--- On Sat, 3/14/09, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> unpredictability, grant whoring. He's perfectly
> intelligent and has
> better resources than 99% of the population to understand
> what's going
> on. His adviser takes the subject very seriously. He
[WS:] I do not think it is a matter of individual intelligence or lack thereof. Knowledge is a social thing - its acceptance or rejection is to a large degree "socially constructed" or perhaps socially negotiated. This means that individual's acceptance or rejection of scientific propositions (or for that matter any other form of knowledge) is cognitively filtered through what sociologists call "stock knowledge" or a set of taken for granted rules what is to be believed and what is not.
"Stock knowledge" is far more than just a belief system - it implies a whole bunch of power and authority relations i.e. which authorities or power centers are credible and which are not. Since in contrast to Europe, America is a hotbed of populist anti-intellectualism that manifests itself in a variety of forms, libertarianism being one of them, any source of knowledge branded as "elitist" is automatically viewed as lacking credibility. That makes it very easy for corporate and right wing spin doctors to selectively dismiss "inconvenient truths" - they simply brand it as "elitist."
Since Europeans (with the exception of a few fringe kooks) generally do not have such a knee-jerk reaction to "elites" - they are more likely to accept scientific research findings for their face value, and they are less likely to succumb to populist anti-intellectualism hoopla. That is why even conservative Euro politicos (cf. Sarkozy) sound far more reasonable on issues such as climate change (or regulations) than many American politicos.
I recall having a conversation with an economist from the South Africa central bank - a person of fairly conservative persuasion, but unlike US conservative - totally lacking the anti-intellectual or liberal-bashing shrill that is so characteristic of the US political discourse. This contrast helped me to realize that much of the so-called US conservatism is not really about a political philosophy of any kind, but sheer demagoguery directed at the perceived enemies and discrediting them by labeling them "elitist." Thomas Frank captured that phenomenon quite accurately in his _What's the matter with Kansas?_
This explains why seemingly intelligent and educated individuals reject sound scientific claims.
PS. I d not think that debating conservative demagogues like O'Reilley or Limbaugh is very effective - it simply draws more attention to their spin. A far better way of dealing with them is to let Comrade Mauser do the talking :)
Wojtek