follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« The "judicial behavior" measurement problem: What does it *mean* to say that "ideology" explains judicial decisions? | Main | If you think local action focused on adaptation is not the path for promoting engagement with climate-change policymaking at the national level, you are wrong. So wrong. »
Wednesday
May132015

Fun webinar event on politicization of science-- c'mon, sign up! 

I don't have anytime today to say anything -- interesting or not -- b/c I'm so busy preparing for this cool "webinar" on politicization of science.

Sign up-- you can ask really hard questions & try to stump the participants (or easy ones--those are even harder to get right).  Plus its free!

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Interesting to see ... thank you it's well done :)

May 14, 2015 | Unregistered Commenterfacket

"We are taught that science is an objective arbiter, separating fact from fiction. With this in mind, we might expect that when a majority of scientists state their belief in an empirical phenomenon - say, that human activities are contributing to climate change, [...] - that well-educated non-scientists would follow suit. Yet given current politicized debates over climate change [...] we know this is not the truth."

Who wrote this stuff?! And did you complain about the misrepresentation?

1. A lot of climate sceptics in the "politicized debates" - including most of the most prominent ones - DO accept that human activities are contributing to climate change. Anyone who understood the debate would know this.

2. We would hope well-educated non-scientists would know about 'nullius in verba' and 'argument from authority' and would therefore not rely on an opinion poll to determine scientific truth! (The scientifically ignorant are another matter...) Science is not a democracy, as they say.

3. Obviously there's no evidence that a majority of scientists have stated their belief in this statement, since nobody has done a comprehensive survey of all scientists, or even half of them. (Merely taking a sample wouldn't fit the wording.) Nor have most scientists researched the question themselves, so if they did comment on it, they're not speaking as scientists but as citizens with the same access to truth as any other citizen. Not only is it a transparent appeal to authority, such as any scientists would be ashamed to be seen using, it's apparently a fabricated one.

I'd expect they would say so if you asked them - it wouldn't be controversial if they did, since I'd expect a majority of well-educated climate sceptics to say the same thing - but so far as I know nobody has. (And if they did, I must have been out of the office that day because they missed asking me.)

Oh dear!

I'm curious that you didn't comment. Had you not noticed what they were saying? Or did you think it was 'close enough'?

May 16, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>