コントロールの回復 Re^n visited


ただ、この動きは"科学"そのものを否定しようというものではない。Ron Numbersが指摘するように...
MR. NUMBERS: To me, the struggle in the late 20th Century between creationists and evolutionists does not represent another battle between science and religion because rarely do creationists display hostility towards science. If you read their literature, you'll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science. They love what science can do. They hate the fact that science has been hijacked by agnostics and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic evolution. So, they don't see themselves as being antagonistic to science any more than many of the advocates of evolution - those who see evolution as God's method of creation - view themselves as hostile to Christianity.


[Ron Numbers Interview on PBS]

同様のことは、否定論に広くみられる。否定論を考えるNew Scientistの連載で、Debora MacKenzieは次のように指摘する。
Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed "somebody's got to stand up to experts".

It is this sense of loss of control that really matters. In such situations, many people prefer to reject expert evidence in favour of alternative explanations that promise to hand control back to them, even if those explanations are not supported by evidence.



All denialisms appear to be attempts like this to regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature: blaming autism on vaccines rather than an unknown natural cause, insisting that humans were made by divine plan, rejecting the idea that actions we thought were okay, such as smoking and burning coal, have turned out to be dangerous.

This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.



[Debora MacKenzie: "Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth " (2010/05/19) on New Scientist]

The reason, suggest Jennifer Whitson of the University of Texas, Austin, and Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University, is that pattern perception compensates for feeling out of control in a sea of forces you do not comprehend. It balances the sense that life is random and restores the sense that you do understand what’s going on and might even be able to affect them. It can be more comforting to believe that a vast conspiracy explains, say, the stock market crash than to acknowledge that the financial system is beyond your comprehension, let alone control: conspiracy beliefs, write the scientists, give “causes and motives to events that are more rationally seen as accidents ... [in order to] bring the disturbing vagaries of reality under ... control.”

その理由は、AustinのUniversity of TexasのJennifer Whitsonと、Northwestern UniversityのAdam Galinskyによれば、理解できない力で制御不可能になったという感情を、パターン認識が埋め合わせていること。パターン認識は、生命はランダムだという感覚を均衡させ、何が起きているか理解し、その事態に自分が影響を及ぼせるという感覚を回復させる。株式市場の崩壊を巨大な陰謀論で説明する方が、金融システムが自分の理解を超えていると考えるよりも安心できる。陰謀論を信じれば事件の原因と動機が定まり、単なる偶発時と考えるよりも合理的だと思えるようになり、乱れて予測のつかない現実をコントロールのもとにおくことができる。

[Sharon Begley: "Feeling Powerless? Do I Have a Conspiracy Theory for You" (2008/10/02) on News Week]

posted by Kumicit at 2011/10/17 07:02 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Earthquake | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]