Whether it's Rachel Carson or Al Gore or scores of others, why do people seem to want to discredit the bearer of bad news? I don't know if this trend is more pronounced in environmental matters, but that may be the case since the discipline is a relatively new one.
It would seem that offering a solid repudiation of the work would suffice.
2007-10-22 06:40:24 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
I find it interesting that people like "Rationality Personified" and "Mr. Jello" keep their info private! In any case, the Democrats letter related to the on-air insult of a wounded soldier, Brian McGough. A publicity stunt on both ends, perhaps. But this question is posted in the global warming category...
2007-10-22 12:34:39 · update #1
Oops, sorry, the Other - Environment category!
2007-10-22 12:35:29 · update #2
They don't have a solid counter argument, that's why they are giving me the thumbs down!
2007-10-22 06:50:41 · answer #1 · answered by John Sol 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Ostriches are under the false impression ,when they come up for air and rub the sand out of their eyes ,that anybody with bad news is better deleted .Maybe then the bad news will not arrive in person.And they will not get their bottoms burned.
At least we will all come together to bear the bad news when it finally hits ,brothers united in disaster ,now is that not something to look forward to ,to have skeptics for bed fellows or is it bad fellows ,all this is confusing me .
Let have a party instead is this not a much better idea.I will bring Tequila.
Or should we have a shooting party of our own to delete the bearers of bad news for Nature ,if the skeptic`s bosses are allowed to continue the exploitation of Natural resources at all costs.
which the skeptic movement is trying to protect.this also sounds very tempting.
And John are you feeling the thumbs as well
don`t worry you will get used to it ,and can even become a nice feeling ,that makes one feel warm all over ,to be that important to warrant a lot of thumbs
mmmmmmmmmmm.
2007-10-22 17:12:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
That's a great question, Amy. And there is no one better able to answer that question than the 41 Democrat senators who wrote their "shoot the messenger" letter to Rush Limbaugh. In their case, it appears the reasons they were inclined to "shoot the messenger" rather than offering a solid repudiation of his work were manifold, including (1) their apparent inability to understand his work, (2) their presumed inability to solidly repudiate his work if they had the ability to understand it, and (3) their apparent predilection for abusing the authority conferred upon them by voters to attack a person for politically motivated reasons.
(This answer pertains to the "Other - Environment" category in memory of the tree that was cut down and the greenhouse gases that were emitted to make the paper on which the 41 Democrat senators wrote their letter.)
2007-10-22 16:58:19 · answer #3 · answered by Rationality Personified 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's often a first-response instinct. You hear the bad news and the bearer is right there. You don't like what you hear and instead of going and solving the problem of finding the troublemaker, it's easier to take it out on deliveryman that's right in front of you. It's not really a rational thing at all, but it's about controlling your reaction to bad news.
2007-10-22 14:48:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
it's easier to cope with bad news if you have someone to share it with, or (better yet) someone to blame it on. by discrediting and criticizing the messenger, in a sense we are also attempting to help ourselves disbelieve the facts they bring to us. dana is correct, it's one method we use to help ourselves deny the truth... and a heck of a lot less work than dissecting and repudiating the information, as you suggest.
and no, environmentalism is not the only discipline in which society has criticized and attempted to silence the bearers of 'bad' news. go back to martin luther king, copernicus, and jesus christ. good news or bad? it all depends on how you were impacted... or how emotionally charged the 'facts' were.
2007-10-22 16:04:23 · answer #5 · answered by patzky99 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's may seem like shooting the messenger in the political sense, but it is a standard procedure in the science world.
"Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism."
This is a good link explaining:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
2007-10-22 15:47:39 · answer #6 · answered by G2 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Classic denial behavior. You don't want something to be true, and one of the ways to deny its truth is to cast doubt on the source of information. If Al Gore is a hypocritical money grubbing liar, then maybe global warming isn't being caused by humans.
2007-10-22 13:49:56 · answer #7 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
sometimes it depends on who you deliver it to - but to discredit someone is the cheapest form of denial - and proof that real small minds exists.
that is why i feel in order to make a difference it is time to preach and reach the quire - develop ideas and start acting.
i personally am sick of talking to people that don't get and may never get it - make them come to us - and let us have something actually up and running - time to institute ideas.
2007-10-22 13:57:49 · answer #8 · answered by cosmicwindwalker 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋