Dumbing down America = CTs

[~enigma~]

Looking at the prevalence of CTs I was wondering if the "dumbing down" that is becoming increasingly more prevalent in the media is one cause for the amount of woo people believe. For exampe, the news report of one of the last shuttle missions announced that the shuttle had left Earth's gravity...this was a mainstream source. Obviously the shuttle didn't leave Earth's gravity since the moon is still in Earth's gravitational field at 250000 miles. If you look, there are many more examples of newscaster using faulty logic, lack of science not to mention the buzzwords that induce fear for no real reason except ratings. Just thinking aloud and wondering if this helps feed or is a major contributer to the woo.

[gumboot]

Idiocracy!

-Gumboot

[Minadin]

If you want to get really technical, nothing ever "leaves" anything else's gravity . . . it just diminishes a lot the farther away you are.

[~enigma~]

If you want to get really technical, nothing ever "leaves" anything else's gravity . . . it just diminishes a lot the farther away you are.
True but you understand the example.

[Hokulele]

I wonder if it is a lack of science, or the new deadline pressures. It seems to me, that reporting used to have a longer life-cycle. The "scoop" reporters existed, but much of the so-called "main stream media" had the leisure to research and verify the news they were reporting. Today's newscycle seems very compressed, particularly with news disseminated over the Internet. Maybe in the rush to print/post, the research/verification cycle gets lost in the process. Just a thought.

ETA: Maybe I am just getting old. *Sigh*

[jhunter1163]

I wonder if it is a lack of science, or the new deadline pressures. It seems to me, that reporting used to have a longer life-cycle. The "scoop" reporters existed, but much of the so-called "main stream media" had the leisure to research and verify the news they were reporting. Today's newscycle seems very compressed, particularly with news disseminated over the Internet. Maybe in the rush to print/post, the research/verification cycle gets lost in the process. Just a thought.

ETA: Maybe I am just getting old. *Sigh*

I think this could be part of it. Time was, back in the day, reporters had time to fact-check. They had the luxury of a deadline that might be 12 hours away (to make the morning edition, for example). Now, they simply don't have that luxury because if you take the half hour to make the phone calls and verify the story, you're scooped.

This doesn't explain the factually wrong stuff that makes it on the air (like the example in the OP), but it could explain things like the story about the bomb at the Capitol on 9/11. There just wasn't time to verify, especially that day, so the networks just went on the air with what they had.

[SezMe]

I wonder if it is a lack of science, or the new deadline pressures.

ETA: Maybe I am just getting old. *Sigh*

I wonder if it is a lack of science, and the new deadline pressures.

There is objective evidence that high quality science education is sorely lacking in the USA. So some poor schlub reporter who was raised in that educational environment cannot discern good science from bad crap but does not have the time or resources to dig into any issues because the station manager/newspaper editor demands a story for the six o'clock news or for the morning edition of the paper. Worse, there is pressure to present "both sides of the story" even if there is only one real side. The end result is that woo and critical thinking come across in the MSM as just two sides of the same coin.

Yeah, you are just getting old. Day by day. But be heartened by the fact that I am so far ahead of you that you have no chance whatsoever of catching up. :) :p

[rtalman]

a) The 45 year Baby-Boomer obsession with JFK (one of the most incompetent presidents in U.S. history) and the assassination.
b) Big mouths from the Rosie O'Donnell/Cindy Sheehan/Seung-Hui Cho/Ted Kaczynski wing of the Democrat Party constantly spouting woo to the Party faithful.
c) MSM constantly pimping woo out to the sheeple.

[SezMe]

b) Big mouths from the Rosie O'Donnell/Cindy Sheehan/Seung-Hui Cho/Ted Kaczynski wing of the Democrat Party constantly spouting woo to the Party faithful.

Cho has been doing that? Really? Who knew him before he killed himself? Provide some evidence that he had a public voice and a substantial number of followers.

And Kaczynski? You have to be kidding. He is serving a life term in a supermax prison. He hasn't been spouting anything for the last decade or so.

You've got a serious credibility problem.

[Slayhamlet]

Kaczynski was a Democrat? :boggled:

[Civilized Worm]

CTs have always been popular, but now they have the stupidity breeding ground that is the internet.

[slingblade]

Looking at the prevalence of CTs I was wondering if the "dumbing down" that is becoming increasingly more prevalent in the media is one cause for the amount of woo people believe.

First, you would have to show that people in general are likely to believe more crap in the mass-media age than they did in other time periods. Second, you must show that they do in fact believe more crap now than they did in ages past.

My initial, gut-level, no-research first opinion on both is: Probably not.

Humans are not born critical thinkers, and then it gets drummed out of them through repeated exposure to stupid. Humans must be taught critical thinking, and then must learn with every new experience how to apply it.

Most people are not taught to think critically, from childhood, when the lessons are best learned. Instead, in childhood we are taught to listen to and respect authority for authority's sake. For that reason alone, using the phrase "because I said so" should be a punishable offense. <--mild sarcasm.

Another point is that the more people there are, the more crap can be exponentially expected. There are more crap generators, you see. So we could say that yes, more people than ever before believe more crap than ever before. But is that just because there are more people and there is more crap than ever before? In other words, did the tendency really rise, or just the numbers?


For exampe, the news report of one of the last shuttle missions announced that the shuttle had left Earth's gravity...this was a mainstream source. Obviously the shuttle didn't leave Earth's gravity since the moon is still in Earth's gravitational field at 250000 miles. If you look, there are many more examples of newscaster using faulty logic, lack of science not to mention the buzzwords that induce fear for no real reason except ratings. Just thinking aloud and wondering if this helps feed or is a major contributer to the woo.

Oh, it helps, of course. But I feel the tendency remains about the same through history.

[steve s]

When that new planet was discovered a week or two ago, the reporter on the NBC Nightly News said that the speed of light was 186,000 miles per hour. I was hoping that when they cut back to Brian Williams he might have the smarts to correct the error. But alas, no such luck.

Steve S.

[apathoid]

When that new planet was discovered a week or two ago, the reporter on the NBC Nightly News said that the speed of light was 186,000 miles per hour. I was hoping that when they cut back to Brian Williams he might have the smarts to correct the error. But alas, no such luck.

Steve S.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902463d01961497a.jpg

[Blue Monk]

You've hit on one of my greatest peaves, the Major networks total abdication of responsibility for delivering accurate and unbiased news.

This is far different than the way things were when I was growing up and the change came in the 80s when, one by one, the major networks dissolved there news divisions and placed them under control of their entertainment divisions. This was purely motivated by profits as news divisions were the most expensive to maintain while generating relatively little income.

The absolute worse example of the 'idiot talking head syndrom' I've seen happend during the coverage of Katrina.

A network was interviewing one of their on the scene reporters who was asked what would happen if the levies failed.

The reporter then launched into a very detailed and accurate account of the unavoidable and horrific fate that was in store for New Orleans should the levies fail. She correctly described how the city was below sea level and basically in a bowl and that if the levies failed most of the city would experience flooding on a biblical scale.

Then after this very impressive and accurate description of the dangers this same reporter was asked if any of the reports of failed levies were true.

This same reporter then looked into the camera and said, "Why yes, we have confirmed the several of the levies have indeed failed," and then, turning and gesturing to the relatively undamaged part of the city behind her said, "but as you can see, it appears that New Orleans really dodged a bullet this time."

What!!?!

It was painfully apparant that this pixie, who no doubt was hired not for her brains but because she looked 'perky' on tv had not understood a damn thing she had just said.

I still have a dent in my coffee table that perfectly fits my forehead.

[twinstead]

People this is just the beginning. Within a a couple decades the 'YouTube generation' will be mainstream. There will be no such thing as verified information, even from the most respected news organizations.

To me it's ironic that the result of that will be rampant rumor and superstition, and serious conflict, wars, revolutions, and chaos based on information with the most tenuous basis on fact--just like the days before mass communication. The net result of too much information is exactly the same as too little.

[rtalman]

Kaczynski was a Democrat? :boggled:You consider Kaczynski a Republican?:mgduh

[rtalman]

Cho has been doing that? Really? Who knew him before he killed himself? Provide some evidence that he had a public voice and a substantial number of followers.

And Kaczynski? You have to be kidding. He is serving a life term in a supermax prison. He hasn't been spouting anything for the last decade or so.

You've got a serious credibility problem.
Re-read my post. I did not say that Kacynski or Cho made any statements, only that their philosophies are indistinguishable from O'Donnell, Olberman, Sheehan, Rhodes et al.

[Childlike Empress]

Dumbing down America = CTs?

What about Dumbing down America = Conspiracy?

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

:boxedin:

[SezMe]

Re-read my post. I did not say that Kacynski or Cho made any statements, only that their philosophies are indistinguishable from O'Donnell, Olberman, Sheehan, Rhodes et al.

Actually, you said nothing of the sort. You said:

b) Big mouths from the Rosie O'Donnell/Cindy Sheehan/Seung-Hui Cho/Ted Kaczynski wing of the Democrat Party constantly spouting woo to the Party faithful.

You did not name Olberman or Rhodes in your first post. Gawd, how embarrassing this must be for you.

How can someone "spout" without making "any" statement? And where in that quote did you compare their philosophies?

Ya know, when you're in a hole, you should stop digging.

(PS: Where the hell is that little guy digging himself into a hole?)

[twinstead]

Dumbing down America = CTs?

What about Dumbing down America = Conspiracy?

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

:boxedin:

Well, some people think that anything that is bad just has to be deliberate.

But, why Johnny can't read has to be explained by something. Perhaps it is indeed deliberate...

[rtalman]

Actually, you said nothing of the sort. You said:



You did not name Olberman or Rhodes in your first post. Gawd, how embarrassing this must be for you.

How can someone "spout" without making "any" statement? And where in that quote did you compare their philosophies?

Ya know, when you're in a hole, you should stop digging.

(PS: Where the hell is that little guy digging himself into a hole?)

If I use the descriptive O'Donnell/Sheehan/Cho/Kaczynsi wing of the Democrat Party (or Robertson/Savage/Hannity/Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party), it is describing a group with the same political philosophy without attributing quotes to those particular individuals. Olbmeran, Rhodes, O'Donnell, Cho, Kaczynsi etc. all are cut from the same cloth as the truthers.

If one cannot separate a noun from an adjective, I recommend
ISBN-10: 0764553224

[SezMe]

If I use the descriptive O'Donnell/Sheehan/Cho/Kaczynsi wing of the Democrat Party ... it is describing a group with the same political philosophy without attributing quotes to those particular individuals.

Fine. Give me some evidence of Cho's political philosophy and some evidence that he was spouting it to the choir. And, while you're at it, describe the political philosophy of the "O'Donnell/Sheehan/Cho/Kaczynsi wing of the Democrat Party".

ETA: Your ISBN cite is cute. Useless, but cute.

[Slayhamlet]

You consider Kaczynski a Republican?:mgduh

False dichotomy much?

[Slayhamlet]

Dumbing down America = CTs?

What about Dumbing down America = Conspiracy?

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

:boxedin:

That book is definitive proof of the dumbing down of America. Just not in the way you think it is.

Here are a few (http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyta.htm) articles penned by this obvious genius.

[Slayhamlet]

Re-read my post. I did not say that Kacynski or Cho made any statements, only that their philosophies are indistinguishable from O'Donnell, Olberman, Sheehan, Rhodes et al.


Here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future)'s ol' Theodore's political philosophy in a nutshell. Maybe you can point out some of the similarities it has with the philosophy of the Democratic party?

[rtalman]

Fine. Give me some evidence of Cho's political philosophy and some evidence that he was spouting it to the choir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RV-yPaJb_k

And, while you're at it, describe the political philosophy of the "O'Donnell/Sheehan/Cho/Kaczynsi wing of the Democrat Party".

(R) ba-a-a-d. (D) go-o-o-d. Rich=Evil unless I'm the one with the money! Bushco LIHOP! Bushco MIHOP! All about OIL! NeoConspiracy! Haliburton!
:tinfoil

[rtalman]

Here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future)'s ol' Theodore's political philosophy in a nutshell. Maybe you can point out some of the similarities it has with the philosophy of the Democratic party?
I cannot point out the philosophy of the mainstream Democrat Party (mainly because the mainstream Democrats will not consistently articulate firm positions on very many topics), but if you want me to point out the similarities to the philosophy of the moonbat O/S/C/K wing of the Democrat Party, I could copy and paste the entire article. But why bother?

[Oliver]

Looking at the prevalence of CTs I was wondering if the "dumbing down" that is becoming increasingly more prevalent in the media is one cause for the amount of woo people believe. For exampe, the news report of one of the last shuttle missions announced that the shuttle had left Earth's gravity...this was a mainstream source. Obviously the shuttle didn't leave Earth's gravity since the moon is still in Earth's gravitational field at 250000 miles. If you look, there are many more examples of newscaster using faulty logic, lack of science not to mention the buzzwords that induce fear for no real reason except ratings. Just thinking aloud and wondering if this helps feed or is a major contributer to the woo.


Creationists vs Darwinists - literally. :rolleyes:

[SezMe]

Your YouTube link does not work and your TinFoil Hat rant is meaningless.

Let me check in with you, rtalman. This is a skeptics forum. You know that, right?

[negativ]

Last summer, one of the local TV news anchors reported not just once but twice that the use of fireworks was prohibited within five thousand miles of the city limits.

[Stellafane]

Looking at the prevalence of CTs I was wondering if the "dumbing down" that is becoming increasingly more prevalent in the media is one cause for the amount of woo people believe. For exampe, the news report of one of the last shuttle missions announced that the shuttle had left Earth's gravity...this was a mainstream source. Obviously the shuttle didn't leave Earth's gravity since the moon is still in Earth's gravitational field at 250000 miles. If you look, there are many more examples of newscaster using faulty logic, lack of science not to mention the buzzwords that induce fear for no real reason except ratings. Just thinking aloud and wondering if this helps feed or is a major contributer to the woo.

I think you're on to something. I think that ignorance is CT fertilizer. And I think the problem isn't solely confined to misinformation in the media (which is bad enough), but it's also compounded by the fact that critical thinking doesn't seem to be something that's really emphasized in school. So if someone hears a preposterous claim, they don't always stop and think "If A is true, then B, and C, and D, and E must be wong. But that's highly unlikely." Instead, all too often the reaction seems to be more akin to "What?!? Those bastards!!"

[Stellafane]

Last summer, one of the local TV news anchors reported not just once but twice that the use of fireworks was prohibited within five thousand miles of the city limits.


A few years back the Boston Globe blithely stated that the Quabbin Reservoir (a medium-sized artificial lake in Massachusetts) contains more water than Lake Superior.

ETA: And this one is funny -- Once on "Antiques Road Show," a women brought in a stone sculpture of a horse and rider which she believed was American and pre-Columbian!!

[gumboot]

I recall when Mt Ruapehu erupted here in 95/96 a media outlet in Germany reported it was caused by French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll, and media outlets in the USA reported there was lava flowing down the mountain.

-Gumboot

[rtalman]

Your YouTube link does not work and
I clearly cannot properly post YT links. It was a link to the Cho video. I'm sure you have seen enough of the video to draw your own conclusions as to whether Cho was spouting a political philosophy and whether his philosophy reached the masses.
your TinFoil Hat rant is meaningless.
You asked:describe the political philosophy of the "O'Donnell/Sheehan/Cho/Kaczynsi wing of the Democrat Party".If the tinfoil hat rant did not answer your question... well then I give up.

Let me check in with you, rtalman. This is a skeptics forum. You know that, right?Indeed.

A skeptic is not a mind-numbed robot, marching in lock-step with the rest of the skeptics. A skeptic should be able to actually look at and evaluate positions contrary to his or her own.

Since you refuse to even entertain that there are political positions different from yours (yet equally valid), I will not argue with you further.

I concede all points, plead nolo contendere to all charges and withdraw from the field.

In short, you win.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You consider Kaczynski a Republican?:mgduh

Do you really think he has to be one or the other?

[Dr Adequate]

One word: fluoridation.

[Dr Adequate]

Big mouths from the Rosie O'Donnell/Cindy Sheehan/Seung-Hui Cho/Ted Kaczynski wing of the Democrat Party constantly spouting woo to the Party faithful. There are some curious omissions from your list. Why name Cho and Kaczynski but leave out Richard Nixon, Jack the Ripper, Satan Prince of Darkness and the guy who invented New Coke?

[slingblade]

I think you're on to something. I think that ignorance is CT fertilizer. And I think the problem isn't solely confined to misinformation in the media (which is bad enough), but it's also compounded by the fact that critical thinking doesn't seem to be something that's really emphasized in school. So if someone hears a preposterous claim, they don't always stop and think "If A is true, then B, and C, and D, and E must be wong. But that's highly unlikely." Instead, all too often the reaction seems to be more akin to "What?!? Those bastards!!"

I was the only one in my education cohort to have taken logic. Whenever we'd have Critical Thinking discussions, the others always seemed lost.

There were several discussions about the practice, mostly entailing the need to teach critical thinking to our students. But there were never any classes regarding same. I have not yet figured out how a teacher who doesn't know much about critical thinking can be expected to teach it.

I suggested several times that Intro to Logic should be required for Edu students.

All I ever got in return was an indulgent, dismissive smile.

[twinstead]

All I ever got in return was an indulgent, dismissive smile.

You mean there's a smile that isn't indulgent and dismissive? Yikes I think I have been married too long...