OK, but that’s the wrong statistic. What percent of the U.S. population insists that the Earth is flat and/or the center of the Universe? How does that compare to the percent of the U.S. population that insists that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
Well, around 40% of the US thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But you seem to have a valid point, in that the fraction of the US population which believed in geocentrism dropped drastically in the 1960s and the same for the flat earth percentage which dropped from tiny to negligible. But that seems directly connected to what was actively accomplished in the Moon landings. Young Earth Creationism by contrast was not very popular from 1900 to 1960 or so (even William Jennings Bryan was an old earth Creationist). That made a comeback in the 1960s starting when Henry Morris wrote “The Genesis Flood” in 1961, and that continued to pick up speed through the Moon landings (this incidentally undermines my earlier argument about Sputnik).
Nevertheless, major scientific accomplishments should help solve the problem of expecting short inferential distances.
Are you sure that they will be more willing to listen to long inferential distance claims? I suspect that people may be more likely to simply take something for granted and add that to their worldview. I don’t for example see the common presence of computers or other complicated technologies as substantially increasing the inferential distance people are willing to tolerate.
I mean, if you want, we could switch our donations to fund a program that makes sure the Russians discover a cure for aging...
This leads to an interesting idea: improve science and rationality in one area by helping funding science for rivals. I wonder if that would work...
Young Earth Creationism by contrast was not very popular from 1900 to 1960 or so (even William Jennings Bryan was an old earth Creationist). That made a comeback in the 1960s starting when Henry Morris wrote “The Genesis Flood” in 1961, and that continued to pick up speed through the Moon landings (this incidentally undermines my earlier argument about Sputnik).
Part of that change could perhaps be attributed to the waning effectiveness of hiding behind ‘old earth’ as a way to keep on side with ‘science’. Once the option of alliance with ‘science’ lost viability the natural approach is stake the in group identity as being opposed to any attempts whatsoever to conform historic beliefs to actual evidence. If you can’t have an image of ‘sane’ then you go for an image of ‘confident and uncompromising’ - it is usually more attractive anyway.
I mean, if you want, we could switch our donations to fund a program that makes sure the Russians discover a cure for aging...
This leads to an interesting idea: improve science and rationality in one area by helping funding science for rivals. I wonder if that would work...
I had an idea I call the “evil genius theory” that goes something like this: challenge can produce growth and strength; great challenge, on the verge of existential, can produce tremendous amounts of growth in short periods of time; therefore, fund an evil genius to do great and terrible things, and the challenge / response will better the world on net.
Young Earth Creationism by contrast was not very popular from 1900 to 1960 or so (even William Jennings Bryan was an old earth Creationist). That made a comeback in the 1960s starting when Henry Morris wrote “The Genesis Flood” in 1961, and that continued to pick up speed through the Moon landings (this incidentally undermines my earlier argument about Sputnik).
Part of that change could perhaps be attributed to the waning effectiveness of hiding behind ‘old earth’ as a way to keep on side with ‘science’. Once the option of alliance with ‘science’ lost viability the natural approach is stake the in group identity as being opposed to any attempts whatsoever to conform historic beliefs to actual evidence. If you can’t have an image of ‘sane’ then you go for an image of ‘confident and uncompromising’ - it is usually more attractive anyway.
Well, around 40% of the US thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But you seem to have a valid point, in that the fraction of the US population which believed in geocentrism dropped drastically in the 1960s and the same for the flat earth percentage which dropped from tiny to negligible. But that seems directly connected to what was actively accomplished in the Moon landings. Young Earth Creationism by contrast was not very popular from 1900 to 1960 or so (even William Jennings Bryan was an old earth Creationist). That made a comeback in the 1960s starting when Henry Morris wrote “The Genesis Flood” in 1961, and that continued to pick up speed through the Moon landings (this incidentally undermines my earlier argument about Sputnik).
Are you sure that they will be more willing to listen to long inferential distance claims? I suspect that people may be more likely to simply take something for granted and add that to their worldview. I don’t for example see the common presence of computers or other complicated technologies as substantially increasing the inferential distance people are willing to tolerate.
This leads to an interesting idea: improve science and rationality in one area by helping funding science for rivals. I wonder if that would work...
Part of that change could perhaps be attributed to the waning effectiveness of hiding behind ‘old earth’ as a way to keep on side with ‘science’. Once the option of alliance with ‘science’ lost viability the natural approach is stake the in group identity as being opposed to any attempts whatsoever to conform historic beliefs to actual evidence. If you can’t have an image of ‘sane’ then you go for an image of ‘confident and uncompromising’ - it is usually more attractive anyway.
I had an idea I call the “evil genius theory” that goes something like this: challenge can produce growth and strength; great challenge, on the verge of existential, can produce tremendous amounts of growth in short periods of time; therefore, fund an evil genius to do great and terrible things, and the challenge / response will better the world on net.
It feels very plausible to me.
Part of that change could perhaps be attributed to the waning effectiveness of hiding behind ‘old earth’ as a way to keep on side with ‘science’. Once the option of alliance with ‘science’ lost viability the natural approach is stake the in group identity as being opposed to any attempts whatsoever to conform historic beliefs to actual evidence. If you can’t have an image of ‘sane’ then you go for an image of ‘confident and uncompromising’ - it is usually more attractive anyway.