Reasoning your way out of moral panic

  • Thread starter lisab
  • Start date
  • #26
128
0


well it depends on the Scientific community's willingness to consider what is presented.

If lies and propaganda pollute our media - would we be more or less willing to seek out the truth?

I couldn't beleive the brash extent of McCarthyism and the rest of the world's blind acceptance to avoid false labeling.

Also there has to be a line drawn between whats shown on the media and whats actually happening. Media bias was exponential during the last 8 years. Some saw Fox news as a channel for made up hogwash and scare tactics, others believed it more than the bible. How often do we question the news?

For example
Heath Ledger overdosed on drugs
Heath Ledger abused prescription medication
Heath Ledger took a highly frowned upon combination of depression medication

So when do believe and stop believing the news? Some of us, regardless of educational background would believe what we're told. Some would actually question it. However most would take it as it is and couldn't be bothered to seek out the validity of what is being present.
 
  • #27
misgfool


So does anyone have any suggestions for dealing with someone who is emotionally attached to their point of view?

It depends on the person. But a generalized 9 step program could be given.

1. Find a comfortable time and place for a civilized debate
2. Establish facts that both sides can agree with
3. Offer pastries and refreshments
4. Start a logical conclusion process and advance slowly (add jokes to conversation when appropriate)
5. Based on background research of the person offer chocolates or other sweets
6. Make a logical conclusion based on the facts
7. Offer your shoulder, if you are right (opponent can't argue against it)
8. If you are wrong, thank for the lovely time spent with him/her and review your own point of view.
9. The remaining chocolates are reserved for the loser.
 
  • #28
4,488
72


Another example http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/6/95445/42836/ [Broken]

Note how the autor focusses on the people (the http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/online/sociol318/week4.html [Broken]) rather than the science:

But seriously, who are these people and should we rely on their views?...

how is that for..
the intensity of feeling expressed by a large number of people about a specific group of people who appear to threaten the social order at a given time.

Problem of course is the way the science is going right now:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=297387

You can't really discuss that instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,955
617


Another example http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/6/95445/42836/ [Broken]

Note how the autor focusses on the people (the http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/online/sociol318/week4.html [Broken]) rather than the science:



how is that for..

Problem of course is the way the science is going right now:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=297387

You can't really discuss that instead.

From the "folk devils" link...

Cohen argues that the exaggeration and distortion of truth by the mass media is a significant characteristic of a moral panic.

In my experience, this is true. The mass media love drama. And especially with respect to science reporting in the media, which I find to be dismal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
3,106
4


Would "moral panic" be more akin to "moralistic panic" or "panic over morals"?
 
  • #33
4,488
72


This version works for me but did I hear 3000 scientists? What was the real situation again?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory.
(...)
A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report.
(...)
Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments.
(...)
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
(...)
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.
lisab said:
Cohen argues that the exaggeration and distortion of truth by the mass media is a significant characteristic of a moral panic.
 
  • #34
4,254
1


Ethical Panic.
 

Related Threads on Reasoning your way out of moral panic

  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
87
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Top