Skeptic's Dictionary Wrote:
Backfire effect

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

Quote:For instance, in a dynamic process tracing experiment, Redlawsk (2002) finds that subjects who were not given a memory-based processing prime came to view their preferred candidate in a mock election more positively after being exposed to negative information about the candidate. Similarly, Republicans who were provided with a frame that attributed prevalence of Type 2 diabetes to neighborhood conditions were less likely to support public health measures targeting social determinants of health than their counterparts in a control condition (Gollust, Lantz, and Ubel 2009).

Another example of the backfire effect is given by Yale political scientist John Bullock. He found that a group of Democratic volunteers who did not favor the appointment of John G. Roberts Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court became even more negative in their views about Roberts when told that he had been accused in an ad by an abortion-rights group of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." The increase from 56% disapproval to 80% disapproval after being provided with data confirming their opinion is understandable. We know that providing political misinformation works by feeding into people's pre-existing beliefs. We're likely to accept information uncritically, true or false, that fits with what we already believe. What isn't so understandable is why, after being shown a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters and being told that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent. For many, the facts didn't have a significant effect on belief in the direction of the evidence. Despite strong evidence contrary to their belief, many were led to strengthen their pre-existing belief.

Nyhan and Reifler found a backfire effect in a study of conservatives. The Bush administration claimed that tax cuts would increase federal revenue (the cuts didn't have the promised effect). One group was offered a refutation of this claim by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it. The percentage of believers jumped to 67 when the conservatives were provided with the refutation of the idea that tax cuts increase revenue.

A final example:

A 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showed that politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types. These people may be factually right about 90 percent of things, but their confidence makes it nearly impossible to correct the 10 percent on which they’re totally wrong.*

. . . . .

Whatever the cause, the backfire effect is very curious. The more ideological and the more emotion-based a belief is, the more likely it is that contrary evidence will be ineffective. There is some evidence that lack of self-confidence and insecurity correlate with the backfire effect. More research is needed to fully explain what additional factors lead some people to respond to contrary evidence by treating it as if it were additional support for one's belief. Further research is also needed to see if different groups are more susceptible to the backfire effect (liberals and conservatives, theists and atheists, skeptics and true believers) and, if so, why.

— Skeptic's Dictionary,

See also, "perseverance of belief"

(January 23, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Insanity Wrote: They'll hear what they want to hear. I imagine regardless of what happens most will have the same opinion as when it started.

I see a potential that it may give family members something to point at in order to broach the subject in the home. May be safer than just coming home and announcing "I'm questioning my faith".

Having said that, I now have the same feeling I get right after imagining what I would do with my lottery winnings.

(January 23, 2014 at 6:16 pm)Cato Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Insanity Wrote: They'll hear what they want to hear. I imagine regardless of what happens most will have the same opinion as when it started.

I see a potential that it may give family members something to point at in order to broach the subject in the home. May be safer than just coming home and announcing "I'm questioning my faith".

Having said that, I now have the same feeling I get right after imagining what I would do with my lottery winnings.

When is this being televised?

The evidence that creationsim is wrong is so overwhelming that only brain dead morons and deluded fools CAN still believe, so this debate is a pointless exercise. These people are so deep into their delusions that there is no hope for them at all.

(January 24, 2014 at 1:55 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The evidence that creationsim is wrong is so overwhelming that only brain dead morons and deluded fools CAN still believe, so this debate is a pointless exercise. These people are so deep into their delusions that there is no hope for them at all.

Many atheist activists were formerly evangelical Christians or similar. They will tell you that this outreach activity is important. Believers are not some other that is hopelessly different from you.

(January 23, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Darkstar Wrote: When is this being televised?

Honestly, no one will win even if Nye has science on his side. This same debate has been going on for a looooooong time now. The religious will never recognize science and factual evidence over their faith.

(January 24, 2014 at 2:56 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 23, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Darkstar Wrote: When is this being televised?

Shoot, I won't be home then. Oh well.

It does matter.

This isn't going to change the fundie's mind, no. This might even strengthen their resolve. But who gives a shit about them? There are people out there who are intelligent who may have never even thought to question their faith. If even a small amount of moderates see this, it's bound to shake something up in someone. I consider the day that I finally heard someone talk about the way I felt about religion and science internally one of the most important in my life. This could be that for someone.

I don't know what to expect from this, as intelligence and facts aren't the most important factor in a debate; experience and debating smarts are. Bill Nye is no doubt used to playing an audience, but Ham has more practice at this sort of thing. Regardless of how it goes, I don't think anybody's mind will be changed, and creationists will be even more firmly entrenched in their beliefs afterward, no matter how badly Ham does. Still, I hope Nye slaughters him. The question, however, lends itself well to arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity, which people seem to eat up like it was apologetic gold.