Posted on 06/02/2017 1:04:31 AM PDT by Samurai_Jack
Inoculation theory suggests that exposing people to the tricks used to spread misinformation can equip them with the tools to recognize and reject such bogus claims.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
(aka professional brainwashing or broken by trained personnel)
didn't see this posted anywhere?
The scientists wanted to determine if inoculation could boost people’s resistance to ‘False Balance in the media” and efforts to cast doubt on the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
It’s just amazing how stupid they think we are, and how on target they are in that respect!
Are we talking global cooling, global warning, climate change, the death of all polar bears or our children will never see snow?
Just don’t tell them you’re using “inoculation theory” on them. That might, you know, “inoculate them” against inoculation theory.
OTOH, maybe they’re already that smart!
It works, it worked for me, Global Warming is a hoax!
It is the nature of science that it must be continually challenged and tested. It is not an "election" or a "vote". And furthermore, everyone should be free to accept or reject any kind of science without being subject to inquisitions, star chambers, and persecution.
It truly sends shivers up my spine when these folks talk the way they do. They speak the same tongue as Muslim zealots. These folks have made science into a religion.
These two are the authors of the 97% lie. Their shtick is to try to build case that people who are not climate change alarmists are in fact mentally ill.
My career has been math (statistics and polling), but my education was balanced between math, science, and engineering. The scientist side of me has consistently been disgusted by the polling approach to science and the idea that a scientific consensus would matter. Similarly, I have been disgusted by global climate science and its immunity to falsification. If all possible evidence confirms the theory, it’s not science.
Oops, it looks like I am wrong about that, but they have done studies based on that work.
And its fake science at that. They ignore data, manipulate data, hide data and use unverified computer simulations to create doomsday scenarios. Fake Science.
11 Posts and nobody has mentioned Alinsky yet. Alinsky organizations are strong advocates of innoculation.
On the right, groups like Campaign Leadership Institute (Matt Lewis is a “favorite” on FR) are strong advocates of innoculation.
In fact, everybody in the real world of pragmatic politics, and pragmatic corporate PR, and pragmatic PR for anything ... they all need to practice innoculation.
Who doesn’t need to be innoculated against being accused of racism, of sexism, of communism, of facism, Satanism?
Kroger is an example of a Corporation that has done a masterful job of innoculating themselves from Bloomberg’s idiots, from BLM, from LBGTQX, from FReepers, pro-family groups, from every special agenda group.
Airlines are an example of an entire industry that has failed to innoculate itself.
Wait! What? Are all these things really possible? OMG - we really are all gonna die! D@mn you, Donald 'Covfefe' Trump! (except for the no snow thing, of course)
Even if it were real - global warming- they don’t have the power to stop it or to control the climate. The Paris climate agreement was a governing document of global taxation and resource confiscation and redistribution. It would not change the climate.
He now has to get rid of Agenda 21.
Wow. An article about how to spread misinformation.
The entire article is based on a lie.
There is not, and never has been the 97% concensus. It was all a hoax to begin with.
The 97% number is used simply as a club to convince people.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex . . Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.It was obvious half a century ago that federal government money tended to corrupt science - and that science could also corrupt the federal government. What is obvious, at least to me, is that “the party of [corrupt] government” is also the party of corrupted science. “Corrupted science” emphatically includes, in my mind, the “science” purporting to make that claimed “97%” figure definitive for all time and for all purposes.Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
. . . the free university . . . has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity . . . The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money . . . is gravely to be regarded.
Yet . . . we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address
Besides, the figure for “expert consensus” on the Newtonian physics assumption that mass is independent of velocity was 100% (minus one person) the day before Einstein published his theory of relativity. The louder you shout that “the science is settled” the more reasonable it becomes to suspect that “the science” isn’t science at all.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.The purpose of FreeRepublic is to enable us to pool our (individually insufficient) “incredulity” precisely so that we will not believe every fable we hear from any politician. Whether or not they boast a PhD and wear a lab coat.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.