scorpion wrote:Curently I am reading a book entitled Denialism by Michael Specter. The book discusses how irrational thinking has hindered the quest for scientific truth and progress. Three of the tactics employed by denialists to make an argument look legit are:
1.Conspiracy theories - Suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are part of a conspiracy. (neuros, big pharmas, Friedman,etc.)
2.Cherry picking - Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.
3Moving the goalpost - Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often greater) piece of evidence. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. Thus denialists use the absence of complete and absolute knowledge to prevent the implementation of sound policies, or the acceptance of an idea or theory. (The Buffalo study)
I cannot begrudge you that outlook one bit.Daisy3 wrote: Denial is not the worst place to be sometimes, reality though...that can suck.
That statement has haunted me all night because it seems oddly ironic and almost "deja-vuish" that I made almost the same comment in this same spot regarding my wife about four years ago.Daisy3 wrote: Denial is not the worst place to be sometimes
scorpion wrote:I think u took my post the wrong way. It is not your fault sb487. By friday my neurons are ususally fried(lierally). I was refering to some of the CCSVI fanatics on this board as the denialists.
Lyon wrote:That statement has haunted me all night because it seems oddly ironic and almost "deja-vuish" that I made almost the same comment in this same spot regarding my wife about four years ago.Daisy3 wrote: Denial is not the worst place to be sometimes
I'm not especially religious but I'm convinced that my wife was blessed with mild MS which makes it hard to separate how much her completely ignoring MS has benefited her long term outcome. Then again maybe she's been doubly blessed by never having seen the full wrath of MS, which has left her able to ignore MS to begin with.
I guess my conviction that my wife's denial has been to her benefit should help convince me that hope, even if it eventually proves to have been false hope, does or at least can have benefit.