The Fight Against Doubt

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
False Beliefs ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Scientific Claims

Current debates about climate change or vaccine safety provide an alarming illustration of the potential impacts of dissent about scientific claims. False beliefs about evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are commonplace, as is corrosive doubt about the existence of widespread scientific consensus. Deployed aggressively and to political ends, ill-founded dissent can intimidate scientists, stymie research, and lead both the public and policymakers to oppose important policies firmly rooted in science. To criticize dissent is, however, a fraught exercise. Skepticism and fearless debate are key to the scientific process, making it both vital and incredibly difficult to characterize and identify dissent that is problematic in its approach and consequences. Indeed, as de Melo-Martín and Intemann show, the criteria commonly proposed as means of identifying inappropriate dissent are flawed, and the strategies generally recommended to tackle such dissent are not only ineffective but could even make the situation worse. The Fight against Doubt proposes that progress on this front can best be achieved by enhancing the trustworthiness of the scientific community and being more realistic about the limits of science when it comes to policymaking. It shows that a richer understanding is needed of the context in which science operates so as to disarm problematic dissent and those who deploy it in the pursuit of their goals.

Communication on Climate Change and Energy Alternatives in the United States

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Bolsen ◽  
Matthew A. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Information ◽  
Forthcoming Article ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
The U.S

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Please check back later for the full article. Most of what people think about politics comes from information acquired via exposure to mass media. Media thus serve a vital role in democracy as a fundamental conduit of political information. Scholars study the factors that drive news coverage about political issues, including the rise of discourse on climate change and shifts in media coverage over time. Climate change first received sustained attention in the U.S. press in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As scientific consensus emerged on the issue, interest groups and other actors emerged who accentuated the inherent uncertainty of climate science as a way to cast doubt on the existence of scientific consensus. The politicization of climate science has resulted in uncertainty among the public about its existence, anxiety about the effects of a fundamental transformation of U.S. energy systems, and support for the status quo in terms of the use of traditional energy sources. Media coverage often magnified the voices of contrarian scientists and skeptics because journalistic norms provided equal space to all sides, a semblance of false balance in news coverage that has persisted through the mid 2000s. By this time, the U.S. public had fractured along partisan lines due to rhetoric employed to generate support by elites. Media fragmentation and the rise of partisan news outlets further contributed to polarization, especially given the tendency of individuals to seek political information about climate change from trusted and credible sources. More recently, new media has come to play an increasingly significant role in communicating information on climate change to the public. Ultimately, there is a need for knowledge-based journalism in communicating climate change and energy alternatives to all segments of the U.S. public, but doing this effectively requires engagement with a broader audience in the debate over how best to address climate change. “Honest brokers” must be referenced in the media as they are best equipped to discuss the issue with citizens of different political identities and cultural worldviews. The success of collective efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change requires not only scientific consensus but the ability to communicate the science in a way that generates greater consensus among the public.

Strategic Framing and Persuasive Messaging to Influence Climate Change Perceptions and Decisions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Bolsen ◽  
Matthew A. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
Change Perceptions ◽  
Strategic Framing ◽  
Range Of Values

The importance of framing as a concept is reflected by the massive amount of attention it has received from scholars across disciplines. As a communicative process, framing involves making certain considerations salient as a way to simplify or shape the way in which an audience understands a particular problem and its potential solutions. As recently as the early 2000s, social scientists began to examine how strategic frames in a communication affect both individuals’ beliefs about climate change and the actions they are willing to support to mitigate the likely effects. Research on the effects of how strategic frames influence the attitudes, beliefs, and preferences of individuals in this domain primarily builds on insights from framing theory, which explains that an individual’s attitude or preference in any given context depends on the available, accessible, and most applicable (i.e., perceived strongest) considerations. But it is much more than theory: frames related to the effects and potential solutions for climate change have been employed strategically by various actors in an effort to shape public opinion and public policy. Perceptions of scientific consensus on climate change are thought to play an important role in determining support for policy actions. Consequently, strategic actors promote a particular agenda by accentuating the inherent uncertainty of climate science, thus casting doubt on the scientific consensus. This has contributed to partisan polarization on climate change and the rise of protective forms of information processing and reasoning in this domain. Strategic messages and frames that resonate with particular subgroups have no effect, or may even backfire, on other segments of the population. Additionally, as individuals who possess different partisan identities become more knowledgeable and numerate, they become increasingly likely to accept information and messages that bolster their existing group loyalties and to reject communications that challenge those identities. Science communicators are thus presented with a considerable barrier to building consensus among the public for action on climate change. In response, scholars have begun to identify strategies and approaches for addressing audiences with the kinds of messages that are most likely to resonate with individuals possessing a diverse range of values and political identities. Further research must identify ways to overcome partisan motivated reasoning on climate change and the persistent and deleterious effects that have resulted from the politicization of climate science.

scholarly journals Public understanding of climate change-related sea-level rise

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Priestley ◽  
Zoë Heine ◽  
Taciano L Milfont
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Sea Level Rise ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Causal Mechanism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Adaptation And Mitigation

Sea-level rise resulting from climate change is impacting coasts around the planet. There is strong scientific consensus about the amount of sea-level rise to 2050 (0.24–0.32 m) and a range of projections to 2100, which vary depending on the approach used and the mitigation measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. Despite this strong scientific consensus regarding the reality of climate change-related sea-level rise, and the associated need to engage publics in adaptation and mitigation efforts, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding people’s understanding of the issue. Here we investigate public understanding of the amount, rate and causes of sea-level rise. Data from a representative sample of New Zealand adults showed a suprising tendency for the public to overestimate the scientifically plausible amount of sea-level rise by 2100 and to identify melting sea ice as its primary causal mechanism. These findings will be valuable for scientists communicating about sea-level rise, communicators seeking to engage publics on the issue of sea-level rise, and media reporting on sea-level rise.

TV and Cable News Coverage of Climate Change

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil T. Gavin
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Press Coverage ◽  
Full Understanding ◽  
Cable News ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Country Specific

Television and cable are two routes by which broadcasters reach the public. Citizens are known to rely on a variety of media sources; however, television is seen by people in a very wide range of geographical locales, as a main or major source of reliable and trusted information. The coverage of climate change by broadcasters is, however, modest relative to press coverage of the topic and reports on topics other than global warming. Journalists in the televisual media can struggle to justify the inclusion of climate change in programming because it can lack the “newsworthiness” that draws editors and reporters to other issues. A range of incentives and pressures have tended to ensure that commentary and claims that stand outside the scientific consensus are represented in “balanced” reporting. The literature on broadcast programming output on climate change is highly diverse and often country specific. Nevertheless, certain features do stand out across locales, notably a focus on alarming (and possibly alarmist) commentary, limited reporting on the causes and consequences of climate change, and widespread reproduction of climate sceptic claims. These common forms of coverage seem unlikely to prompt full understanding of, serious engagement with, or concern about the issue.

scholarly journals Scientific truth or debate: On the link between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 778-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raquel Bertoldo ◽  
Claire Mays ◽  
Gisela Böhm ◽  
Wouter Poortinga ◽  
Marc Poumadère ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Human Activity ◽  
Anthropogenic Climate Change ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Scientific Truth ◽  
The Relationship

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change exists and is caused by human activity. It has been argued that communicating the consensus can counter climate scepticism, given that perceived scientific consensus is a major factor predicting public belief that climate change is anthropogenic. However, individuals may hold different models of science, potentially affecting their interpretation of scientific consensus. Using representative surveys in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Norway, we assessed whether the relationship between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change is conditioned by a person’s viewing science as ‘the search for truth’ or as ‘debate’. Results show that perceived scientific consensus is higher among climate change believers and moreover, significantly predicts belief in anthropogenic climate change. This relationship is stronger among people holding a model of science as the ‘search for truth’. These results help to disentangle the effect of implicit epistemological assumptions underlying the public understanding of the climate change debate.

scholarly journals Putting the Self in Self-Correction: Findings From the Loss-of-Confidence Project

2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162096410
Author(s):  
Julia M. Rohrer ◽  
Warren Tierney ◽  
Eric L. Uhlmann ◽  
Lisa M. DeBruine ◽  
Tom Heyman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
The Self ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Record ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
The Individual ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Ideal

Science is often perceived to be a self-correcting enterprise. In principle, the assessment of scientific claims is supposed to proceed in a cumulative fashion, with the reigning theories of the day progressively approximating truth more accurately over time. In practice, however, cumulative self-correction tends to proceed less efficiently than one might naively suppose. Far from evaluating new evidence dispassionately and infallibly, individual scientists often cling stubbornly to prior findings. Here we explore the dynamics of scientific self-correction at an individual rather than collective level. In 13 written statements, researchers from diverse branches of psychology share why and how they have lost confidence in one of their own published findings. We qualitatively characterize these disclosures and explore their implications. A cross-disciplinary survey suggests that such loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record. We argue that removing barriers to self-correction at the individual level is imperative if the scientific community as a whole is to achieve the ideal of efficient self-correction.

scholarly journals Public understanding of climate change-related sea-level rise

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254348
Author(s):  
Rebecca K. Priestley ◽  
Zoë Heine ◽  
Taciano L. Milfont
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Sea Level Rise ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Causal Mechanism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Adaptation And Mitigation

Sea-level rise resulting from climate change is impacting coasts around the planet. There is strong scientific consensus about the amount of sea-level rise to 2050 (0.24–0.32 m) and a range of projections to 2100, which vary depending on the approach used and the mitigation measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. Despite this strong scientific consensus regarding the reality of climate change-related sea-level rise, and the associated need to engage publics in adaptation and mitigation efforts, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding people’s understanding of the issue. Here we investigate public understanding of the amount, rate and causes of sea-level rise. Data from a representative sample of New Zealand adults showed a suprising tendency for the public to overestimate the scientifically plausible amount of sea-level rise by 2100 and to identify melting sea ice as its primary causal mechanism. These findings will be valuable for scientists communicating about sea-level rise, communicators seeking to engage publics on the issue of sea-level rise, and media reporting on sea-level rise.

The Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three Science Communication Topics

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 679-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abel Gustafson ◽  
Ronald E. Rice
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Behavioral Intentions ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Food Labeling ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Research Results ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
And Gender

While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample ( N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.

In Science We Trust—Or Don’t We?

Uncertainty ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 46-59
Author(s):  
Kostas Kampourakis ◽  
Kevin McCain
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Public Perception ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Orientation ◽  
Science Knowledge ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Consensus View

Scientists are experts in their respective domains because they have the knowledge, credentials, experience, and affirmation of their peers. They are, therefore, the experts when it comes to scientific matters. But individual scientists cannot know everything. Consequently, what matters is not the views of individual scientists but the collective and consensus view of the scientific community. However, the public is divided on the issue of whether to trust science and scientists. Polls in the United States show that scientists are relatively highly respected compared to other professionals, but, at the same time, about half of the people only have some trust in scientists. Worse than that, political orientation rather than science knowledge seems to have a major impact on attitudes toward science. Finally, even though there is a consensus view among scientists on topics like climate change, the public perception is that scientists are divided on such issues.

Don’t Trust the Scientists! Rejecting the Scientific Consensus “Conspiracy”

2018 ◽  
pp. 201-213
Author(s):  
Josh Pasek
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Scientific Facts

Scholars assessing the public understanding of science have long regarded informing Americans about scientific facts as key to raising Americans’ scientific literacy. But many Americans appear to be aware of the scientific consensus and nonetheless reject it. The individuals who are aware of the scientific consensus and reject its tenets tend to distrust scientists. They also focus their rejection on particular issues for which they may be otherwise motivated. This rejection may be driven by elites, who argue against the scientific consensus on issues like climate change by asserting either that the science is unsettled or by contending that the scientific consensus is itself a conspiratorial ploy. Individuals’ patterns of beliefs seem to imply that they view scientific evidence they dislike as the result of a conspiracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document