Fact-resistant humans are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life

Andy Borowitz reports that "Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life."

Brilliant.

Actually, we DO understand the psychology of this phenomenon.  We know that human cognition which includes storytelling and logical thinking did not evolve to discern TRUTH but simply to enhance the probability of survival and reproductive success.  Right?  We are exquisitely tuned to detect inauthentic or flawed STORIES, not whether or not the stories are based on or contradict hard evidence.  On the contrary, to conserve energy under severe cognitive load, we basically delegate reasoning from evidence and first principles — which is HARD — to much more subconscious heuristics that are predisposed to select those stories framed to confirm existing beliefs and to filter out those stories which contradict them.  It’s called ‘confirmation bias.'

Borowitz is right:  shocks required to break through confirmation bias could include hunger, thirst or even respiration.

Reason, Truth, Lies, Empiricism and Belief in the Age of the Internet

In the March issue of The New Yorker Jill Lepore posted an amusing rant on reason, truth, lies, empiricism and belief in the "Age of the Internet."

She asks a good question:  How do we know?  And what is the role of evidence?  Reason?

Lepore observes in this season dominated by the Republican debates and largely negative advertising based almost exclusively on unsubstantiated opinion and belief:

1. "Tump doesn’t reason... He wants combat." 
2. "Cruz’s appeal is to the judgment of God. 'Father God, please . . . awaken the body of Christ, that we might pull back from the abyss,' he preached on the campaign trail."
3. "Rubio’s appeal is to Google."

Change in our System of Public Education

I've often heard repeated the following comparison to describe the inertia of our public education system and its resistance to change. And it's probably even true. It's said that business has changed so much in the past 50 years, that if were possible to transplant a business executive, a secretary (what's that?) or an engineer from 1961 to 2011, they would not be productive in a modern corporation or small business for many, many months, if ever. And yet, it is also said, a teacher from 1861 would probably do just fine in a modern classroom.

Cockburn Publishes Attack on Greenhouse Warming Theory

Alexander Cockburn published a story on Counterpunch today called "Is Global Warming a Sin?" attacking the theory of global warming. Initially the argument seemed somewhat personal and political but also cogent and founded on legitimate data and observations. However, after rereading it and looking for criticism -- especially of the arguments he raised that seemed original and missing from the mainstream debate -- cracks in his argument started to appear. And the closer I looked the more I realized that it's pretty sophisticated politically but really inadequate with respect to what I am beginning to expect of science journalism.

Despite the weaknesses of article, however, it is a great opportunity to understand the anatomy of a cultural and political attack on science itself.

How Exxon Spent $15 Million to Create Confusion and Dissent in Global Warming Debate

The Union of Concerned Scientists has published an powerful and compelling report on exactly how Exxon spent $15 Million with dozens of shady organizations appearing to produce legitimate science and policy reports in order to discredit the real science behind global warming. It’s 60-some pages but really impressive in its attention to detail.

Most of the report is focused on the elaborate web of organizations, associations, think-tanks and consultancies Exxon has funded to create the impression that there is a large, heterogeneous group of informed scientists who disagree on the basic facts and theory of anthropogenic climate change.  They have documented a deliberate attempt to manufacture a controversy in science when, in fact, there is none.