Priming people with scientific data that contradicts a particular established belief of theirs will actually make them question the utility of science in general. So in such a near-mode situation people actually seem to bite the bullet and avoid compartmentalization in their world-view.
From a rationality point of view, is it better to be inconsistent than consistently wrong?
There may be status effects in play, of course: reporting glaringly inconsistent views to those smarty-pants boffin types just may not seem a very good idea.
I wonder if this counts as evidence for my heuristic of judging how seriously to take someone’s belief on a complicated scientific subject by looking to see if they get the right answer on easier scientific questions.
http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/yeah-well-you-can-prove-anything-with-science/
Priming people with scientific data that contradicts a particular established belief of theirs will actually make them question the utility of science in general. So in such a near-mode situation people actually seem to bite the bullet and avoid compartmentalization in their world-view.
From a rationality point of view, is it better to be inconsistent than consistently wrong?
There may be status effects in play, of course: reporting glaringly inconsistent views to those smarty-pants boffin types just may not seem a very good idea.
See also ‘crank magnetism.’
I wonder if this counts as evidence for my heuristic of judging how seriously to take someone’s belief on a complicated scientific subject by looking to see if they get the right answer on easier scientific questions.