In response to my Mother Jones piece, one Dr. Snugglebunny writes:
I am curious to know how the polarization of beliefs has come to its current state (especially in the USA) and why. Has it always been this extreme; it seems not? If not, why and how? More savvy propaganda/media proselytizing? Those questions lead to another, which is what would the way out of this be (surely a problem to confront across future generations, not fixable in the short term, for which the spin-science-to-ideally-match-values point of this piece is the more likely solution)? Better basic training in critical thinking in school science classes? As a scientist, I find that this training is so essential to be able to maximize chances of stepping outside oneself to evaluate facts and assign one's beliefs in proportion to the evidence. And yes, before this point is criticized (that everyone is biased and we are all doomed to our inflexible beliefs; a foolish distillation of the article) let's avoid the false dichotomy of flexible/inflexible beliefs. Beliefs can be flexible if one trains to be able to do it; that capacity is a sliding scale from none to lots of flexibility.
I agree it's a sliding scale. Journalists also learn through their training--some of them, at least--how to be more dispassionate. How to take a deep breath before, you know, blogging something that agrees with your personal beliefs and attacks those who disagree with them. The million dollar question is why science denial has gotten this bad recently, especially when we are all inclined to engage in motivated reasoning at different times. And yet nevertheless, it really does seem worse. That's something I'm currently working on understanding much better. My 2005 book The Republican War on Science provided some, but I now believe not all, of the explanation. Again, for the Mother Jones piece and comment thread, see here. I'm crossposting this over there.
