A new study in Cognition, led by Andrew Shtulman at Occidental College, helps explain the stubbornness of our ignorance. As Shtulman notes, people are not blank slates, eager to assimilate the latest experiments into their world view. Rather, we come equipped with all sorts of naïve intuitions about the world, many of which are untrue. For instance, people naturally believe that heat is a kind of substance, and that the sun revolves around the earth. And then there’s the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don’t seem to be evolving.
This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts, shedding false beliefs the way a snake sheds its old skin.
To document the tension between new scientific concepts and our pre-scientific hunches, Shtulman invented a simple test. He asked a hundred and fifty college undergraduates who had taken multiple college-level science and math classes to read several hundred scientific statements. The students were asked to assess the truth of these statements as quickly as possible.
To make things interesting, Shtulman gave the students statements that were both intuitively and factually true (“The moon revolves around the Earth”) and statements whose scientific truth contradicts our intuitions (“The Earth revolves around the sun”).
As expected, it took students much longer to assess the veracity of true scientific statements that cut against our instincts. In every scientific category, from evolution to astronomy to thermodynamics, students paused before agreeing that the earth revolves around the sun, or that pressure produces heat, or that air is composed of matter. Although we know these things are true, we have to push back against our instincts, which leads to a measurable delay.
What’s surprising about these results is that even after we internalize a scientific concept—the vast majority of adults now acknowledge the Copernican truth that the earth is not the center of the universe—that primal belief lingers in the mind. We never fully unlearn our mistaken intuitions about the world. We just learn to ignore them.
Shtulman and colleagues summarize their findings:
When students learn scientific theories that conflict with earlier, naïve theories, what happens to the earlier theories? Our findings suggest that naïve theories are suppressed by scientific theories but not supplanted by them.
While this new paper provides a compelling explanation for why Americans are so resistant to particular scientific concepts—the theory of evolution, for instance, contradicts both our naïve intuitions and our religious beliefs—it also builds upon previous research documenting the learning process inside the head. Until we understand why some people believe in science we will never understand why most people don’t.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry
"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
And here is one for you Kulganis, Peter, Goldbug, Massive. Ignoring the 1790-1830 Dalton minimum (solar minimum), when global temperatures dropped 0.7-0.8deg C, all the man-made C02 global warming graphs conveniently show the temperature rise from the early 1820/1830's onward, and temperatures have risen 0.8deg C since the end of the Dalton minimum.
New paper finds .8C global cooling during Dalton Minimum The paper shows a ~16 x 10^22 Joule decrease in global ocean heat content from 0 to 100 meters during the Dalton Minimum, which by way of comparison is 3 times larger than the 5 x 10^22 Joule increase in global ocean heat content 0-100 meters over the past 55 years [Levitus et al 2012, figure 2]. The paper also shows a global surface temperature decrease of ~0.8C during the Dalton Minimum, by way of comparison about the same as the 0.7 – 0.8C global warming since the Little Ice Age ended in ~1850.
Kulganis, "realist" view of global warming is above. And extrapolate out to 12000 yrs, the "realist" view of normal natural temperature changes.
And the man-made global warming alarmists view of global sea-level rise (20cm rise in 120yrs - 6cm since AGW started 2-3mm/yr) 20-30cm/century - and after the 1790-1830 Dalton solar minimum - global cooling!!!, vs the "realist" natural climate change view. (126m in the 10000yrs from 17000-7000 yrs ago) or (50m in a 4000yrs period to 8000yrs ago - 125cm/century). man-made global warming alarmists view
Trends change over time. I can see several trends, including the most recent period which the IPCC calls the 'hiatus'.
Your argument rests entirely on what you claim is a period of little or no temperature gains, yet we have shown you that temperature rises are affected by a number of things including melting ice absorbing the warmth, as well as that melting ice entering the oceans and cooling down ocean temperatures which also has an added cooling effect.
In addition this may be due to a temporary cycle completely unrelated to CO2 in the atmosphere. It would hardly surprise anyone to learn that temperatures rise and fall within a range over time. I note that you are comparing averages whilst ignoring the fact that extreme temperatures are becoming more extreme and they are happening more often. Being boiled alive in one pot and frozen in another pot doesn't mean that the average temperature gives you any comfort at all.
Really until a couple of days ago you were not even aware that ice absorbs heat without a rise in temperature when it's near melting point. That tells me that I'm talking to someone with even less knowledge of science than me.
Seriously we may as well be a couple of goats discussing this subject which is way above my level of learning and clearly out of sight of your level of understanding.
So why don't you give up now before you make a complete goat of yourself. What you are effectively saying is that science is too important to be left to scientists, so lets leave it to a couple of rank amateurs like yourself. I'm afraid that is a recipe for disaster.
You can post your graph showing temperatures until you go blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that intelligent people here won't take any notice of it, it will only impress a couple of other goats with a similar lack of knowledge and understanding.
you were not even aware... I'm talking to someone with even less knowledge of science than me... clearly out of sight of your level of understanding... you make a complete goat of yourself... rank amateurs like yourself...
Cool rant, but I'm not going to engage in a pointless exchange of ad hominems. I'd prefer to stick to the topic.
Let me know when you're ready to debate like a grown up.
It would hardly surprise anyone to learn that temperatures rise and fall within a range over time.
Now you the climate change denier . Maybe you should inform the IPCC and your 97% "consensus" of this, given that not one of the 70+ climate models predict, or show any fall in any range over the next 100yrs.
Cool rant, but I'm not going to engage in a pointless exchange of ad hominems. I'd prefer to stick to the topic.
Let me know when you're ready to debate like a grown up.
I did.
cheers,
Investor888
28 Jun 2014, 04:00 PM
Now you the climate change denier . Maybe you should inform the IPCC and your 97% "consensus" of this, given that not one of the 70+ climate models predict, or show any fall in any range over the next 100yrs.
cheers, you are out of your depth on property, and now on climate change, but I know I won't change your opinion.
It's been superglued to a belief.
Clearly if you think I'm out of my depth, you have NO clue on property or climate.
Yep, completely out of my depth on property. 9 properties in 8yrs (1/yr on average) since 2006, worth about $3.5m now, on current 30% LVR. $1.1m in loan left. Buying PPOR in Sydney in 2018 (once market corrects a little - I'm expecting 15-20% by 2018 (back to 2012 levels- after a 20% spike since 2012), by selling down 2 investment properties and paying cash for a $900-950K PPOR unit of the harbour. In the meantime get a handful more investmest around the country over the next 3yrs, on our $350k household income (I'm the low income earner in the family, only on $160K/yr contracting in IT). Then pay down everything over the next 7 years (have PPOR and maybe 12 investment properties completely debt free), and retire at 45 in 2021 living off $150000/yr passive income after property expenses and income tax.
SO, SO out of my depth it's unbelievable. Help me Peter, I need your wise assistance. Twits. I'm off to Somersoft. More intelligent like-minded people there. See ya twits.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy