On 29. July 2020, The Conversation has published an article
authored by two psychologists from the UK, Edge Hill University:
- Geoff Beattie (professor);
- Laura McGuire (research fellow).
Among other things, they refer to brain studies. People are inclined to underestimate unexpectedly negative information and to overestimate unexpectedly positive information (an “optimism bias”).
The authors refer to the lessons from the coronavirus pandemic and discuss how to enhance the fight against climate warming.
However, it seems that they keep in mind how to enhance the propaganda of the climate activists — at the end of their article, they unexpectedly conclude:
“And to prevent optimism bias, we also need to avoid presenting “both sides of the argument” in the messaging — the science tells us that there’s only one side.”
Already on the same day — 29. July 2020 — an objection was published on the blog page Watts Up With That, and on 31. July 2020 it was republished in ZeroHedge:
The author of the objection Eric Worrall writes:
“Things have sure changed since I went to school. I remember my professors arguing for logic, debate and reason, rather than an authoritarian shutdown of dissent.”
To my mind, the arguments of British psychology professors are superficial and narrowminded, not to say pseudo-scientific.
They assume that they already know the truth and to avoid cognitive bias suggest suppressing of dissent views.
Unfortunately, suppressing the arguments of one side of the dispute itself generates cognitive bias.
It is symptomatic that these advocates of censorship fail to specify what propositions concerning climate change exactly are true and proven to be true. It is important as there are many various statements around with various meaning and logical modalities.
Our psychologists also dismiss the fact that climate scientist Michael Mann with his “Hockey Stick Graph”, who has been accused of distorting the data (scientific fraud), and who failed to present his raw data to the court, is still fighting in the court(s):
Even in sometimes highly biased Wikipedia, the dispute about the “Hockey Stick Graph of Climate Change” has been extensively documented:
Unfortunately, the threat of censorship is already out there as right now Wikipedia considers deletion of that article.
And in 2020, they did it. They deleted a chapter on the history of scientific dispute. Officially, the aim was to avoid double articles. It is demagoguery, however. From their logged discussion, one can see that the aim was to delete an article containing too much information about climate sceptics’ arguments and facts. Despite the article to be deleted was biased — but against the climate sceptics.
There are some psychologists around who are dogmatic, authoritarian, ignorant, obscurant and cynical and who do understand neither the scientific methods nor such values like democracy, liberalism, freedom of thought and -expression.
In 1905, philosopher Edmund Husserl wrote approximately so (admittedly, in a different context):
“The psychologist does not discern between truthfulness and falsehood.”