jabailo: For you, you mean?

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

One might interpret this thesis in several ways, each with implications on how to move forward in communicating with the general population. In one interpretation we would conclude that the average person is so unintelligent that the nuances and logic of scientific argument is beyond their ken. In that case they should be treated like cattle and prodded to move in the right direction.

But another interpretation is that people are intelligent enough but just ignorant. In that case there should be rhetoric that also educates the masses and pulls them along in the right direction. In this case the question becomes one of time. It takes time to educate people.

I think you have to choose one or the other basic premise as to why only simple words and persuasion based on repeating seems to be the only way forward.

My thesis pertains to the idea that most people are generally intelligent enough to have learned how science works and what scientific arguments mean. But humans have not evolved a sufficient level of sapience -- the basis of wisdom -- to have good (minimally biased and morally motivated) judgments. And as much of a result is that our education system is quite deficient. Lacking adequate sapience, the majority of human beings continue to fail to grasp their need to understand the real world as it actually works. They prefer to rely on religious dogma and/or ideology.

The big question, then, is: Is it really feasible to convince people to understand and do the right thing to avoid a bad future? I suspect it is an open question (I have no answer certainly). And the consequence is it is hard to know how much effort to put to trying to convince people, vs. putting effort into preparing for an inevitable future.

Question Everything

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Joe writes:"Anyone who wants to understand -- and change -- the politics of global warming, must understand why the deniers, delayers, and inactivists are so persuasive in the public debate and why scientists and scientific-minded people are not"

But there is no debate. If I turn on TV, read the newspaper, search for public events, I never see any. Gloomy subjects like ecosystem collapse don't sell advertising. Our media environment is toxic and not in the public interest. Even the best rhetorical speakers (like Tim Flannery) can make little impact in such a world.

One partial solution: Reclaim the Media, as part of a democratic awakening that challenges corporate power.

gmobus:

I think you have to choose one or the other basic premise as to why only simple words and persuasion based on repeating seems to be the only way forward.

The way I see it, repetition serves two functions:

(1) to force the repeated idea into people's minds, and
(2) to crowd out other ideas so that they don't even get a hearing.

Sometimes I wonder whether we're giving a bit too much credit to the inactivists' supposed "rhetorical prowess". Well, it's part of the story, but another part of the story is the existence of climate trolls, sockpuppets, and strawman sockpuppets who spam forums with illogical garbage 405 times a day just for the sake of it.

This doesn't even require much rhetorical skill; it just needs lots of brute force, lots of time, and lots of Cheetos.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Some quotations on scientific communication:

"Unlike the search for knowledge, which is accepted as a legitimate practice, the search for
allies must be disguised by other professional activities. Ultimately, this necessity is rooted in
the larger belief that science is objective and value-free, while political life is ideological and
value-driven."

-Karen Litfin

Take notice, this ["rash treatment of the truth"] is not due to primary research in the
environmental field: this generally appears to be professionally competent and well balanced. It
is due, however, to the communication of environmental knowledge, which taps deeply into
our doomsday beliefs. Such propaganda is presented by many environmental organizations... and
is readily picked up by the media.

-Bjorn Lomborg

a sibilant intake of breath

sindark:

Hahahahahaha!!!!!! It's ironic that inactivists such as Lomborg keep appearing on the media talking about how the media keep repeating only "doomsday" "propaganda"!

And of course the inactivists keep repeating, repeating, repeating this stupid canard in the media. And of course, the more it's repeated in the media, the less true it becomes.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Justice John Hansen on a global warming debate in Avenues :

[...] an alleged stifling of free speech -- really? How is it then that his views, and similar views expressed by others, can be readily found not only in Avenues, but in other mainstream media as well?

People keep appearing on the media complaining about how the media are stifling their views. Yeah, right.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism