What are acceptable sources of "scientific knowledge"?

If he didn't want my opinion he shouldn't have asked. There was no smiley because
1. I don't use them because I don't think they have any place in serious debate.
2. My comment was an honest answer to his question.

In my example, advertising would be backed by the science of global warming. The logic is the same as the current approach; it's the approach in convincing others that's different.Rather than asking them to understand the scientific facts (which is failing), it's using a similar strategy to those they believe--advertising and promotion. You call people illogical for ignoring / misunderstanding / misrepresenting facts, then treating them as if they're logical. I'm suggesting that that position is itself illogical and fruitless. Nowhere did I suggest that you lie. Just realize that many people can't or won't understand the scientific facts. Present them with conclusions, emotions on potential futures, and other derivative materials that speak to them. Isn't the point that we're already having trouble convincing them of anything?Again, it's not a lie. It's just a different way to present materials. It's all the same conclusions, packaged in very different ways.Different packaging for different people. Why force people to try and hear the same things? Who does that serve, in the end? When you have gold and you need to sell it to have something to eat, it seems silly to sell it only on the condition that the buyer is willing and capable to verify that your gold is pure. I say: you know it's pure; stop trying to be so controlling, sell the damn thing, and eat!

Hmm, I see what you mean.For example, I seem to remember that if you want conservatives to worry about pollution, don't talk to them about saving the precious trees and the adorable animals and so forth. They don't care. Tell them that pollution is dirty. Conservatives are fastidious, and this way of putting it affects them emotionally.But that's just one particular case. In general, I guess you have to study the psychology of your audience.

I'm pretty skeptical about this approach. Advertising can be applied regardless of the truth, and the deeper pockets are against the science. With all of the publicity so far, people still cannot tell the difference between climate and weather.I believe that the Supreme Court is about to confirm that propagating absolute, bald faced, vicious lies using grotesquely huge amounts of money is absolutely cool during a political campaign, and few things are more politically involved than global warming.Yes, something like this might work for preventing forest fires. I'd get a big old bear to deliver the message. But Smokey would not have to fight the Koch brothers and 60 Plus.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, exactly! I feel like we (people focused on science and empiricism) have really failed to do this, in politics, conversations, and everything else--to the detriment of getting real traction on many of our ideas.Too content to be right, not strategic enough to get the buy-in we need to make as big an impact now as what we want (and need) to.

I agree that it's an uphill battle and that empiricists are far behind the game. I don't think it's a reason not to fight; I think it's a reason to start now!In my eyes, something is better than nothing. Politicians with the biggest budget don't always win.... and I think smaller budget gaps are going to produce better chances of winning.If not competing on these grounds, then how else to compete? I'm open to suggestions! Right. Again, we can't run away from the fight; this is the world we live in. If we don't try to compete here, then how do we win?Really--I'm all ears. My best idea is to be right AND to be more politically savvy. To make more money, to use it for what we think is good, and ... generally, to be less satisfied with trying to be "right".

Well, you know, science and empiricism geeks do tend to be socially awkward.

There will always be times in history when people prefer to believe in comfortable lies instead of uncomfortable truths. We can supply the facts and hope people pull their head's out of their asses.