From ‘BFP’ (Boiling Frogs Post), by Sibel Edmonds, this article on a topic of much interest to me. Particularly in the instance of discussions, via internet comments, with persons on the “warmist” side of the ‘global warming’ debate. Neither side accepts that they are the victim of ‘cognitive dissonance’ but claim that the other is.
It derives down to whether a person has an uninhibited viewpoint or one tainted by bias of some type which prevents correct, logical decision-making. It is quite likely that each cannot accurately assess the reality of their own argument.
One way of dealing with this is to look carefully at the source information and assess its own credibility. Does it suffer from a potential bias? Does it stand up to logical and scientific analysis? Sometimes the source author is clearly pushing a barrow in which his livelihood and reputation are at stake. In all cases our integrity and conscience are at issue but are they always in the forefront of our minds? Are they being given appropriate (read ‘honest’), priority?
After all that, or in Robbie Burns words – “for A’ That ” – do I personally achieve the correct conclusions? Only time will tell, because, after all, we are usually talking about something that can only be totally proven sometime in the future. And then, only if the “result” is honestly and truthfully reported. In the case of “global warming”, when the next ice age is evident, or not!
So apart from known and recognized factors, consciously discarded because of an agenda, participants in a debate (or in life), are actually influenced by ‘below-the-surface’ blindness. “Cognitive Dissonance”.
So, to the source article, linked here.