Re:Ideology Impairs Sound Reasoning
by fhfjgkvjvj on Tuesday January 15, 2019 @12:43AM
(#18909083)
Is it? Scientists and PR firms get funded by big donors. Professional scientists are typically honest, but which studies get funded are picked by people that aren't necessarily. The public sort of understands that things generally are arrayed against them though they can't necessarily explain why mechanistically.
In this case, it might be even simpler than that. It might be that regardless of what they believe about scientists and the formal logic of their assignment, they just don't like being forced to say things they despise. This could be seen as noble though its not exactly a plus for debating.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2019/01/a-gloomy-vision-for-fake-ne...
The Milgram experiment is the most prominent example which might not be possible today because it depends on participants' willingness to obey scientists. The Milgram effect is still real, but it has become harder to measure.
So in this case, when participants are asked to reason based on premises they don't agree with, they might, as you've suggested, refuse. They might interpret the researchers' intent as nefarious, e.g. "if I agree this syllogism is valid the researcher will report that I support the conclusion". This line of thinking is of course absurd, but it comes close to what I've observed that some people believe about scientists.