Rationalism and the Socialist Case

[robbo203]

How rational are we as human beings? Does the "evidence" rally sway our judgement? Seems not.  What are the implications of this for rationally promoting the case for socialism?

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36744911

 

From the BBC News magazine "Chilcot: Why we cover our ears to the facts"  Google if you can't access the link above…

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Robbo,I think the article is a little easy on Bliar, suggesting cognitive dissonance. To those of us who were against the war, and saw through the half truths, the "sexed up" data, the apparent lack of understanding of the complexities of the history of the region, (despite having access to the best intelligence agencies in the world who had "experience" with Saddam), it wasn't cognitive dissonance at work, but simple manipulation. It's what politicians do, what they are trained to do.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911

[robbo203]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi Robbo,I think the article is a little easy on Bliar, suggesting cognitive dissonance. To those of us who were against the war, and saw through the half truths, the "sexed up" data, the apparent lack of understanding of the complexities of the history of the region, (despite having access to the best intelligence agencies in the world who had "experience" with Saddam), it wasn't cognitive dissonance at work, but simple manipulation. It's what politicians do, what they are trained to do.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911

 Hi SP.  Yes you are no doubt current in your comments on Blair. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the man lied through his teeth. However, I was more interested in the underlying argument presented in this article and the point that merely presenting factual evidence that seems to contradict a person's viewpoint might not necessarily undermine that view point and could even lead to it being reinforced. This has huge implications for the way in which we go about promoting the case for socialism and it is these implications which I wish to explore

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

I was more interested in the underlying argument presented in this article and the point that merely presenting factual evidence that seems to contradict a person's viewpoint might not necessarily undermine that view point and could even lead to it being reinforced.This has huge implications for the way in which we go about promoting the case for socialism and it is these implications which I wish to explore

I'm interested in this too. I think the best thing is to take a look at how other people have gone about trying to overcome this problem. Look at the work of people who counter climate change denialism and anti-vaccination stuff. The "Backfire Effect" and how to counter it has a lot of literature about it.

[jondwhite]

Does it mean relying on facts like 'there is enough food to feed everyone' or 'enough homes to house everyone' might not be a persuasive argument for socialism for many people?

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Does it mean relying on facts like 'there is enough food to feed everyone' or 'enough homes to house everyone' might not be a persuasive argument for socialism for many people?

These facts are not to convince people of the case for socialism but to counter certain claims that are prevalent under capitalism such as over-population and lack of resources and should be used when appropriate. 

[Author]

Posts