Reality Vs Anti-Reality
"...Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points...
...This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well
Bolding's mine. You know I refuse to get into political debates here - because I think both sides really are living in alternate realities.
I don't mean this ontologically - I'm not concerned with theory. My point is simply that alternate realities render any kind of meaningful shared analysis impossible.
I think this is the first example I've seen of hard evidence to back up my position.
Of course, it's also a great example of what reality-based vs faith-based really
I disagree with the 'both sides live in alternate realities' arguement. The point isn't meaningful shared analysis, this would be impossible. The point is that there's reality and fantasy. My opinion, or somebody else's opinion, lies somewhere on this spectrum. The question is who's opinion lies closer to the reality, which in the end is the truth of the matter. Thus this is why it makes sense to point out that Iraq has no WMD or plans to produce them. Faith is compensation for a lack of understanding of reality. It has its place, but when it used to cover for things that are proven as fact (such as the WMDs, how the grand canyon was formed, evolution), blind faith can be dangerous.