Merged "Climate change deniers more likely to believe in other CTs"

[Scott Sommers]

Yes, technically it's argumentum ad hominem since you're evaluating a specific claim based on properties of the person making it rather than on the evidentiary and logical merit it might have. But it's a gray area here since the properties you identify relate to the credibility of other arguments he has made on the same topic. To be scrupulously honest and faithful to the principles of skepticism, you should evaluate each and every one of his arguments on its merit alone. But yeah, credibility matters.

This is a good general argument for the issues raised by trolling, but McIntyre's specific case is interesting. He seems to believe that the fact some respondents selected beliefs in large numbers of different conspiracy beliefs is somehow evidence the study is compromised - that no one could possibly believe such a wide range of crazy ideas. But anyone who has spent time dealing with conspiracy theory knows this to be wrong. McIntyre is clearly unable to handle this kind of data.

I'm not sure if this is the original intention of the thread, but bit_pattern's original post points to an interesting understanding.

A thought provoking article from Stephen Lewandowsky from UWA highlighting the parallels between science denial and other conspiracy theories, in particular the political mindset of people who share such CT views. Enjoy:

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

(Note: this is NOT a thread to discuss the scientific basis for climate change, it's about the psychology of denial)

It is McIntyre who the agent of denial here, whether he is promoting conspiracy or not. He seems deeply bothered by the idea his beliefs are shared and promoted by truly disturbed people. It reminds me of the growing awareness among left-wing 9/11 Truthers that their ranks are populated by Holocaust deniers and and right-wing Christian nuts.

The denial here, or at least part of it, is that McIntyre refuses to accept that some of the people who believe what he does are really, really crazy.

 

[Dcdrac]

No No NASA did not fake the Moon Landings I did, I was a very precoucious one year old,

These TV pictures were made using a Super 8 cine camera, a papier mache set, action men for the astronauts (GI Joe to the US) and meccano to build the LMs.

 

[Scott Sommers]

This kind of 'contradiction' happens all the time in social science data. Sometimes it's placed as checks in the items. I understand the MMPI has items like this, but I have never read an actual MMPI. I personally have used items like this in surveys I did of pornography use. They are very hard to interpret directly. In fact, respondents will give answers to anything put in front of them whether or not these items reflect things that actually exist or even if they make sense. Respondents will answer items they don't understand and then tell you they did understand them. That's why you have to ask lots of people and use statistical techniques that average out the noise. But in fact, statistics are not the best way to handle this problem, as I have pointed out in my post above. There is a very good paper on this somewhere in the Internet. If you want to read it, I'll try and find it again.

Sometimes it happens by accident, as it appears happened here. The idea that respondents are reading items carefully and are responding to the items in the ways intended by their designer(s) is a sign of nativity and childishness with the data. Especially with items that are politically charged administered to a population that almost certainly suffers from other serious issues.

A recent example of the problem I'm referring to
15 Percent of Ohio Republicans Think Mitt Romney Killed Osama bin Laden

 

[abaddon]

Terrible apologies, but I keep reading the title and going "Wait, wut?"

 

[Scott Sommers]

A recent study on Moon landing conspiracy belief

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.2873/abstract
Lunar Lies: The Impact of Informational Framing and Individual Differences in Shaping Conspiracist Beliefs About the Moon Landings

Two studies examined the role of informational framing and individual differences on acceptance of the moon landings conspiracy theory (CT). In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups in which they were exposed to different forms of information about the moon landings CT. Results showed that information critical of the moon landings CT resulted in attenuated conspiracist beliefs and that information supportive of the CT resulted in stronger conspiracist beliefs. In addition, stronger belief in the moon landings CT was associated with participants' belief in other CTs and openness to experience. In Study 2, participants completed a survey measuring their belief in the moon landings CT and a range of individual difference factors. Results showed that acceptance of the moon landings CT was associated with the adoption of a conspiracist worldview and schizotypal tendencies. Possibilities for conceptualizing the functional roles played by CTs are discussed.

 

[LSSBB]

A recent study on Moon landing conspiracy belief

Lunar Lies: The Impact of Informational Framing and Individual Differences in Shaping Conspiracist Beliefs About the Moon Landings

Scott, the article you linked is "Examining Conspiracist Beliefs About the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart"

 

[Scott Sommers]

thanks

 

[smartcooky]

If NASA had released the Apollo 11 footage and called it a science fiction film, the CTers would be telling anyone that would listen that "Seriously dude! They landed on the moon for real!".

Something like that actually did happen back in the late 1970s.

The BBC released a "reality" television programme that was broadcast as a documentary, part of a series called "Science Report". The programme was about the discovery of secret plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of global warming becoming serious. It was called "Alternative Three".

Despite the fact that the release date was April 1st (April Fool's Day), and that several of the "parts" were played by well known actors, it still fooled a lot of people.

EDIT:
Some kind person has uploaded this onto YouTube in six parts, starting here...

h t t p ://w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=OE79kXzxNBw&feature=relmfu

Incredbly, even though it was clearly announced afterwards that this was an April Fool's Hoax, there are still people around who believe the basic tenets of this programme.

There is no accounting for sheer stupidity.

 

[Inside Mob]

A recent study on Moon landing conspiracy belief

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.2873/abstract
Lunar Lies: The Impact of Informational Framing and Individual Differences in Shaping Conspiracist Beliefs About the Moon Landings

"Results showed that acceptance of the moon landings CT was associated with the adoption of a conspiracist worldview and schizotypal tendencies."

Schizotypal? That's a new word to me but it sounds kinda nasty

 

[threadworm]

"Results showed that acceptance of the moon landings CT was associated with the adoption of a conspiracist worldview and schizotypal tendencies."

Schizotypal? That's a new word to me but it sounds kinda nasty

I think it means nutters.

I particularly like the stunning conclusion that showing people the opposing arguments to the hoax claims means people stop believing them.

In other words people will accept hoax claims until the claims are shown to be wrong, unless they are nutters.

 

[Mikeys]

I think it may be simpler than the paper suggests. Many people distrust 'Authority' and, by extension, 'Government'. A degree of mistrust is probably a healthy thing for society, but CTers have taken that lack of trust to an extreme, and distrust everything (more or less) that the government/media says. If NASA had released the Apollo 11 footage and called it a science fiction film, the CTers would be telling anyone that would listen that "Seriously dude! They landed on the moon for real!".

It sure will turn to something cutting like double edged knife.The hoaxers are dangerous. I take them seriously. Moon hoax matters only as much as it blunts progress of deep space science and by extension science generally. The actual benefit from the Apollo is 0. Real or Fake, what did you learn?

 

[Erock]

The actual benefit from the Apollo is 0. Real or Fake, what did you learn?

I learnt that there were benefits that you obviously haven't bothered to look at.

http://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Sc...Pages/Benefits-of-the-NASA-Space-Program.aspx

 

[Mikeys]

Let me restate, out of 1100 respondents, only 10 stated a belief in the Moon Hoax and a number of those were probably troll responses.

Such polls are of no merit. Majority of responders never explored the topic and take the official line at face value. Negate one of these and you will get changed results. Negate both, they will be changed even more.

 

[Garrison]

Such polls are of no merit. Majority of responders never explored the topic and take the official line at face value. Negate one of these and you will get changed results. Negate both, they will be changed even more.

Only if one assumes that the official version is false. The more I've learnt about Apollo the more certain I've become of it's reality

 

[Mikeys]

I learnt that there were benefits that you obviously haven't bothered to look at.

http://www.sac.edu/AcademicProgs/Sc...Pages/Benefits-of-the-NASA-Space-Program.aspx

What about the benefits and the knowledge acquired from the actual Apollo missions to the moon?

 

[abaddon]

Something like that actually did happen back in the late 1970s.

The BBC released a "reality" television programme that was broadcast as a documentary, part of a series called "Science Report". The programme was about the discovery of secret plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of global warming becoming serious. It was called "Alternative Three".

Despite the fact that the release date was April 1st (April Fool's Day), and that several of the "parts" were played by well known actors, it still fooled a lot of people.

EDIT:
Some kind person has uploaded this onto YouTube in six parts, starting here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE79kXzxNBw&feature=relmfu

Incredbly, even though it was clearly announced afterwards that this was an April Fool's Hoax, there are still people around who believe the basic tenets of this programme.

There is no accounting for sheer stupidity.

fixy linky

 

[abaddon]

What about the benefits and the knowledge acquired from the actual Apollo missions to the moon?

Well, what about them? You have been provided with a list. Did you have a point?

 

[threadworm]

What about the benefits and the knowledge acquired from the actual Apollo missions to the moon?

You mean apart from the internal structure of the moon, the origin composition and structure of lunar surface materials, proof that the moon is receding from the Earth, and proof that if we commit resources, time and effort to a project we can achieve all kinds of stuff?

The research is in: only the mentally deranged believe it was a hoax.

 

[Mikeys]

You mean apart from the internal structure of the moon, the origin composition and structure of lunar surface materials, proof that the moon is receding from the Earth, and proof that if we commit resources, time and effort to a project we can achieve all kinds of stuff?

The research is in: only the mentally deranged believe it was a hoax.

Rocks can be nice. You can put it behind glass and stare at it. We can have a match, sort of moon rock staring contest, who stares longer without winking at the moon rock wins the main prize - gravity bunny.

 

[abaddon]

Rocks can be nice. You can put it behind glass and stare at it. We can have a match, sort of moon rock staring contest, who stares longer without winking at the moon rock wins the main prize - gravity bunny.

That's just gibberish. What are you attempting to say?