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

Author(s):  
Dan M. Kahan
Author(s):  
Adrian Bardon

It is a striking—yet all too familiar—fact about human beings that our belief-forming processes can be so distorted by fears, desires, and prejudices that an otherwise sensible person may sincerely uphold false claims about the world in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When we describe someone as being “in denial,” we mean that he or she is personally, emotionally threatened by some situation—and consequently has failed to assess the situation properly according to the evidence. People in denial engage in motivated reasoning about their situation: They (sincerely) argue and interpret evidence in light of a preestablished conclusion. One significant type of reason-distorting emotional threat is a threat to one’s ideological worldview. When group interests, creeds, or dogmas are threatened by unwelcome factual information, biased thinking becomes ideological denialism. (One critical example of such denialism is the widespread denial of settled climate science.) Denial can stand in the way of individual well-being, and ideological denialism can stand in the way of good public policy. This book is a wide-ranging examination of denial and denialism. It offers a readable overview of the social psychology of denial, and examines the role of ideological denialism in conflicts over public policy, politics, and culture. Chapters focus on our philosophical and scientific understanding of denial, denial of scientific consensus, denialism in political economy, and denialism in religious belief. An afterword examines proposals for improving science communication in light of findings about motivated reasoning and denial.


2021 ◽  
pp. 096366252098513
Author(s):  
Claire Konkes ◽  
Kerrie Foxwell-Norton

When Australian physicist, Peter Ridd, lost his tenured position with James Cook University, he was called a ‘whistleblower’, ‘contrarian academic’ and ‘hero of climate science denial’. In this article, we examine the events surrounding his dismissal to better understand the role of science communication in organised climate change scepticism. We discuss the sophistry of his complaint to locate where and through what processes science communication becomes political communication. We argue that the prominence of scientists and scientific knowledge in debates about climate change locates science, as a social sphere or fifth pillar in Hutchins and Lester’s theory of mediatised environmental conflict. In doing so, we provide a model to better understand how science communication can be deployed during politicised debates.


Heritage ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 3186-3192
Author(s):  
Len Gleeson

For the inscription of the Egyptian statuette in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum, the dedicator’s second title has long been open to question. New and detailed physical evidence, based on optical profilometry, is presented here. The results show errors/omissions in the previously accepted reading and open the way to a much more plausible translation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 522
Author(s):  
Anna Beniermann ◽  
Laurens Mecklenburg ◽  
Annette Upmeier zu Belzen

The ability to make evidence-based decisions, and hence to reason on questions concerning scientific and societal aspects, is a crucial goal in science education and science communication. However, science denial poses a constant challenge for society and education. Controversial science issues (CSI) encompass scientific knowledge rejected by the public as well as socioscientific issues, i.e., societal issues grounded in science that are frequently applied to science education. Generating evidence-based justifications for claims is central in scientific and informal reasoning. This study aims to describe attitudes and their justifications within the argumentations of a random online sample (N = 398) when reasoning informally on selected CSI. Following a deductive-inductive approach and qualitative content analysis of written open-ended answers, we identified five types of justifications based on a fine-grained category system. The results suggest a topic-specificity of justifications referring to specific scientific data, while justifications appealing to authorities tend to be common across topics. Subjective, and therefore normative, justifications were slightly related to conspiracy ideation and a general rejection of the scientific consensus. The category system could be applied to other CSI topics to help clarify the relation between scientific and informal reasoning in science education and communication.


mBio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo G. Torres ◽  
Maria Elena Bottazzi ◽  
Floyd L. Wormley

The way that diversity, equity, and inclusion impact scientific careers varies for everyone, but it is evident that institutions providing an environment where being different or having differences creates a sense of being welcomed, supported, and valued are beneficial to the scientific community at large. In this commentary, three short stories from Texas-based microbiologists are used to depict (i) the importance of bringing the guiding principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion within their professional roles, (ii) the need to apply and translate those principles to support and enable successful scientific careers among peers and trainees, and (iii) the impact of effective science communication to increase the understanding of microbial environments among the community at large.


1987 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Herzog

The paper deals with the role and significance of election campaigns through a consideration of the relevant literature in political science, communication and anthropology. The current interpretation of elections as ritual and drama is altered by focusing on V. Turner's concept of liminality. As liminal periods, it is claimed, election campaigns are an active arena for social construction of political worlds. They take an active part in moulding political cognition and thus produce long-term effects. Perceiving elections in this conceptual frame focuses the empirical concern on the different actors participating in moulding old or new social meanings, the way challenging alternatives are presented, negotiated, included or excluded, the way events as well as symbols become meaningful. It reveals the contested as well as the taken-for-granted, unquestioned and thus reinforced political symbolic world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document