These kinds of studies are well known. A few years ago, the "Organizations and Markets" blog wrote about "Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus" by Dan M. Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith and Donald Braman. I tracked down the original paper and posted a link and comments on my own blog. ("Why Evidence is not Enough" here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...)

The authors created three pairs of scientific papers pro and con on gun control, nuclear power, and global warming. The fictional authors had carefully equivalent qualifications from universities and cited publications.

It was not just that people agreed with what they agreed with. They discounted the academic credentials of their opponents while underscoring the exactly equal backgrounds of their chosen experts. In other words, their definition of "expert" was "someone who agrees with me."

From the New Yorker article here, it seems easy to understand why the works of Ayn Rand are popular with young readers: they have less invested in previous choices; and (saliently), they respond to the self-affirming message.

This article is an extremely poor example to illustrate the problem - it is as much a push poll for leftist ideals [issues that are actually a mix of truth and misinformation but leftist wish you to believe they aren't true]. As such the article is worthless. I could create a similar list that would make leftist minds melt.

I think the issue goes deeper. We have a society that is often intellectually lazy. They grab on to talking points, never questioning who, if anyone, validated the so called facts. For instance, I was trying to tell a friend, with a B.S., about a political candidate. She did not believe me, and said she would go to the candidate's site to check it out. What! No, I told her, look outside their own words.
We should have come to know that so-called experts, in many fields, aren't. We should know that politicians do not do their homework on issues. Doctors do not know what they should about drugs and their side effects. Greenies do not give all the facts, usually recite talking points, do not know the qualifications of those people, and NEVER talk about the influence, of man made attempts to deliberately control the weather.
It is time consuming to check out facts, to see who is pushing an agenda via half-truths. People are basically lazy when it comes to things outside their own lives. They might spend hours on the cell phone texting, but it is not educational. They will gravitate to the easy hand fed choices when it comes to the important stuff.

I find all of this interesting. I think that science has been under attack in America for a while and, frankly, it's on the losing end of the battle. I have intimate, firsthand knowledge about vaccines. I haven't come to the conclusion that they are without risk. I won't try to educate somebody about it in this forum (so don't ask). But, there are major discrepancies between what occurs in studies and what ends up in the news. After some time being involved in this I was up late reading my way though Atlas Shrugged and stumbled upon this quote. “In times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing men will sacrifice.” I couldn't sleep that night and it remains my favorite quote in the book. I have seen people, "officials", tasked with protecting the public completely throw science out the window. It bothers me a great deal. To those who think they have all the facts - check your premises. Checking our premises is a very healthy practice, albeit very difficult for many.

I think it's important to factor in "where" the source of the so-called "facts" are coming from when trying to determine why people may persist in not accepting those "scientific facts."

The reality is that over the past four decades, people have seen almost continuous lying from the established institutions such as government, media and corporations. The instances are far too many to list here, but a simple Google search will reveal hundreds of instances where the public has been lied to by those they're "supposed" to trust.

So people have a right to question so-called facts from sources which have been proven to be unreliable. All this underscores the need for people to research areas of interest and concern, on their own, before forming opinions, and not simply "accept" what they've been told by their government, the media or the corporations whose only concern is maximizing shareholder value.

In other words, intelligent people need to get of their asses and take personal responsibility to become informed...failure to do so has led us into the economic and political mess we're in now. You'd think we would have learned by now.

What you are pointing out is called confirmation bias, and is very prevalent in any debate. People are habitual/ritualistic in natural attitude: they don't like or seek change. In order to change, one has to first be willing to admit that one does not know as much about a topic as they previously thought. It also means that it calls into question reliance on the authority figures from which one acquired a particular belief as well - making true introspection doubly difficult.

The problem with any two-sided debate is whether or not the individual participating in the debate is interested in the truth - no matter where it may take them. The other problem is that debates often rely on subject-matter experts who are just as susceptible to confirmation bias as everyone else! Thus the need for a strict research regimen and peer review - assuming of course that the peers are also non-biased! It is very easy to see how this can quickly turn into a self-reinforcing cycle.

You think your slick coming at the racial debate from another angle. Ok, I’ll bite. Here’s what I think:
The first thing every brain on the planet does when confronted with stimulus is immediately shuffle the information into categories: Is this stimuli like me or not like me?” It is the most reliable, biological, self-serving tool in our primordial survival kit. People get shuffled too.
As we evolve and expose ourselves to more stimulus, we throw more into our ’this is like me’ pile. Our choices become nuanced. Obviously my choices are going to be more nuanced if I live in New York City then if I lived in a small county in Tennessee. None-the-less, choosing to separate yourself from things that make you uncomfortable or aren’t usually found in your environment is normal, healthy, and a necessary part of being human. it is a biological instinct.
From reading the article, I couldn’t consider that a true experiment unless they had also questioned aboriginals, placing the racial markers then removing them as they had for I am assuming the white-aussies? Otherwise, all you get from this lop-sided study is that white-aussies form prejudice against aborigines easy, instead of humans in general are capable of forming racial prejudices.
“Check your privilege” revisited? It is racist to point to one group and say, “You are the ones with the problem.” Why don’t you get that?

Michael Shermer answered the question in his book of close to the same title. Why? Because they want to and nothing else matters. It is the Primary of Consciousness trumping the Primary of Existence principles.

Part of the problem here is surely science's propensity to vacillate. Coffee causes health issues...no, no wait, coffee drinkers live longer, and on and on and on...

Maph i wonder if you or any other science or philosophy based Gulchers could comment on that story in respect of Karl Popper's concept of falsification? Essay due in a month. A nice meaty topic that this story would make great source material for.

It has been my experience that many people hold on to a false belief simply because it is comfortable. Others such as friends and family hold the belief, that settles the matter and no further thought is needed, and no effort needs to be put forth in order to grapple with it. It's a comfy chair for the brain.

Because rags like the Progressive Democrat "New Yorker" Harp on it, and people believe people they know first.

I'm still trying to figure out the strategy behind how ethical drugs are marketed in the media now. Some earnest spokesperson goes on for practically the entire spot telling us all the dire consequences of taking the product and then tell us: "it's not for everyone" (presumably only those who survived it), an then: "Ask your doctor it is right for you!" (What if his name is Kavorkian?)

This means that people who absorb negative stereotypes about themselves or feel like the world is against them are more likely to accept claims not supported by evidence? I wonder why the claims help with their identity. They feel like the underdog or the world is calling them a loser so therefore they think vaccines are dangerous? It rings true, but I would like to know why. I would like to know if we're emotional in a positive way and feel like totally awesome winners, would we also be more prone to this.

"Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True?"

cough!**global warming**cough!