11

Want To See How Far They'll Go? Psychological 'vaccine' could help immunize public against 'fake news' on climate change

Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 3 months ago to Science
35 comments | Share | Flag

So, if the science and the facts don't support you, now they'll apply psychological vaccination/innoculation to you. Believe it or not, this is real.

""The idea is to provide a cognitive repertoire that helps build up resistance to misinformation, so the next time people come across it they are less susceptible."

To find the most compelling climate change falsehood currently influencing public opinion, van der Linden and colleagues tested popular statements from corners of the internet on a nationally representative sample of US citizens, with each one rated for familiarity and persuasiveness.

The winner: the assertion that there is no consensus among scientists, apparently supported by the Oregon Global Warming Petition Project. This website claims to hold a petition signed by "over 31,000 American scientists" stating there is no evidence that human CO2 release will cause climate change.

The study also *used the accurate statement that "97% of scientists agree on manmade climate change*". Prior work by van der Linden has shown this fact about scientific consensus is an effective 'gateway' for public acceptance of climate change."

Still want to listen to the experts? These people have no* limits.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 3 months ago
    The ghost of Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels rears his ugly head from the grave that was Hitler's Bunker.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not just governments. Don't leave out the closely-held corporations having ranking UN officials as their chief executive officers. Cf. Rajendra Pachauri.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It sure comes off that way. They should have chosen an apolitical, non-religious scientific fact. ESP or the Bermuda Triangle would have been the perfect choice. They're not real, fun to believe in, are not highly politicized, and there are books and TV show that put forward information contrary to the scientific consensus. Unlike things like Global Warming or GMO safety, most people don't really care that much about ESP. It would have been the perfect topic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The point of the experiment, though not specifically detailed, is obviously to prove the efficacy of propaganda/brain washing techniques. There is no interest by these people to assess critical thinking or even independent thought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 3 months ago
    In addition to using neutral "inoculation statements", they should have tried it with other scientific facts that are unpopular with segments of the population: there's no evidence of risk of GMOs, vaccines are safe, homeopathy has no effect, ESP is not real, chemical pesticides with strange names can be safer than "natural" alternatives, there's no evidence of an afterlife, humankind evolved by mutations and selective pressure, quantum physics does not validate mysticism.

    They would randomly assign one of these undesirable/unpopular facts to subjects. Some would get an "inoculating" statement listing common logical fallacies. Another would get an 'inoculation" saying sometimes the truth is undesirable, but humans can often overcome undesirable conditions by facing them. Others would get no inoculation.

    Then we would see how the inoculations affect different types of anti-science.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 3 months ago
    This experiment, as I understand it, seems flawed. The inoculation should have been a general warning about critical thinking and questioning sources. The "inoculation" texts in the experiment specifically criticized (one directly, the other indirectly) one of the two sample texts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 3 months ago
    If you want some cheering up, read the comments section following this article.

    It would also be useful to know what percentage of "climate scientists" are receiving some or all of their funding from governments.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 3 months ago
    See my recent thread on California SB-155. That law is to do this in the schools. And, it will pass...

    Sounds crazy...
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo