SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oft times we see accusations of "group think" here on SoylentNews. Now there is some actual science on the formation and function of "echo chambers", as reported by SESYNC:
A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.
...
"Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says," said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.
I would guess, based on this study abstract (actual paper unfortunately behind paywall), that SoylentNews is in no danger of becoming an echo chamber, but we seem to have some refugees who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:44AM
Now see, this is exactly where it kicks in:
Funny how suddenly there's all this money for research into public opinion on climate change when someone needs to discredit "climate change denial".
What you fail to understand, coming from an echo chamber, is that there is no need to discredit "climate change denial". It is already quite thoroughly discredited. What needs scientific explanation is how so many fringe elements (and members of congress) could cling to a thoroughly discredited position despite all evidence to the contrary.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:31AM
There are so many things both right and wrong with this.
Politicians aren't scientists and I think most of us, including some of them, would agree they're idiots in general. They have to look at both sides because they don't understand the science and are required to take all arguments into account.
How do YOU know YOU'RE not the one in the echo chamber? I think you're correct, but it's important to keep questioning ourselves. We can't just shut out debate and mock people because we "know" we're right therefore there's no reason to consider other positions. That's how echo chambers are made.
I prefer to work under the assumption that I'm the one in the echo chamber and can be wrong. I stay skeptical of my position and listen to others with opposing view points, never know when someone will have something relevant to say I hadn't consider before that could change everything. We really need to get away from this, "LOL, I'm right and you're wrong and stupid."
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2015, @06:21PM
What you fail to understand, coming from an echo chamber, is that there is no need to discredit "climate change denial". It is already quite thoroughly discredited.
And getting thoroughlier discredited every day. Too bad, thoroughness is not evidence. I've seen very thorough discussions of why the universe is a single plutonium atom.
despite all evidence to the contrary
If someone ever wants to discuss actual evidence, I'm up for it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 05 2015, @08:29AM
khallow, I reply because I sense some sincerity in you. But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate. It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry. So where would you like to start? The increase in CO2 is really not debatable. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas? Do you want to dispute that? Or just the temperature profiles? Yes, facts, possibly explainable by other theories, but that really is not the issue, is it?
No, mostly we troll deniers here, as you have been trolled. But it is your own fault. Did you expect anyone to believe that you have an objective interest in the truth of the matter? No, we just want to get you on record, so you can be ignored in the future. I am sorry about that, I truly am. But if you want to have a serious discussion, you will need to find an new entry point. Denialism locks you out from the gitgo, and for good reason.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 05 2015, @09:08AM
But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate.
Don't be foolish. Of course, we can debate this. After all, there's history of debating far weirder and/or more established things like evidence for evolution or settling the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry.
There's two things to note here. First, what is "the" denier position? This are a common tendency to lump all disagreement with the current propaganda of catastrophic AGW and a rush to various expensive remedies into the broad category of "denier" and then attribute to it the most extreme position. I don't buy that this research came about just because someone finally wanted to study the social dynamics of scientific disagreement. Rather I see it as part of a larger strategic whole, attempting to discredit any disagreement with various world-wide public policies by implying those who disagree are either mentally ill or merely, as in this case, ignoring scientific evidence, which somehow wasn't persuasive enough in the first place.
So where would you like to start? The increase in CO2 is really not debatable. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas? Do you want to dispute that? Or just the temperature profiles? Yes, facts, possibly explainable by other theories, but that really is not the issue, is it?
Actually, no, I don't wish to dispute CO2 concentration; the observations that Earth's temperature is warming to some degree; or even the claim that humanity is partially responsible for global warming. I believe that there is an human-caused global warming climate effect, but that it has been exaggerated for political, ideological, and financial gain. If you ever want to discuss actual evidence and facts, then yes, I'll be interested in continuing this discussion at that time.