follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

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

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

« Two of "Four Theses on Ordinary Science Knowledge" . . . a fragment | Main | Slovic elected to NAS!! »
Monday
Jun132016

On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Ignorance (new paper)

A short little conference paper ...

 for this really cool conference:

 

First person to figure out the significance of the title before reading the paper wins a cool prize.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (29)

Is this a reference to Popper's "Normal science and its dangers?"

June 13, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Marriott

@Robert--

whoa ... you are sooooooooo close ...

June 13, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Gah, I see that, having read the paper. Serves me right for focusing on his earlier work...

June 13, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Marriott

@Robert Marriott-- I'm guessing you'd have nailed it if you gone a a wee bit earlier, actually. But now I want to think about how the two essays fit with one another; I think we'd have to say that what pissed off KP was that TK confused recognition of valid scientific knowledge *for* scientific validation of knowledge

I still think you get the goddam shirt. Send me email w/ address -- & t size!

June 13, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Hmm.

"But what will you do? Will you carefully read and evaluate all the studies that inform your physician’s recommendation? If those studies refer, as they inevitably will, to previous ones the methods of which aren’t reproduced in those papers, will you read those, too?"

No. You'll look around for evidence that *other* people have tried to challenge the claims and failed. You'll look for the best arguments against the thesis, and judge if they know what they're talking about. Let someone else chase up all those references, digest them, pull out the ones that are most relevant for checking, and present them in a comprehensible case in an attempt to persuade you. Why work if you don't have to? And if the best argument against that you can find, produced by an expert and motivated opponent of the idea, fails to persuade you that the idea is wrong or at least unsupported by the evidence, then you can tentatively accept it.

I think John Stuart Mill explained that one back in 1859... :-)

"individuals (including scientists) must accept much more DRS than they can ever hope to make
sense of on their own"

It would be terrible if people discovered that the scientists were all just following the herd as well.

June 13, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@Dan, yet another interesting area :)

I think an analysis of this kind would benefit by a recognition that culture can pollute the science environment as well as the science communication environment. Hence public reaction is tempered by the many times in the past when the science 'facts' have turned out not to be facts after all. So for instance once widespread scientific 'facts' about static continents, the motion of blood, miasma, the cause of ulcers, superfluous hand washing for doctors, the Ptolemaic system, saturated fats causing heart disease ...and obesity plus diabetes, eugenics, bloodletting, etc. And some of these have caused great harm. The decades long saturated fats consensus even now collapsing may have harmed the health of hundreds of millions of people. Sometimes skepticism (in this case sticking with a traditional diet) saves instead of damns. The large numbers of folks buying into the promoted science of saturated fats have not protected themselves after all.

Innate skepticism protects against systemic misinformation, as often promoted in a cultural context (in his papers on misinformation, Lewandowsky calls skepticism 'the key to accuracy'). Yet the baseline from which skepticism is practiced is itself culturally influenced. So a strong skepticism which is the key to accuracy on say eugenics or bloodletting, may sometimes be the the key to confusion, regarding say vaccinations or frakking (all 4 of these have or did have the backing of the authority of science). This is a flip side of the same coin. We have to acknowledge that this very characteristic which within a culturally polarized situation prevents understanding of correct science, has sometimes preserved common sense in the face of (occasionally tremendous) pressure from culturally promoted yet incorrect science. Maybe it's even the case that you can't have the one without the other.

I don't know how often a rump of the public has bet right rather than wrong. Yet the fact that this can happen at all against the universally promoted authority of science, is a factor that must be considered regarding the public's understanding of the enterprise of science itself, since betting either way is based upon the same mechanism. And it may take decades for anyone to know whether the scientifically promoted facts are indeed right or wrong, I guess 4 or 5 in the case of saturated fats and eugenics being wrong. Maybe this is a piece of knowledge in itself that the public inherently deploys. Meanwhile, if a culture X takes to heavily promoting a scientific proposition, then X's traditional opponent Y will be skeptical of that proposition whether or not it turns out to be true. So the resultant polarization tells us that strong culture is engaged, but it cannot give us any guarantee about who is right or wrong. In some cases (e.g. vaccines), it seems pretty blindingly obvious, in others e.g. within the twenties / thirties eugenics, nowadays the certainty of imminent climate calamity, there is not sufficient knowledge of the systems involved for the truth to be obvious, which allows culture a much bigger window into the game.

It's also the case that perceived risks have emergent trajectories that are dependent on both cultural factors as well as the development of scientific knowledge and lately too, technology penetration. There may not be cultural polarization about nano-technology now, but in decades hence if that technology is massively deployed, there could be.

June 13, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

@NiV--

There's a *lot* of *aliquis in verba* in your views tonight

June 13, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@AndyWest--

I agree that's a problem, yes.

But do you not expect it always to be temporary? It's hard to contaminate an engine that runs on conjecture & refutation.

Also there will be interaction between the pollutions; that is, it will be harder to be confident that the conjecture & refutation have cleansed the machinery of bias when the SCE is polluted (given, as @NiV recognizes, we have to take the word of a lot of others that the best available evidence is valid)

June 13, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Dan,

On a civilisational scale, yes. On the scale of individual lives, no. Even in modern times, the consensuses on static continents and saturated fats lasted around half a century each, with all the relevant scientific bodies and armies of other orgs completely behind them. That's not really 'temporary'. And if a full culture (rather than milder cultural effects such as authority status and group-think etc) ends up backing such a consensus (e.g. per eugenics), the consequences can be highly amplified during that potential half century. I believe that even the skeptics society is fully behind the certainty of climate calamity. Given for instance the view of atmospheric scientist Curry, whom you quote at the link, that the uncertainties are not even fully characterized yet way too high to come to that conclusion, they seem to be committing much too early at best. Culture is powerful enough to contaminate any machinery. The knowledge that it'll all come right by the next generation or so, is not very useful to mitigate damage that incorrect consensuses can wreak.

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

@Andywest:

Not to discount (as it were) the point about the cost, it woudl be an intereting research project for someone to figure out (a) how often/likely identity-protective cognition disrupts the process of scientific inquiry & (b) how long it takes for it to self correct. My hypotheses are (a) 0.05 & (b) 7 (priors are not that important)

June 14, 2016 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Dan,

An interesting project indeed. I don't have a hypothesis on the numbers, except to say that while large excursions are rare they can also have very high cost. Which does not detract of course from the point that the enterprise of science has been of enormous net benefit. But it does suggest that we need to do much more to reveal and mitigate against the action of culture on science, as well as on science communication. And indeed part of my point above is that the fundamental drivers of these are linked, and possibly in opposition. That which keeps science clean, i.e. skepticism, when over expressed blocks or sabotages science communication. That which keeps science communication flowing, i.e. belief in the enterprise of science and the authority consensuses it creates, when over expressed allows culture to hi-jack science through blind faith. It could be that even an optimum balance, doesn't work wholly for both.

This also suggests that you cannot really investigate one without the other anyhow. And we have also to bear in mind that whatever the negative aspects of culture, the reason it is so pervasive and we are so sensitive to cultural pressure, is that culture itself has been a huge net survival advantage over a much much longer time period than science. Given that a big part of the job of culture is to create and enforce consensus in the face of the unknown, and that so much is still unknown about the optimum way to continue our existence, then likely we haven't gown out of culture yet, and still need it. Which again means a difficult balancing act.

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

I think it would be an interesting project to find out how often people extrapolate from a limited set of examples, without evidence of how representative those examples are, to conclude that there is a generalizable pattern that " science 'facts' have turned out not to be facts after all," and then exploit those few examples to advance a cultural meme, largely out of a desire to support emotive concerns.

Why do people draw such conclusions from potentially unrepresentative sampling, if not because they are "motivated" to do so (in the sense of motivated reasoning)?

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"There's a *lot* of *aliquis in verba* in your views tonight"

Says who?
:-)

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@Joshua

Bad faith from the safety of anonymity. When you have only been offered good faith. No wonder you get yourself censored. The characteristics of a calamitous climate culture are manifest, no reference is needed to any other historic / current science topic to comprehend this. Nor do my posts on climate culture generally invoke any such topic as a step to said comprehension. For instance here:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/who-is-who-aux-file.docx

A short list of some failed consensuses is given in Footnote 8 of my Climate Etc post on 'denialism', pointing out that the existence of such historic and modern examples mean (in any topic domain) consensus cannot be used as an ultimate and infallible guarantor that denialism must be taking place, as Diethelm amd Mckee essentially assume.

And when probing the role of culture in pollution of the science communication environment, it makes sense to look at examples of cultural pollution in the science environment too, as it seems likely these two share fundamental drivers such as the balance between skepticism on the one hand, and belief in authority plus the enterprise of science on the other. Even ruling out significant shared drivers would need appropriate consideration of these examples. For clarity, I am a very strong believer in the enterprise of science, to the extent that I think it can (given enough time) explain any phenomenon, including how society behaves.

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

Andy -

My name is Joshua Brooks. Implying that my anonymity is explanatory of anything about what I do or don't post is just bad analysis.

Not sure what bad faith you're talking about there.

==> The characteristics of a calamitous climate culture are manifest, no reference is needed to any other historic / current science topic to comprehend this. Nor do my posts on climate culture generally invoke any such topic as a step to said comprehension. For instance here: ==>

Nor can I understand what you're talking about there, or how it relates to my comment.

==> A short list of some failed consensuses is given in Footnote 8 of my Climate Etc post on 'denialism',

I'm interested in a comprehensive list, that puts the "failed consensuses" into proper perspective, so that we could have any idea whether or not compiling such a list isn't just an exercise in cherry-picking and motivated reasoning. That is what I have never seen (as least that I can recall) a "skeptic" do as they leverage a the same, relatively limited set of examples of failed consensus of scientific opinion, over and over, as if it were somehow representative.


And btw, Andy, in case it is what you were referring to...pointing out the presence of motivated reasoning, IMO, isn't an example of "bad faith." We all engage in motivated reasoning. It's pretty much constant. And I would say that anyone who considers that suggesting that it applies in any particular circumstance is engaging in bad faith would probably benefit from a little more introspection. I wasn't really directing my comments towards you, specifically, but to the general frame of on-line "skeptics" more generally (who, themselves, are a group of outliers)...but that said the fact remains that you referenced that same limited and often repeated list of examples without carefully placing them in the needed context to determine representativeness.

==> "pointing out that the existence of such historic and modern examples mean (in any topic domain) consensus cannot be used as an ultimate and infallible guarantor ==>

Of course not. I never suggested otherwise. Of course "consensus" is no ultimate guarantee of anything. It is, however, useful for estimating probabilities. If you thought that I said that it is some kind of a guarantee, then you have misunderstood.

==> And when probing the role of culture in pollution of the science communication environment, it makes sense to look at examples of cultural pollution in the science environment too, ==>

Of course it does. I have never suggested otherwise. The problems arise, however, when people exploit those historic examples for the purpose of advancing an agenda. We see this constantly among "skeptics," for example, when they compare the modern day debate about climate change to "Lyesenkism" (not that it is a kind of behavior that is unique to "skeptics." I don't make the argument, as you do, that there is any reason to think that there is any meaningful asymmetry those kinds of behaviors in association with views about climate change because I see the underlying and causal mechanisms for those kinds of behaviors as rooted far more deeply in the characteristics of how all humans reason).

Such emotive and calamitous alarmism among "skeptics" is extremely cynical, IMO, and seeks to leverage real world and meaningful problems to reinforce their ideological identifications. But as cynical and exploitative as it is, it is also entirely commonplace and normal. It's banal. That's why it's nice to see people approach these issues from a different angle, as Dan often does with his evidence-based approach. That's why I have always encouraged you to employ a similar evidence-based approach.

==> as it seems likely these two share fundamental drivers such as the balance between skepticism on the one hand, and belief in authority plus the enterprise of science on the other. ==>

Sorry, Andy, but I don't know what that means. As much as I can figure it out, I think that you are creating some kind of a false dichotomy.

==> For clarity, I am a very strong believer in the enterprise of science, to the extent that I think it can (given enough time) explain any phenomenon, including how society behaves. ==>

To the extent that I can understand what you said there, (I'm not sure how much I do understand it), I wouldn't doubt that you are a "strong believer in the enterprise of science." No reassurances needed. That doesn't mean, however, that you or anyone else wouldn't cherry-pick examples and treat them as representative sampling without having quantified the degree of representativeness. If you have established the representativeness of your examples, then please do supply a link to where you have put the examples of where a failed "consensus" of scientific experts has been placed into the appropriate context of weighing against a representative sampling, or full accounting, of counter-examples.

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

One more thought, Andy.

In my view, there is a big difference between speaking to "motivated reasoning" and impugning motives. The overlap in vocabulary is quite unfortunate, as it seems to lead to confusion for a lot of people.

Although I see many examples of "motivated reasoning" in these online discussions, I don't assume that as evidence to speak to people's "motives." I assume, that without passing over a very bar of evidence, I'm in any kind of a position to judge motives of people I've never met, have no idea about their life history or how they conduct their lives, etc. My guess is that most people who engage in these discussion overwhelmingly share the very same motives as those I have myself (not to mention values and ethics).

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Er... that should be...

I assume, that without passing over a very bar of evidence, I'm not in any kind of a position to judge motives of people ...

Also...

I am quite skeptical of assertions that assume such evidence As Dan can attest.

June 14, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

@Joshua,

While there can be reasons for anonymity, it brings responsibilities. When one cannot be held to account, for the privelidge of remaining anonymous one must take special care to stay within the rules of debate. It is to be hoped that even when identifiable, folks will do this, yet we are all human and the point is that in this case trangressions can always be traced back to the real person. Hence they form an appropriate feedback to behavior that the anonymous poster can to a lesser or greater extent, avoid. This is why after particularly bad transgressions, offended parties often try to find out and quote the real name of semi-anonymous posters, if they can.

Your post strongly implied that in my approach, a 'generizable pattern' of false science facts is exploited as a neccessary logical step to advancing my theory of a calamitous climate culture. Yet no such step exists in my work. My primary cultural comparison is to religions, and some posts make no mention of prior failed science consensuses at all, such as the one linked which identifies climate culture from social data. You claim to have read some such posts, and this one in particular. Hence you know this. How will readers unfamiliar with my work realise you have given a false impression? This is what I mean by bad faith.

This is not to say I don't mention such anywhere. As noted above I specifically do in exploring the 'denialism' concept for instance, a concept employed in various domains not just CC. No doubt elsewhere too. It would be rather remiss of me not to mention prior occasions where cultural effects small or large have biased or derailed science. Yet no prior example is required to identify calamitous climate change, and my case does not rest upon such prior examples.

To conclude motivated reasoning, you have to demonstrate motivation. Not just speculate. I.e. you need to show the motives. Otherwise you are disagreeing with the issues and merely declaring aribtrarily that this disagreement has arisen because of motivated reasoning exhibited by the opposite party. While for a group, the effects of emotive behavior can be revealed en-masse (e.g. systemic bias effects), for an individual each either has to directly express their emotive motivation (which hence you can quote), or you must uncover it, and also you must demonstrate that it is (likely to be) dominant. As you point out, you do not know me, yet you have often said I have ideological agenda or serve emotive desires or whatever, and ultimately this is the back-stop you frequently return to as a combative device. While the device is false unless you can demonstrate my ideological agenda or emotive desires or such, how will readers know that you haven't already done this elsewhere, and that your reference here is a shorthand to such prior revelations? This is misdirecting the audience. In truth you have not even answered when I directly asked what these motivations were.

See prior thread regarding the emotive memes among skeptics, and the cultural alliance effects which has full conservative culture weighing in on the skeptical side. I've written of these effects in various posts.

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

Andy --

I don't know what you mean by being "held to account." How am I going to hold anyone to account if they write stuff about me in bad faith under their full name? Is there some Internet police that I can call with my complaint?

Are arguments stand on their own, and anyone reading can formulate their own opinions. If they are formulating their opinions on the basis of whether there is a last name present, I would suggest they consider a more reliable algorithm.

==> Hence they form an appropriate feedback to behavior that the anonymous poster can to a lesser or greater extent, avoid. ==>

All you need to do is read the besmirching and integrity impugning that runs rampant in the comments section of any website and you will find much "behavior" that many people offer insults that are inconsistent with reasoned debate under their full name. Read one of the many posts at WUWT about Michael Mann, or one of the many posts over there written by Willis that are full of insults, and you will see what I'm talking about. Is Willis held to account for breaching the "rules" of well-reasoned debate?


==> Your post strongly implied that in my approach, a 'generizable pattern' of false science facts is exploited as a neccessary logical step to advancing my theory of a calamitous climate culture. ==>

If you offer a list of the same, tired examples of invalidated scientific "consensus" without grounding that list in a representative sampling, then indeed you are exploiting an unrepresentative sample for rhetorical purposes.

What was the point of your reference? Do you think that you were informing anyone, let alone Dan, of the fact that there have been times in the past when the "consensus" among scientific experts proved to be incorrect? Do you think that anyone here wasn't already aware of that? Sorry, but I find it extremely implausible that would be the case for anyone reading these comments. So then, why are you making such a statement as if you're informing people of something they don't know?

What seems likely to me is that you listing your examples was a rhetorical device, as a way of suggesting that we should infer that those examples are informative for evaluating the "consensus" in climate science. Well, perhaps so, but they are only informative to the extent that we can assess the representativeness of those examples. Otherwise, that rhetorical device empty rhetoric, IMO.

==> My primary cultural comparison is to religions, ==>

And I would offer a similar criticism of that as well, as IMO, you neither ground that form of analogizing in a scientific manner; as I have told you, I think that your inclusion and exclusion criteria selection process is quite arbitrary, and I don't think that it is coincidence that it confirms your distinction of a group you belong to ("skeptics") from a group you criticize ("realists") in ways that (1) reaffirm a superiority in the group you belong to and, (2) I consider to be superficial and not meaningful as compared to the vastly more important underlying similarities (e.g., the tendency toward identity protective behavior, motivated reasoning, cultural cognition, confirmation bias, emotively-influenced reasoning, etc.)...

==> and some posts make no mention of prior failed science consensuses at all, ==>

I would never suggest that it is the central, or core component of what you argue, Andy. Is that what you think I was arguing?

==> How will readers unfamiliar with my work realise you have given a false impression? ==>

We all formulate our own impressions in these discussions. I doubt that anyone formulates them on the basis of what one person says versus what another one says without a myriad of other factors coming into play. And the impression I formulate or someone else formulates isn't, IMO, either "false" or "true," but an opinion which lies in some other realm of definition. I think that your application of criteria is arbitrary. You don't. People can read our arguments, and do whatever follow up they want to do, to formulate their own opinions. That's the way that it is. We have no control, in exchanging our views, over how they choose to go about formulating their opinions. In the vast majority of cases anyway, they are just reading in order to confirm their preexisting beliefs, and our influence over that process is extremely limited.

==> It would be rather remiss of me not to mention prior occasions where cultural effects small or large have biased or derailed science. ==>

Not if you don't place those examples in a represtentative context, IMO.

==> Yet no prior example is required to identify calamitous climate change, and my case does not rest upon such prior examples. ==>

Fine.

==> To conclude motivated reasoning, you have to demonstrate motivation. Not just speculate. ==>

Motivated reasoning is a condition of how we all reason - particularly when we are heavily identified within an ideological or cultural framework, as you no doubt are within the taxonomy of climate change culture. You can, perhaps, gain some measure of control over the influence of motivated reasoning, but that won't happen if you elevate yourself above the basic underlying, human principles, that create motivated reasoning. That is true of climate scientists as well as "skeptics." That is the value of the scientific method, as a way of helping to build external mechanisms of control - as relying only on internal mechanisms is, obviously, fraught with problems.

==> I.e. you need to show the motives. ==>

I assume that your motives are like mine: you want to be right, you want to find out what is true, you want to be smart and insightful, and you want to confirm your sense of identity, particularly related to an issues on which you are heavily identified These are basic human attributes, IMO, and I don't think that they need to be demonstrated but accepted as a given.

==> Otherwise you are disagreeing with the issues and merely declaring aribtrarily that this disagreement has arisen because of motivated reasoning exhibited by the opposite party. ==>

No. I'm not attributing causality behind disagreement. I am saying that you can't determine causality if you haven't controlled for a bias which is hard-wired (but possibly something we can control for).

==> While for a group, the effects of emotive behavior can be revealed en-masse (e.g. systemic bias effects), for an individual each either has to directly express their emotive motivation (which hence you can quote), or you must uncover it, and also you must demonstrate that it is (likely to be) dominant. ==>

Absolutely, I agree completely. But I can have an opinion. My opinion is that your application of criteria in such a way that it elevates the group to which you identify with vis a vis a group that you criticize, appears to be to be arbitrary, and not coincidental to your own identification. I can't know for sure that is the case. But I can explain why I consider your application of your criteria to be arbitrary, and I have done so. And then it is up to you or anyone else to evaluate my explanation as you/they see fit. And further, what appears to me as kind of refusal to acknowledge that you have a similar "emotive motivation" as pretty much everyone else here, doesn't give me confidence that you're effectively controlling for your own biases. But what's worse, IMO, is your belief that "skeptics" as a group are less "emotive[ly] motivated" than any other particular group that is ideologically distinguished and associated. That, IMO, some fundamental features of what we know about how people reason when they are ideologically "motivated."


==> As you point out, you do not know me, yet you have often said I have ideological agenda or serve emotive desires or whatever, and ultimately this is the back-stop you frequently return to as a combative device. ==>

Andy, I'm saying that you are affected by the same biases as everyone else. Sorry, but I just don't find it plausible that you are excluded from the group. Just as I don't find it plausible that the group to which you identify is relatively excluded in comparison to other groups (which you criticize). I say the same to "realists" when they make similar arguments. Don't take it personally.

==> While the device is false unless you can demonstrate my ideological agenda ==>

I know that you think that you have objectively demonstrated a distinction the degree to which "skeptics" and "realists," respectively, are subject to ideological agendas, I don't think that your arguments are objective. Your denial of an ideological agenda becomes, for me, an ironic example of your ideological agenda. Further, the lack of scientifically controlled and analyzed data, as a form of control for the biases that you have just like everyone else, makes your arguments that you don't have an ideological agenda that much less convincing.

==> or emotive desires or such, how will readers know that you haven't already done this elsewhere, and that your reference here is a shorthand to such prior revelations? ==>

Just tell them, Andy. Then can read what you have to say just they can read what I have to say. Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about that "readers" might think - because they will think all kinds of things. More power to them, IMO . I'm not going to let that prevent me from expressing my opinions. If my opinions are poorly reasoned, then they will formulate their opinions accordingly.

==> This is misdirecting the audience. ==>

I'm presenting my opinions. I am not "directing" the audience.

==> In truth you have not even answered when I directly asked what these motivations were. ==>

See above. Although, IMO, you are still confusing "motivations" with motivated reasoning. The relationship between your motivations to be right, to find truth, to protect your identity, etc., are your motivations. I have been talking about the motivations of your reasoning process, which can be in contrast to your personal, underlying motivations.

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

BTW, Andy -

Another possible irony. It is my recollection that you have, in addition to complimenting Dan's work, on more than one occasion spoken about how his conclusions are affected by his own biases (or reflect motivated reasoning in his part, as it were), largely the result of his ideological orientation.

Am I wrong about that?

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Ah. Here we go:

==> I’ve become very impressed with the huge efforts he’s investing in this area plus his deep knowledge, despite I think that in the climate domain those have both been seriously deflected by cultural bias.


Or perhaps this?:

==> The second analysis, mine, demonstrates that the concept of a ‘climate culture’ provides a much better fit to the data, a culture that has adherents in its own right plus asymmetrical alliance with politics; also that Kahan’s conclusion is largely a product of his own bias due to a major influence from this same climate culture.

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

I will say this; I little no doubt that just as is true of everyone else, including you, Dan's work is influenced by cultural cognition, or other manifestations of motivated reasoning (I think I have seen evidence of confirmation bias, for example).

But (1) I don't doubt his motivations and (2) I find his application of the scientific method to be admirable, and IMO, that said application of scientific methods goes very far in convincing me that relative to many other discussants in these issues, he effectively controls for his biases.

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

One more piece - something I meant to emphasize but forgot:

==> Your post strongly implied that in my approach, a 'generizable pattern' of false science facts is exploited as a neccessary logical step to advancing my theory of a calamitous climate culture. ==>

No, I don't think that it is a necessary logical step. You can certainly try to validate your view of a "calamitous climate culture" without presenting a sample absent evaluation as to whether it is representative. You could: (1) not present that sample, or (2) you could present an evaluation of its representatives. So it isn't necessary at all.

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

This seems to me to be a good thread to interject a call for greater discussion of the historical philosophy behind the “culture” in cultural cognitive analysis.

My recent thoughts are informed by recent attendance at the Getches-Wilkenson Center of the CU Law School's Summer Martz conference: “Coping with Water Scarcity in River Basins Worldwide: Lesson Learned from Shared Experiences” which had considerable Indigenous and Aboriginal representation. Nearly universally, their spiritual and philosophical systems put humans as part of nature. Their pleas to other conference participants centered on desires that their ways of knowing be recognized by others as a form of applied science. These groups generally do also have spiritual earth and human origin stories at least as divergent from understandings of modern science as the Genesis stories of the Bible. On the other hand they also have vast stores of accumulated evidence as to how their natural surroundings work. My understanding of changes in the direction of linking overall ecosystem understandings to policy practices in our Western dominate culture have also been informed by discussions with University of Oregon School of Law professor Mary Christina Wood and others regarding what they view as a need for a revolution in environmental policy, as described in her book: Nature's Trust https://www.amazon.com/Natures-Trust-Environmental-Law-Ecological/dp/0521144116/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466005085&sr=8-1&keywords=nature%27s+trust. Another book I read recently, which covers these issues is: The Intelligibility of Nature, How Science Makes Sense of the World
by science historian Peter Dear of Cornell.

Dear sees science as directed towards two distinct but conflated ends: doing and knowing. Science as we know it stems out of Europe. Science thrived in a culture that valued individualism, and one that rewards curiosity, inquisitiveness and discovery. This is also associated with a culture that utilized the technological advancements of science to further the goals of domineering philosophies such as the Doctrine of Discovery, Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. This is a different world view than that of cultures that see humans as part of nature and value continuity within that natural system.

I believe that the cultural cognition of present day climate change discussions can not be conducted without understanding of how these underlying philosophies affect modern attitudes.

Two political climate change denialists with whom I am familiar are also significant on a national level.
Washington State Republican Senator Doug Ericksen of Northwestern Washington State is the nemesis of Jay Inslee's plans to be the leading Energy and Carbon trading governor. US Republican House Representative Ken Buck of Eastern Colorado (my current representative) is a leading proponent of deregulated oil and gas operations. Actually both of these politicians have slid away from outright denial to a position wherein they see themselves as highly skeptical that any warming seen is related to human actions. Both owe their seats to two things, considerable funding from right wing sources, and state bipartisan districting efforts that have left them in protected districts, while just over the line, the Democrats have protected very liberal representatives, in these cases, Internet entrepreneur and open homosexual Jared Polis in Colorado, and also very liberal Kevin Ranker in Washington State. This leads to the appearance of sharp divisions, and effective election time communication that is quite polarized, even though the population at large may actually cover middle ground.

Common to the culture of both areas is the history of western US settlement. This begins with the displacement and genocide of Native Americans (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/horrific-sand-creek-massacre-will-be-forgotten-no-more-180953403/?no-ist), and proceeded through various levels of environmentally destructive economic practices. Eastern Colorado was settled on a railroad landowner promoted homesteading theory of “Rain Follows the Plow”. The science of water in arid lands was actually well covered by John Wesley Powell back in https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70039240. Plow and the rains will come bit the dust in the 1930's, but farming was resurrected again by deep well circle irrigation into the Ogallala aquifer, and massive cross Continental Divide water diversions. These have lasted until present times, but cannot continue in their current form. As described by Ken Buck, there is always something. Run out of oil in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and fracking in Eastern Colorado came along, simultaneously revitalizing an economy where agriculture was weakening, but suburban sprall development strengthening. Similarly, in Whatcom and Skagit counties Washington, timbering and lumber mills were followed by mercury polluting paper mills, but the native salmon runs had largely been canned already and replaced by hatcheries and fish and shellfish farming. The cedar forest denuded lands may have seemed like worthless swampland, but industrious Dutch (and now Sikh) originating dairy and berry farmers steeped in to drain the lands and reveal fertile soils. And add to pollution and water flow problems in the streams. Which they might see as nicely resolved by building more dams. Berry markets have increased as rain and thus fungus free Augusts and drought in California (and land development pressure) leads to better crops and bigger markets.

In terms of climate change model predictions, there is a high degree of uncertainty in both regions as to what comes next in an anthropogenic climate change scenario. Farmers are used to considerable variation in weather and climate. In many instances they might consider medium term predicted outcomes to be “good” and not “bad”. What is to be gained by support of a climate denialist has more to do with a general anti-environmental stance. But the money for such campaigns by candidates does come from oil and gas interests, who do spend considerable effort on tribal positioning for greatest effect.

In terms of “doingness” very few people in either state are doing much in terms of changing personal lifestyles in response to belief or lack thereof in climate change.

Politically what we are left with is “dogwhistles”. Policy selection is limited by outside oligarchical forces to variants of Wall Street which positions on climate change are markers, along with whether or not there should be transexuals in bathrooms, as to which tribe one ought to vote for. All of which obscures discussion of real issues and mainstream solutions thereto.

Where is the motivated reasoning coming from? Follow the money.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chevron-boss-climate-change-could-help-business-1464132869

June 15, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

@Joshua

Goodness. Wriggle wriggle.

>>[AW] '...and my case does not rest upon such prior examples.'

>[JB] 'Fine.'

Much better. And not at all what your original post above implied. As I said, bad faith.

>'Motivated reasoning is a condition of how we all reason...'

For clarity, I don't think I'm any different to the average person regarding such.

But to say merely that you disagree with something and therefore it must be a product of motivated reasoning (i.e. this is at least a dominant contributor which inappropriately skews results), is not valid. Especially when you add that your debater has an 'ideological agenda' (a term usually associated with even stronger motivated reasoning, possibly conscious rather than subconscious, depending upon context), which nevertheless seems to be an agenda you continue even above to avoid identifying. One must find specific difficulties or flaws in the logic train of an argument, which can reasonably be shown to serve such *clearly identified* motivations or agenda, for such a challenge to be valid and make sense. So go do this, it would then be a perfectly valid challenge (whether or not it turns out to be right).

Dan comes to the conclusion that 'knowing disbelief' is a big factor underlying behavior in the CC domain and also the Creationism domain. I apply my *same* principles to both of those domains (where in one my personal beliefs align with Dan's, and in the other opposes Dan's), and come to the conclusion that 'knowing disbelief' is a fringe effect in both, and that the bulk data is explained by vanilla disbelief, cultural alliance and adherence. So what specific flaws in my logic train are there, and how do they serve in a dominant manner an identified ideological agenda consistent with the results over *both* domains? Do you think I identify with creationists, for instance?

You make a claim that I have not controlled for bias, seems like a perfectly normal challenge; so you should easily be able to show how said bias has tripped up the logic train in, for instance the simple analysis linked above, which via the same 3 steps identifies both creationism and climate change as cultural in origin. And you agreed you do not know me. So you won't know for instance that I had no clue that skeptic websites or scientists or such even existed when I first began to realize the cultural components of the climate change movement. I did not disbelieve the mainstream narrative at the time, so this came as something of a surprise. Do you think I 'belong to' skeptics? How would that work before I knew they existed?

>'...you have, in addition to complimenting Dan's work, on more than one occasion spoken about how his conclusions are affected by his own biases'

Yes I have complimented Dan's work on various occasions. The whole enterprise here of cultural cognition, the willingness not only to dig in and measure stuff, but show the process online, and even adapt the process / rerun tests as suggested by community input, is imo rare and valuable. And yes too, *per the above methodology*, I believe Dan has a specific bias within the CC domain. The 'knowing disbelief' proposition is not inherent in the data, it is an interpretation (for clarity this is not challenged by Dan). It is in the logic train of this interpretation that bias slips in. Social data should be able to tell us, *independently* of significant domain detail, which side is cultural (or whether both are, in such cases). And Dan has collected some great data via hard work on appropriate tools. Hence the best plan is indeed to let the data tell us what is happening. But in Dan's interpretive logic train he inputs a hard baked prior, i.e. that the mainstream / orthodox position on CC is fact, which cascades down the remaining logic and subverts what the data might otherwise have told us. This is an act of bias. My own interpretation has a different logic train that avoids inputting this hard baked prior, and arrives at what I believe to be a better fit to the data. The comparative analysis is a long read I'm afraid but on the upside has all details, link below. While Dan does not see the importance of this issue, and I do not see how it can't matter, he does not argue in bad faith.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/30/climate-psychologys-consensus-bias

>'But what's worse, IMO, is your belief that "skeptics" as a group are less "emotive[ly] motivated" than any other particular group.'

CC Skeptics as individuals they are identical to everyone else. Globally, their emotive motivations are simply not aligned by a potent socially enforced consensus, which is a primary feature of culture. This is the equivalent of saying that atheists as a group are less culturally aligned that those who adhere to a (particular) religion, a situation taken for granted. In some countries, the US in particular, strong cultural alliance effects as per outlined in other recent thread, means that a large numbers of skeptics *are* aligned to a strong cultural consensus, but this is from Rep / Con culture not 'skeptic culture'. This effect leads to strong cultural behavior on both sides. In other countries this is effect is weaker, but via the Internet no country is an island any more.

It is not a case of taking things personally; it's the case that you haven't demonstrated what you claim. But bad faith, yes, well anyone takes that personally.

June 16, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

Andy -

I'll give it one more go 'round and then I'm thinking it might be time to wrap this up.

==> Much better. And not at all what your original post above implied. As I said, bad faith.

I never meant to imply that your case "rested" on extrapolating from unrepresentative examples, merely that you employed such a flawed reasoning in making your case. There are other components to you arguments also, obviously - some of which I think are also quite problematic, of course.


==> But to say merely that you disagree with something and therefore it must be a product of motivated reasoning...

Of course. But that isn't what I've done.

==> Especially when you add that your debater has an 'ideological agenda' ...

Of course you have an ideological agenda, Andy. Everyone does.

==> (a term usually associated with even stronger motivated reasoning, possibly conscious rather than subconscious, depending upon context),

Possibly. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. It wasn't intended. Rather precisely, it isn't that I think that the problems with your analyses are because you have a conscious agenda, but because you fail to control for the potential of an unconscious agenda.

==> which nevertheless seems to be an agenda you continue even above to avoid identifying.

Not as I see it, Andy. I've identified what I perceive to be an unconscious ideological agenda, as well as the evidence of such that I see as being manifest. You don't agree. So be it.

==> One must find specific difficulties or flaws in the logic train of an argument,

Which I think I've done. You don't agree. So be it.


==> So what specific flaws in my logic train are there, and how do they serve in a dominant manner an identified ideological agenda consistent with the results over *both* domains?

I don't particularly disagree with you there. I'm not all that much convinced by Dan's views on "knowing disbelief." I haven't actually followed the give and take between you two on the issue...but that is very much tangential to anything that I have been discussing with you here.


==> You make a claim that I have not controlled for bias, seems like a perfectly normal challenge; so you should easily be able to show how said bias has tripped up the logic train in,

I think I've done that. You don't agree. So be it. I can live with your disagreement. In fact, it's what I expect, given that you failed to even take the basic steps necessary to control from your bias in the first place, IMO - i.e., because you haven't approached these processes in the same controlled fashion as, for example, Dan has.

==> ... via the same 3 steps identifies both creationism and climate change as cultural in origin.

Again, Andy, I don't doubt that there is important cultural overlay with views on climate change.. That is obvious, IMO. What I reject is your methodology and resulting conclusion regarding your identification of a "calamitous climate change culture," and your differentiation of kind between the cultural overlay for "skeptics" and "realists," respectively.

==> So you won't know for instance that I had no clue that skeptic websites or scientists or such even existed when I first began to realize the cultural components of the climate change movement.

The "cultural components" of the "climate change movement' are abundantly obvious, Andy. I don't doubt that they exist. What I've been talking about is your identification of a "calamitous climate change culture," and your distinguishing that "culture," as a matter of kind, from the cultural components the larger framework of associated ideological polarization.

==> I did not disbelieve the mainstream narrative at the time, so this came as something of a surprise. Do you think I 'belong to' skeptics? How would that work before I knew they existed?

My guess is that it could have gone like this: Once you felt that you had identified a "calamitous climate change culture," your own (likely emotive) attachment to the correctness of that view started to create the conditions for motivated reasoning. As you further developed in that line of thought, your identification as a "skeptic" only helped to reinforce and exacerbate that biasing influence. And as a result of your "motivated reasoning," you wound up with a completely certain, yet highly flawed, conclusion.

But once again, Andy, you are interpreting a "causality" that I never asserted (and "motives" that I never asserted as well)...

==> *per the above methodology*, I believe Dan has a specific bias within the CC domain.

Part of what's interesting about that, Andy, is that in contrast to your analysis, Dan's work shows a symmetry to the biasing influences of motivated reasoning within the climate change domain.

So what we have is someone who is clearly identified with an in-group (in your case "skeptics") and who asserts an asymmetry in the climate change domain that qualitatively elevates his own identity group over the out-group ("realists"), asserting a cultural cognition bias in someone that he feels is identified with that out-group (without even an attempt to explain the basis for such a determination*), even those that person isn't asserting such a qualitative elevation of his own in-group.

* How is it, btw, that you have come to determine that Dan's orientation leads to a cultural cognition? Dan is heavily at odds with quite a few members of the group that you (vaguely) describe as the "calamitous climate change culture," yet not only do you place him into that group (without specifying how or why), you even go so far as to, with complete certainly, explain a causal mechanism behind a putative bias in his work on the basis of his strong identification with that group. I find that quite interesting, actually, and I think that it provides rather solid evidence of the kinds of flaws I've described in your work.


==> The 'knowing disbelief' proposition is not inherent in the data, it is an interpretation (for clarity this is not challenged by Dan).

I kind of agree, actually. Although I haven't really followed the arguments that closely, my general sense is that Dan's views on "knowing disbelief" outpace the evidentiary support.. But, IMO,to the extent that might be true, it is more a function of a different form of motivated reasoning than cultural cognition - I think it's more likely influenced by confirmation bia.

==> But in Dan's interpretive logic train he inputs a hard baked prior, i.e. that the mainstream / orthodox position on CC is fact, which cascades down the remaining logic and subverts what the data might otherwise have told us.

Again, this is all tangential to what I have been discussing with you. I'm not terribly interested in the nuts and bolts of your engagement with him about "knowing disbelief." But again, your lack of effective control for your own biases, IMO, betray precisely the kind of motivated reasoning that I've been pointing to with respect to other aspects of your arguments. You think that your view of that in Dan's logic is a factual, which blinds you to the "baked-in" subjectivity.

Why don't you elaborate on exactly what Dan thinks is a "fact" with respect to the "mainstream/orthodox" position on climate change, and see if he will confirm your absolutely certain conditions in that regard. It would be interesting to see how that plays out. The vagueness in your language there reveals exactly the kind of failure to control for subjectivity that I've described earlier. Your "mainstream/orthodox" description is so vague as to be completely meaningless, yet you've designed an entire culture on the basis of such a vague inclusion/exclusion criterion, and further, assigned a causality behind Dan's logic w/r/t "knowing disbelief" onto such a vague delimiter.

==> My own interpretation has a different logic train that avoids inputting this hard baked prior, and arrives at what I believe to be a better fit to the data.

I have to say, Andy, that you would make such a statement without even a note of irony simultaneously reinforces my argument and makes it clear that you and I will not come to a meeting of minds in this discussion.


==> Globally, their emotive motivations are simply not aligned by a potent socially enforced consensus,

I see that as a very obviously circular argument, Andy. I have explained why I feel that way multiple times. Your argument rests on an arbitrary delineation of a "calamitous climate change culture," and a similarly arbitrary identification of what comprises the large-scale group of "skeptics," and largely ignores the far more obvious and powerful cultural associations that overlay onto your outline of a differentiated cultural causation that distinguishes those too ill-defined and largely un-defined groupings.

==> This is the equivalent of saying that atheists as a group are less culturally aligned that those who adhere to a (particular) religion,

An ironic statement, given the significant ideological associations with the prevalence of atheism. You are choosing only one dimension of "cultural alignment." Show me evidence of a weaker political or cultural association among "skeptics" than among "realists" and you might have something. What is particularly interesting in that regard, is that as views along the political spectrum get more extreme, so does the association with climate change "skepticism." Independents and mainstream Republicans are far more likely to be aligned with "consensus" views on climate change than "Tea Partiers." There is a very strong ideological association with climate change "skepticism." Of course, you know that, Andy. Yet you choose to ignore that as you delineate the cultural overlay onto the climate change domain.

==> In some countries, the US in particular, strong cultural alliance effects as per outlined in other recent thread, means that a large numbers of skeptics *are* aligned to a strong cultural consensus, but this is from Rep / Con culture not 'skeptic culture'. T

Again, your methodology for delineating a lack of "skeptic culture" on the one hand and the identification of a "calamitous climate change culture" on the other lacks any scientifically validated process of evidence gathering, as far as I have seen. If you took a different approach, of the sort that Dan does, whereby you establish a hypothesis, including clearly outlined definitions and terms, and then collected and analyzed data to test your hypothesis, then I would potentially find your analysis to be far more persuasive.

==> But bad faith, yes, well anyone takes that personally.

Well, Andy, I haven't accused you of bad faith. You, on the other hand accuse me of bad faith. But I don't take that personally because you're entitled to your views. I happen to know that I have not been engaging in bad faith. Saying that in my view, your analysis exhibits the manifestation of biases isn't, questioning your motives or, IMO, accusing you of bad faith. You, on the other hand, saying that it simply a matter of fact (not interpretation), that Dan's analysis manifests his own cultural cognition (even though his views suggest a symmetry that doesn't favor the group that you've placed him into) is significantly more problematic, IMO, because it fails to recognize the potential of your own biases to influence your judgement in that regard. But even that, IMO, is not an accusation on your part of bad faith on his.

I will note, Andy, that I raised quite a few issues in this sub-thread that you never engaged with. I, on the other hand, went through your comments point by point. One element of good faith exchange, IMO, is a concerted effort to address all counterarguments.

June 16, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

And with that, Andy, this convo has developed too many individual threads to be coherent enough for me to further engage in the same fashion. I will read any response, of course, and if you're interested in further engaging on a particular thread, it may be worthwhile - but absent such a suggestion on your part, I think we've gone far enough into it and spread it out so far that there's little likely new or interesting to come out of further engagement here. Perhaps we might pick up on some aspects at a later time.

June 16, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

@Joshua

>'Possibly. Sorry if you interpreted it that way. It wasn't intended.'

This is the normal interpretation of that phrase. If you just mean everyone has beliefs and biases, you should stick to this language, otherwise not just me but many people will get miscued.

>'I've identified what I perceive to be an unconscious ideological agenda'

Perhaps you need to be more explicit. Notwithstanding above over-strength of terminology, I still don't seem to be getting from you a short, clear statement of what this ideological agenda is.

>>[AW] '...so you should easily be able to show how said bias has tripped up the logic train in...'

> 'I think I've done that. You don't agree.'

All you've done is restated that I haven't controlled for bias. You haven't said how and where this upsets my logic train, for instance in the 3 step example.


>>[AW] '... via the same 3 steps identifies both creationism and climate change as cultural in origin.'

>'...I don't doubt that there is important cultural overlay with views on climate change.. That is obvious, IMO.'

The analysis does not demonstrate that there is 'overlay', although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, it demonstrates that the core value is cultural.

>The "cultural components" of the "climate change movement' are abundantly obvious,'

Good. This sounds like progress. Considering the overwhelming public narrative per the recent examples of leader's speeches I included, which you likewise agreed were cultural, and the host of other authority sources putting out the same narrative, this is this is the large framework, not a sub-component.

>'My guess is that it could have gone like this:'

Guessing can by healthy. Can't form propositions otherwise. But you have to say it's a guess. Otherwise people are misinformed. You have simply been assuming things about me, which you have no backup for.

>But once again, Andy, you are interpreting a "causality" that I never asserted (and "motives" that I never asserted as well)...

Here is you original message again:

"I think it would be an interesting project to find out how often people extrapolate from a limited set of examples, without evidence of how representative those examples are, to conclude that there is a generalizable pattern that " science 'facts' have turned out not to be facts after all," and then exploit those few examples to advance a cultural meme, largely out of a desire to support emotive concerns. /para/ Why do people draw such conclusions from potentially unrepresentative sampling, if not because they are "motivated" to do so (in the sense of motivated reasoning)?"

How does that not assert causality and motive?

>'Dan's work shows a symmetry to the biasing influences of motivated reasoning within the climate change domain.'

There is symmetry of form in graphs like the polarization of the more knowledgeable (in both domains). This symmetry means you cannot know who occupies the cultural position and who the evidential (or indeed if both sides are cultural). Only tells you strong culture is engaged. In interpretation of this and other data, per above Dan applies a hard baked prior within the CC domain that pins one side of that graph to a position that didn't come from social data, but from belief in an arbitrary position.

>'...in contrast to your analysis'

Same symmetry of form in mine; those polarizations are great data. I don't pin one side to hard baked prior. I recruit other social data to help determine which side is which.

>'How is it, btw...etc'

I don't get this. I don't care which individuals he does or doesn't agree with from the skeptic or the orthodox side of the debate. I care about what the data says, and how the analysis may be conducted as objectively as possible (grnated nothing can be wholly free of bias). In this respect, Dan introduced per above a hard-baked prior, which is that the mainstream climate change narrative if fact. That may or may not be true, but it can't form a hard input to the analysis; the output of the analysis is supposed to tell us whether things like that are true or not. Not quite sure of your implications of 'group', given for instance your terminology issue with 'ideological agenda' above, but injecting that hard prior is an act of bias.

>Why don't you elaborate on exactly what Dan thinks is a "fact" with respect to the "mainstream/orthodox" position on climate change, and see if he will confirm your absolutely certain conditions in that regard.

I've pointed him at the relevant comparative analysis linked above. In fact he graciously noted the analysis in a tweet upon publication at Climate Etc as far as I recall. Although coming in from tangents I think, we've crossed this territory a couple of time on threads at this blog. Mutual understanding can take a long time. On the upside, our language is more aligned now.

>'I see that as a very obviously circular argument, Andy. I have explained why I feel that way multiple times.'

Obviously I don't think that, but it's certainbly a circular discussion that will not benefit us more here.

>'An ironic statement, given the significant ideological associations with the prevalence of atheism...'

There are some. I find distasteful the recent development of assertive atheism that Dawkins and others are promoting. It's still a recent and small-scale thing though.

'Independents and mainstream Republicans are far more likely to be aligned with "consensus" views on climate change than "Tea Partiers." There is a very strong ideological association with climate change "skepticism." Of course, you know that, Andy. Yet you choose to ignore that...'

Not at all. As I've said multiple times even on this thread, this is due to cultural alliance effects. An interesting thing about Independents is that the more educated they get, the more they lean towards skepticism. These are the least partisan of all US voters, and hence this cannot, per 'knowing disbelief' be an effect requiring strong partisan alignement. In fact this forms a useful test that favors my theory over Dan's:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/14/climate-culture-versus-knowing-disbelief/

>'Again, your methodology for delineating a lack of "skeptic culture" on the one hand and the identification of a "calamitous climate change culture" on the other lacks any scientifically validated process of evidence gathering, as far as I have seen.'

Much of the evidence is Dan's. I thought you approved of this evidence. More comes from public surveys, and academic papers / surveys too, the latter items of which are almost exclusively from orthodox sources, to avoid any hint of skeptic bias. One doesn't have to collect evidence personally for a valid approach. But you've made this point often before, and it seems as invalid as ever.

==> But bad faith, yes, well anyone takes that personally.

>'Saying that in my view, your analysis exhibits the manifestation of biases isn't, questioning your motives or, IMO, accusing you of bad faith.'

Indeed not, and I didn't accuse you of bad faith for this. But the actual bad faith demonstrated above.

>I will note, Andy, that I raised quite a few issues in this sub-thread that you never engaged with. I, on the other hand, went through your comments point by point. One element of good faith exchange, IMO, is a concerted effort to address all counterarguments.

A great deal of it is just comment or repeat. Some this post is too for instance; addressing the nub of the issues is easier on readers.

June 16, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

@Joshua,

didn't see your second until I pushed refresh after posting.

As you wish.

June 16, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

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>