout.

[jkeny]

[CopperTop]

Here's an example of when the normal level of 'scientific method' was shown to fall short of true objectivity:
Water memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In summary, a researcher's experiments showed that homeopathic 'water memory' was real - an extraordinary claim. The journal Nature could find no error in the experimental method and so reluctantly published the paper, but appointed its own team of sceptical scientists to repeat the experiments. They too, got the same positive result!

In the first series of supervised experiments, the original experimental procedure was followed as it had been when the paper was first submitted for publication. The experiments were successful, matching the published data quite closely. However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. No memory effect was observed in the blinded experiments.

From this, I draw quite an important conclusion: that what often passes for science, isn't. Nature could find no problem with the experimental method, and went ahead and published the paper. If the claims had not been so extraordinary, it looks as though no one would have even thought about the experimenters' bias, and certainly would not have gone to the huge trouble of repeating the experiments double blind.

As far as I can tell, nothing in the whole 'science' of climatology (mentioned as an example of a science often denied by "hierarchical individualists" in PeteMcK's link), is done double blind, from the collecting of the data by amateurs, to the correcting for urban heat island effect, to the creation of the software models. I wouldn't blame anyone for failing to accept the results, even if, like Nature, they couldn't immediately spot any experimental errors in it. But the author of Pete McK's article would brand such people as 'deniers' with a high probability of being right wing nutjobs.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by CopperTop

The journal Nature could find no error in the experimental method and so reluctantly published the paper, but appointed its own team of sceptical scientists to repeat the experiments.

Are you sure about that? I haven't read your links but from memory they appointed Randi - he's certainly sceptical but by no means a scientist.

[sofaspud]

Randi - he's certainly sceptical but by no means a scientist.

The whole point (or a large portion) is that "scientists" are often NOT the best experts to judge experiments and experimental evidence.