Does ideology trump facts? Studies say it often does

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html

We like to think that people will be well informed before making important decisions, such as who to vote for, but the truth is that's not always the case. Being uninformed is one thing, but having a population that's actively misinformed presents problems when it comes to participating in the national debate, or the democratic process. If the findings of some political scientists are right, attempting to correct misinformation might do nothing more than reinforce the false belief.

This sort of misinformation isn't hypothetical; in 2003 a study found that viewers of Fox News were significantly more misinformed about the Iraq war, with far greater percentages of viewers erroneously believing that Iraq possessed WMDs or that there was a credible link between the 9/11 attack and Saddam Hussein than those who got their news from other outlets like NPR and PBS. This has led to the rise of websites like FactCheck and SourceWatch.

...

Along those lines, a pair of political scientists, Brendan Nyhan of Duke and Jason Reifler of Georgia State, have shown a similar effect, this time concerning misinformation surrounding the presence of WMDs in Iraq, tax cuts, or stem cell research. Participants were shown news reports that contained inaccuracies, followed by a correction. The news reports were not real, but were presented to the volunteers as coming from either the New York Times or Fox News. Again, the findings suggest that facts that contradicted political ideology were simply not taken in; if anything, challenging misbelief with fact checking has the counterintuitive effect of reinforcing that misbelief.


They also note the "Obama is a Muslim" meme is still growing despite the facts being repeatedly aired.

are ideological.

If there are no objective facts, we'll have nothing but warring ideologies till we're all dead.

is just another ideology or "metaphysic" (and blatantly distorted ideology).

If we can't agree what the facts are, how do we make any decisions at all?

it's called "freedom of will" or more accurately "obligation to choose".

As for objectivism, it is dualistic metaphysics based on dividing world into subject and object, belief that phenomena can be causally reduced to "objective" atomism and total concentration on analytical thinking and neglecting holistic thinking.

Objectivism is easy to see fallible, forinstance by realizing that subject and object are dialectic (codependent) concepts. And that everything is in constant flow of change, we cannot "step twice in the same river" as Heraclitus said.

You don't need to "believe", benevolent hermeneutics and readiness to participate in dialogue will do more then better, they are not separate from empathy and sympathy.

"Saying that correcting misinformation does little more than reinforce a false believe is a pretty controversial proposal, but the claim is based on a number of studies that examine the effect of political or ideological bias on fact correction. In the studies, volunteers were shown news items or political adverts that contained misinformation, followed by a correction. For example, a study by John Bullock of Yale showed volunteers a political ad created by NARAL that linked Justice John Roberts to a violent anti-abortion group, followed by news that the ad had been withdrawn. Interestingly, Democratic participants had a worse opinion of Roberts after being shown the ad, even after they were told it was false.

Over half (56 percent) of Democratic subjects disapproved of Roberts before the misinformation. That rose to 80 percent afterward, but even after correcting the misinformation, 72 percent of Democratic subjects still had a negative opinion. Republican volunteers, on the other hand, only showed a small increase in disapproval after watching the misinformation (11 percent vs 14 percent)."

Correcting information didn't cause a rise in or reinforcement of a false belief, it caused a drop from 80% to 72%, if it were continually corrected I believe it would drop even more.

The author totally missed the boat, spreading the propaganda misinformation in the first place was the original sin, and did the damage in reinforcing existing negative feelings. Maybe that's why one of the Ten Commandments states "thou shall not bear false witness".

I do believe ideology is the lens people view facts through, but the lens can be cleaned with the truth while ignoring it will only lead to dirtying up the lens with accumulated unanswered propaganda and falsehood.