@arteteco Well I think that is the closest to the opposite I can think of. People who dont think global warming and environmental damage is a big concern.

@freemo @arteteco

As long as the argument is about an understanding, or opinion based on agreed upon facts that would work.

That is the sticking point, though- Facts. You can argue interpretations of facts, but the facts will still remain facts.

@Surasanji The problem is all humans can ever have are opinions.

Facts certainly exist but every human has their own opinion on what is or is not a fact.

The world would be much easier if there was some mythical authority who dictates what is what :)
@arteteco

@freemo @arteteco I'm not sure I can agree with that statement.

Mathematics, for instance, is more fact than opinion as I understand it. I know there are some areas that are just way out there and I certainly don't understand those things- nor do I have an opinion on it.

But 2+2=4. That's a fact and I'm 99.9% certain that is not an opinion.

@Surasanji Proofs are the closest you can get to "fact" but even those are often found out to be wrong later. So I'd say thats still an example of people having an opinion that something is a fact.

@arteteco

@freemo @Surasanji @arteteco This is where the study of tribal psychology comes into play. We are wired to be good members of our tribe above anything else. They've done studies multiple times that indicate that as soon as something becomes an issue of "us vs them," people will believe outright lies because it's just what our brain does. So you can argue facts all day long but the real issue is tribalism.

@hashtaggrammar Excellent point, Totally agree.

@Surasanji @arteteco

@hashtaggrammar @freemo @Surasanji @arteteco Yup, there is at least one great study I know of.

@hashtaggrammar @freemo @Surasanji @arteteco While this may be a good description of the problem, what's the solution? And is it even really a problem or will that tribalism just motivate both sides?

@comphys @hashtaggrammar @freemo @arteteco Maybe make the tribe bigger? How would we create that social construct, though?

@hashtaggrammar
Can you point out some work?

I mean, there is some resistance to new ideas, and that is quite obvious from the history of science itself, but eventually the truth emerges.
Regardless of whatever your opinion is, you have to go to incredible lengths to go, say, against the cell theory.
We can see cells, we know a great deal about cells, I don't see how you can easily deny the existance of cells.

I'm not saying psychological biases has a role, but saying that it's the "real issue" seems a bit of an overstatement to me. Interpretation of data seems way more of a difficulty.

@freemo @Surasanji

@arteteco @freemo @Surasanji

I learned about the topic through the podcast You Are Not So Smart, episodes Tribal Psychology and Uncivil Agreement.

This is all in terms of the political sphere, because politics divides us into "us vs them." Science is science and facts are facts. But each gets skunked once it's politicized. If you can make sure that cell theory doesn't enter the political sphere, no one will claim we don't see cells. But if it's a "liberal" issue, then conservatives will find ways to say it's all a conspiracy. Case in point: flat earthers.

What's encouraging is everyone believes scientific findings when it's presented objectively. Then it's just the issue of making sure the science is sound...which is a separate topic!

@freemo
Well, not really. A proof is such only in relation to an existing hypothesis/Theory, it has no place in the "real" world beside it.
A fact, as @Surasanji means I think, is something that exists regardless of the opinions, theory or ideas.
If you shape the glass in a certain way and look into it, things will look closer. That is a 'fact'.
Up to you to make it a proof for something, or even use it to disproof something else.

@arteteco
It is still only an opinion of a fact. Maybe you were hallucinating when you looked.
@Surasanji

@freemo
It can be, sure. That is why it has a specific set of instructions, and can be reproduced.

Now, if many independent tester repeat the instructions and have the same results, the chances of it being an allucination are so thiny that I hope you are not proposing it as a possibility.

Fire will burn you. Try it, again and again, on people and on youself, it will still burn. That is a good starting point.

I may be wrong in it, but if my predictions prove themselves true, the fact is tested over and over, come on, do you follow that line of thought in your life and keep testing fire?

Sure, maybe it won't burn you next time, but if we can't even agree on that then any communication is really impossible.

@Surasanji

@arteteco @freemo @Surasanji I can pass my hand through a yellow flame of a bunsen burner and feel nothing more than a warmth on my hand, and if I am quick, I can do the same passing my hand through the flames of a fire. I can judge the heat of a flame by its colour. I know the fire will burn me if I am too slow, or if the flame is too hot. Some people need to experience these things for themselves to understand the nature of fire. Only then can they really appreciate the fact that fire WILL burn the shit out of them if they aren't careful with it.

@Surasanji

Mathematic is tricky in this regard. 2+2 is not really a fact, is something that comes from a convention we can agree upon about how to interpret the world.
I mean, once 2 people both accept the premises of mathematics, they of course have to accept the consequences, but those are not really facts - more akin to pure logic, IMO
@freemo

@Surasanji
This.
If I put a stick in the ground, perpendicular to it, in 2 days a year at midday it will have no shadow.

I think a lot can be argued against how pure the experiment is, on the inductive reasoning of it, on the fallacies of simply relying on facts, on how theories distort facts and so on, but something remains, pure: the fact observed itself.

After agreeing upon that, we can work it out together.

@freemo

@arteteco
Your just picking opinions of facts most people tend to agree on. It's still an opinion of a fact. You could be crazy and everything might make sense in your head but in reality it is nonsense. There is always that chance no matter how certain a fact seems.

@Surasanji

@freemo
I can be crazy, and everything is a lie, but can I test it or prove it?

How to choose the best interpretation of what happens is a delicate philosophical matter, but I won't say that the most reasonable and sensible explanation for the fire burning me is that I am crazy, after so much testing.

I will not have the 100% certainty, but you don't need that in science or life, and you'll likely never have it anyway. When things approach a high enough level of possible truth and endure many attacks we treat them as facts, in science, in communication, as people in general. That is my understand of it, anyway.
@Surasanji

@arteteco @freemo @Surasanji I don't see how it's in any way productive to disagree with others who don't share your priors. Good-faith disagreements in which both parties generally agree on the fundamentals, differ in their interpretation of the consequences, and are willing to learn from their disagreements? Great, I love it. But if someone disagrees with me and fundamentally disagrees on the realities of the world in which we live, there's nothing there to be gained for either of us. That's where we get into culture wars, where the only possible outcomes of any argument are victory or defeat.

@freemo @arteteco "We can fix all that with technology!"

@commandelicious @freemo @arteteco I read an article somewhere about how Global Warming will end all wars because too much money will have to be spent in fighting the ocean to support military spending. I'll see if I can find it. Interesting opinion piece.

@Surasanji @freemo @arteteco Haha, what naive people ... we will just fight over land.

@arteteco @freemo I agree - I am wary of the term environmentalist because it seems so politically charged - I have a hard time believing that even oil barons wish for their children to live in a dystopia where the environment has fallen apart. One of many (many) issues where I think most people want the same things in one way or another, and just differ on how we could/should get there.