Another example of junk journalism and science!
When someone uses the demagoguery of the so called anthropogenic climate change you know immediately you are dealing with a demagogue!
How ironic is that, the the researcher herself suffers from the condition she investigates by generating auxiliary hypothesis! 😊
"... Some beliefs tend to coexist. For example, those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change are more likely to trust alternative medicine. Similarly, scepticism towards vaccines often aligns with a belief in the superiority of parental intuition over medical expertise. These interconnected beliefs reinforce one another, making them resilient to contradictory evidence. ...
My research with the Turing focuses on studying belief change within the context of wider systems of belief. One intriguing finding from our research programme is that people often create ‘auxiliary hypotheses’ to resolve conflicting information – instead of changing our minds, we come up with unverified propositions to support our existing beliefs."
My research with the Turing focuses on studying belief change within the context of wider systems of belief. One intriguing finding from our research programme is that people often create ‘auxiliary hypotheses’ to resolve conflicting information – instead of changing our minds, we come up with unverified propositions to support our existing beliefs."
From the abstract:
"Although research in the area of belief updating has flourished in the last two decades, most studies do not treat beliefs as part of a complex and interactive network. In this study, we investigate humans' use of auxiliary hypotheses as a mechanism to avoid belief updating in light of conflicting information. In Experiment 1, we replicate an unpublished study by Kahneman and Tversky, introducing two additional domain conditions (N=119). Participants construct an initial model, express a prior belief, and face conflicting information. They are then prompted to provide an explanation. Across three domains, only 37% of responses demonstrate belief updating, by attributing the information conflict to the original report being unreliable or invalid. In Experiment 2 (N=29), a within-participants manipulation of credibility shows no effect on generating auxiliary hypotheses. Even in the presence of credibility cues to explain away information conflicts by invoking the reliability of either source, participants instead generated auxiliary hypotheses to resolve them in 27% of the cases."
No comments:
Post a Comment