|
Post by ultima1 on Jun 15, 2010 7:48:47 GMT -4
The " no moon landing" people also need to do research to find out that American and Chinese probes have photos of the moon landing sites.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2010 8:21:21 GMT -4
Hi, ultima1. All these well reasoned arguments for supporting the authenticity of the moon landings won't work on entrenched hoax believers. The real hardcore believers got to where they are out of emotion. Logic didn't weigh into their belief, thus logic won't get them out. They want to believe it was all fake so they'll rationalize it in anyway they can. For many there is no argument that anyone can offer that will get them to change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 15, 2010 9:06:53 GMT -4
The usual way to put this in a nutshell is:
"You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into in the first place."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 15, 2010 9:59:35 GMT -4
The usual way to put this in a nutshell is: "You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into in the first place."That statement is really BS. I bet each of us has a story of something we accepted on authority in our youth that was untrue and we, ourselves, or someone else, reasoned us out of the position. I know I do. The key is not how you got into the position, but how amenable you are to reason getting you out of it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2010 11:54:36 GMT -4
That statement is really BS.I would say it's partially BS. We say it in a nutshell, meaning that it's a high-altitude summary of a complex behavioral phenomenon and belief system. I bet each of us has a story of something we accepted on authority in our youth that was untrue...Indeed. But the key is "in our youth." Trust in authority figures is the child's version of reason. The change in belief occurs as our internal model of rational thought changes. As our cognitive powers develop, we realize that Santa Claus can't fit down an 8-inch diameter chimney and probably doesn't build toys in his North Pole workshop that are also available through commercial retail. The development of critical thinking skills shouldn't be confused with the elective reluctance to employ them as adults. "When I was a kid I believed in..." is a natural developmental phenomenon. "The Bible tells me that God created the Earth in seven literal days," is certainly a trait of human nature, but perhaps of a slightly different class. The key is not how you got into the position, but how amenable you are to reason getting you out of it.I believe a corollary to that key is the honesty with which one evaluates his reasons for belief. Cognitive psychologists find that logical analysis plays a smaller role in human decision-making than any of us cares to admit. More salient factors are conformity, fear, and tradition (i.e., comfort). Dissonance arises when beliefs held according to these factors are questioned on logical grounds. Hence we try to put an intellectual veneer over what we believe. The meta-cognition of this behavior draws the line between defensible and indefensible reason. "The Bible tells me to believe in Creation, but it is my choice to believe the Bible on this point because of my upbringing and preference for moral guidance." If one "owns" the reason for his beliefs, it is a more responsible approach. A person is less likely to require others to share his beliefs if he understands honestly the reasons for his own belief. For example, Ed Mitchell said he believed the government was covering up knowledge of UFOs. At the time I spoke to him, he said his belief was based on disclosures by a person whom he trusted, but whom he did not wish to name. He fully understood that it was not unreasonable for me to doubt the claim since I could not examine his evidence. But on the other hand dissonance occurs when one's stated reasons for belief differ from his real reasons, or when one is not fully aware of his reasons for believing. In the Apollo hoax arena we find that people most often believe in the hoax theory for reasons that include implicit distrust of authority, a desire to separate oneself from the mainstream, and congruence with other anti-authority conspiracy theories. Nevertheless the proponent tends first to list evidentiary reasons for the belief, as if he had reasoned himself into that position. We find this among the principal hoax authors: they claim to have been firm believers in Apollo until they were persuaded by strong evidence for a hoax. As we've seen, the evidence is not strong. And when the evidence is challenged and refuted, the belief remains unchanged. That is because, contrary to advertisement, the belief was not based on the reasoning that was offered in support of it. The hoax believer is reluctant to say, "I just believe in the hoax because I want to." That's the gist of the statement. If the hoax proponent is not honest about why he believes in the hoax, then he cannot be reasoned with.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 15, 2010 12:30:48 GMT -4
That's the gist of the statement. If the hoax proponent is not honest about why he believes in the hoax, then he cannot be reasoned with. I agree that people may really use it to mean just that, but that is not what it says. The statement "You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into in the first place," makes a broad assessment that proposes a limit to the minds ability to change an opinion based on how one came to believe it. That assessment is inaccurate. If we mean certain people are not able or willing to examine the underpinnings of their beliefs, then lets say that. People who are able, can be reasoned out of unreasoned beliefs. Lets not exclude them.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 13:38:32 GMT -4
And you can't limit it to just children, either; I know several people who have believed things because they felt they were supposed to which they didn't hear about until adulthood, and yet they can sometimes be reasoned out of it. It's all to do with personality. Broadly, though, the average person is not amenable to being shown that they are wrong, at least not most of the time.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2010 14:31:22 GMT -4
I've never understood the mindset that prevents some people from admitting they're wrong. Personally, I've never had too much problem admitting I was wrong about something and adjusting my thinking. I understand that no body wants to be wrong, but it’s just asinine to cling to a wrong idea out of stubbornness. The key to not being wrong is to adopt you're way of thinking when confronted with new evidence so that next time you're right.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jun 15, 2010 14:43:36 GMT -4
I've never understood the mindset that prevents some people from admitting they're wrong. Personally, I've never had too much problem admitting I was wrong about something and adjusting my thinking. I understand that no body wants to be wrong, but it’s just asinine to cling to a wrong idea out of stubbornness. The key to not being wrong is to adopt you're way of thinking when confronted with new evidence so that next time you're right. I think it's all about ego. Plus, when a person puts any amount of effort into defending a position, they are far less likely to change their opinion on it....regardless of whether the are right or not. I think it's the appearance of losing face.....ego.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 15:30:22 GMT -4
My boyfriend's whole family has that attitude. I've had several deeply frustrating conversations with his mother in the last few days--her experiences in Texas thirty years ago trump the experiences I'm able to describe to her which are more current and/or more relevant. One of my boyfriend's brothers also once argued some point of Elizabethan weaponry with me on the grounds that he had a friend who studies Japanese weaponry of that same era, which gives him more knowledge than I have. I can't stand my boyfriend's brother . . . .
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2010 16:55:19 GMT -4
I have no problem defending a position as long as I honestly believe I’m right. But as soon as I come to the realization that I’m probably wrong, I want to be corrected because I have no desire to be on the wrong side of the issue in the future. I take it as an opportunity to learn and improve myself.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 15, 2010 17:55:07 GMT -4
The " no moon landing" people also need to do research to find out that American and Chinese probes have photos of the moon landing sites. Firstly, what Chinese probes? Secondly, Photoshop.
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jun 15, 2010 18:25:24 GMT -4
The " no moon landing" people also need to do research to find out that American and Chinese probes have photos of the moon landing sites. Firstly, what Chinese probes? Secondly, Photoshop. I believe that ill-fated Indian probe "verified" the Apollo landing sites although PW correctly points out the HBers can dismiss that kind of thing. One thing I've never heard HBers satisfactory address though is the fact that the USSR would've known and gleefully called us out had we faked the Apollo landing.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jun 15, 2010 18:29:15 GMT -4
The thing that has always interested me is that a hoax believer puts the same line of reasoning into anything that seems remotely odd. So you will often get someone who believes the Apollo missions were faked, 911 was an inside job, JFK was murdered by CIA, Princess Diana was murdered by the MI5/6/12 whatever.
What I find even more interesting is when the hoax belief is selective and and you get an individual who can see no hoax in one thing and will not use the same critical reasoning to debunk another.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 15, 2010 18:42:28 GMT -4
One thing I've never heard HBers satisfactory address though is the fact that the USSR would've known and gleefully called us out had we faked the Apollo landing. Bought off or co-conspirators are the two most common themes.
|
|