Ideologues are immune to evidence

By -
ESPN quotes Milwaukee Bucks player Khris Middleton:

‘"We talked about [the verdict] a little bit as a team," Middleton said after Friday's game. "Speaking for myself, it was definitely disappointing, but at the same time, it really wasn't surprising about the verdict. I watched [the trial] a little bit and was able to keep up with it, but it's something that I think we've all seen over and over again."’

Middleton only watched the trial “a little bit,” but nevertheless knows that it’s something “we’ve all seen over and over again.”

In other words, if the verdict came in “not guilty“ Middleton already knew what he would say about such a verdict, without even paying any real attention to the trial.

This is why ideologies are immune to rational refutation based on evidence. Whatever happens, the ideologue will fit it into his worldview by categorizing it as “something we’ve seen over and over again.”

And listen, you libertarians upset by woke ideology, this is exactly what you all do when faced with falsifying evidence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more