People aren't so simple minded. They do care why people are hypocrites.
If they perceive that the above Dr. is willing to sacrifice personal
health to increase the knowledge of humankind it would not be concerned
about nor would it in all probability label such behaviour hypocritical.
The celebrity who excoriates others to spend more of their already
meager income purchasing more environmentally benign products and take
public transportation rather than an SUV while they fly in private jets
will not be perceived as the above Dr. in your example. That is why it
is a poor analogy. [JT]
>
>
>> Also if one takes the premise that celebrities can have such an impact
>> then their hypocrisies will only serve to undermine it. [JT]
>>
>
>
> Only if the public perceives the "hypocrisy" as weakening the
> argument offered or neutering the celebrity appeal. I doubt the last
> is the case and I think that the public sees that the "hypocrisy"
> does not make the argument invalid. [ravi]
>
The argument of whether anthropomorphic climate change is real or not would of course not be effected by the individual hypocrisy of the messenger. However the message to reduce your carbon foot-print from someone whose foot-print is many times greater is effected by the hypocrisy of the messenger. Messages to reduce consumption from persons who engage in hyper consumption will most likely be dismissed. [JT]
>> Since the
>> wealthy have greater resources at their disposal they can physically
>> reduce their carbon output more easily from a financial standpoint
>> since
>> the technology to do so is currently expensive. Celebrities can do
>> more
>> to affect change in regards to the climate by serving as early
>> adopters
>> of green technology and helping to drive the costs down for others
>> than
>> they can as hypocritical mouthpieces moaning about the excesses of
>> others. [JT]
>>
>
>
> Except celebrities cannot (generally) influence other celebrities,
> and the few who do campaign for mass changes will not make any impact
> on the issue, even if they act in the manner above. [ravi]
>
If you believe this you do not understand celebrity behaviour.
Celebrities greatly influence other celebrities and they do so much more
than they actually influence non-celebrities. [JT]
>> If one prattles on about the importance of
>> reducing carbon output, even without the finger wagging, but refuse to
>> put such measures into practice oneself is also being massively
>> hypocritical. Massive hypocrites generally offer society very
>> little. It
>> isn't about a technique for hypothesis verification. It is about how
>> effective someone can be in raising the consciousness of society.
>> Hypocrisy undermines effectiveness. [JT]
>>
>
>
> This begs the question on what does raise the consciousness of
> society. I believe consciousness is raised by learning something (a
> "hypothesis") that is meaningful, true ("verification"), explanatory,
> etc. Whom I learn it from, what they do, etc is mostly irrelevant to
> this process.
>
This is the same error in thinking that Chomsky unfortunately succumbs to. The mistaken idea that if only people were presented with the facts of an issue then consciousness raising will naturally follows. Unfortunately this isn't how things work in the real world. Changing peoples minds is more complex. In addition people are more likely to alter their behaviours to emulate the behaviours of others (especially those of the classes they perceive as above them) than they are to change their behaviours because of the admonitions of people who do not follow their own advice.
John Thornton