Press release from the National Science Foundation:
Why “Scientific Consensus” Fails to Persuade 
Individuals with competing cultural values disagree about what most scientists believe
Whether a scientist is seen as knowledgeable and trustworthy depends on a person’s cultural values. |
Suppose a close friend who is trying to figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket that the author received a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from a major university, is on the faculty at another one, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Would you advise your friend that the scientist seems like an “expert”?
If you are like most people, the answer is likely to be, “it depends.” What it depends on, a recent study found, is not whether the position that scientist takes is consistent with the one endorsed by a National Academy. Instead, it is likely to depend on whether the position the scientist takes is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.
This was the finding of a recent study conducted by Yale University law professor Dan Kahan, University of Oklahoma political science professor Hank Jenkins-Smith and George Washington University law professor Donald Braman that sought to understand why members of the public are sharply and persistently divided on matters on which expert scientists largely agree.
“We know from previous research,” said Dan Kahan, “that people with individualistic values, who have a strong attachment to commerce and industry, tend to be skeptical of claimed environmental risks, while people with egalitarian values, who resent economic inequality, tend to believe that commerce and industry harms the environment.”
In the study, subjects with individualistic values were over 70 percentage points less likely than ones with egalitarian values to identify the scientist as an expert if he was depicted as describing climate change as an established risk. Likewise, egalitarian subjects were over 50 percentage points less likely than individualistic ones to see the scientist as an expert if he was described as believing evidence on climate change is unsettled.
Study results were similar when subjects were shown information and queried about other matters that acknowledge “scientific consensus.” Subjects were much more likely to see a scientist with elite credentials as an “expert” when he or she took a position that matched the subjects’ own cultural values on risks of nuclear waste disposal and laws permitting citizens to carry concealed guns in public.
“These are all matters,” Kahan said, “on which the National Academy of Sciences has issued ‘expert consensus’ reports.” Using the reports as a benchmark,” Kahan explained that “no cultural group in our study was more likely than any other to be ‘getting it right’,” i.e. correctly identifying scientific consensus on these issues. They were all just as likely to report that ‘most’ scientists favor the position rejected by the National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report if the report reached a conclusion contrary to their own cultural predispositions.”
In a separate survey component, the study also found that the American public in general is culturally divided on what “scientific consensus” is on climate change, nuclear waste disposal, and concealed-handgun laws.
“The problem isn’t that one side ‘believes’ science and another side ‘distrusts’ it,” said Kahan referring to an alternate theory of why there is political conflict on matters that have been extensively researched by scientists.
He said the more likely reason for the disparity, as supported by the research results, “is that people tend to keep a biased score of what experts believe, counting a scientist as an ‘expert’ only when that scientist agrees with the position they find culturally congenial.”
Understanding this, the researchers then could draw some conclusions about why scientific consensus seems to fail to settle public policy debates when the subject is relevant to cultural positions.
“It is a mistake to think ‘scientific consensus,’ of its own force, will dispel cultural polarization on issues that admit scientific investigation,” said Kahan. “The same psychological dynamics that incline people to form a particular position on climate change, nuclear power and gun control also shape their perceptions of what ‘scientific consensus’ is.”
“The problem won’t be fixed by simply trying to increase trust in scientists or awareness of what scientists believe,” added Braman. “To make sure people form unbiased perceptions of what scientists are discovering, it is necessary to use communication strategies that reduce the likelihood that citizens of diverse values will find scientific findings threatening to their cultural commitments.”
The Journal of Risk Research published the study online today. It was funded by the National Science Foundation’s division of Social and Economic Sciences.
-NSF-
Media Contacts
Bobbie Mixon, NSF (703) 292-8070 bmixon@nsf.gov
Principal Investigators
Dan M. Kahan, Yale University Law School (203) 432-8832 dan.kahan@yale.edu
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There really isn’t a need to overcomplicate this. Those who display ‘individulaistic values’ are those that have shown an ability to think for themselves.
QED.
New study finds Scientists that hype false consensus, most likely to sell Grandmother.
“We know from previous research,” said Dan Kahan, “that people with individualistic values, who have a strong attachment to commerce and industry, tend to be skeptical of claimed environmental risks, while people with egalitarian values, who resent economic inequality, tend to believe that commerce and industry harms the environment.”
======================================
Uh, YEAH. Simplistic analysis, but OK.
Nothing new here. Everybody and their brother figured that one out, a long time ago.
But the broadbrush that is used here is most unscientific.
What about individualistic types who love commerce and industry [me], but who are also fearful of environmental risks [me again] ??
I wont name any names of a good violator [MONSANTO].
Too much of a broadbrush here.
And the concluding statement was most disturbing:
…”it is necessary to use communication strategies that reduce the likelihood that citizens of diverse values will find scientific findings threatening to their cultural commitments.”
HUH??
Here’s where the collusion between big academia, big government, big environment, and big corporation is most evident: they all have to spin what they are saying, because some part of their argument is either a lie or a dead end road.
This article has some essence of the truth [the individualist vs. egalitarian part….I get it!] but all this is destroyed in seconds when they try to recycle their spin to form “communication strategies”.
Next!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Individuals with competing cultural values disagree about what most scientists believe…
False, scientists shouldn’t have a religious BELIEF in controversial subjects, period. Have an opinion, now that’s alright and a different story altogether.
If the “competing cultural values” are things like always being completely truthful or being sure to highlight both sides of a controversial subject or such, I might agree.
However, before I even read the core of this article, I already disagree with whoever is writing this from the first few words. Most people I know disagree with scientists ONLY when the competing motivations of the scientists, the hyping of certain aspects of whatever they have discovered, or down right deception is their prime objective instead of laying out their clear description of their work and letting other intelligent persons come to their own conclusions. That is the real problem with your “consensus”.
If they have to hype their work, even their data and methods are suspect. If they have to state firm BELIEF in their work, even their data and methods are suspect. If they have to twist their data and methods to press their BELIEF, it’s only trash, nothing can be trusted.
I don’t understand.
They refuse to give up, don’t they?
It’s simple really if you want a high level of credibility, don’t tell lies!
For example: If you are unsure about something, say “I am unsure”. don’t say that you’re sure about it, and hope like hell you will be proved right later on.
The following is an excellent example of how undermine scientific credibility and shake people’s trust in science generally.
‘So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.’
When facts and logic do not support a position it becomes necessary to label those who bring logic and facts to the debate as a “deniest” and try to attack them personally rather than to use logic. If facts do not support a position it is becomes necessary to use propaganda, to distort the facts and to manipulate the data.
This comment is more of the same.
Greenhouses owners purchase and use equipment to increase CO2 in their greenhouse because increased CO2 increases plant yield and reduces growing times. It is a fact that we are carbon based life forms. Plants make more efficient use of water and can survive with less water due to reduced respiration when CO2 is higher.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#the
It is fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere and a slightly warmer temperature at higher latitudes is beneficial to the environment.
The scientific data supports the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (cloud cover increases or decreases to resist the forcing change) rather positive (planet amplifies forcing changes). Scientifically the implications of negative forcing is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming at high latitudes.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will not melt due to a less than 1C temperature rise. There will be no tipping point.
Or as Prof Lindzen puts it: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’
The conclusion of this article reminds me of a quote from one of the most brilliant comedy shows ever, the BBC’s “Absolutely Fabulous.”
In all of the constant farce, satire, and higher and lower criticism of that show, one of the episodes was about “P.R.” [Public Relations] and the salient satirical quote from a P.R. executive was this:
“Why change the world, when all you have to do is change people’s perception of it.”
Hahahahaha.
Reminds me of the conclusion of this study, LOL.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Does this mean we are right to pick on the culture of death views that pervade scientist’s ranks?
“It is necessary to use communication strategies that reduce the likelihood that citizens of diverse values will find scientific findings threatening to their cultural commitments.”
======================================
Well the authors of this study could sure use a lesson in what they preach!
Oh and BTW [to the authors of this study] ….your particular “scientific findings” are not “threatening” to my cultural commitments. [Whatever the hell that last thing is…LOL]
No threat whatsoever.
They are just funny. Thanks for the good laugh.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I suppose offering up the data from which the scientist concludes from and then not speculating would help too. Present and shut up.
Scientific Consensus does not exist but outside of critical thinking and is a sign that a theory has jumped the shark tank.
Dan Kahan is quoted as saying:
“…while people with egalitarian values, who resent economic inequality, tend to believe that commerce and industry harms the environment.”
This description inspires me to distrust these people. If you resent economic inequality, you do not understand what America has offered and just might continue to offer to Americans. If you believe that commerce or industry harms the environment then you are severely lacking in knowledge of commerce and industry. If the people described approved of a scientist, I would doubt that they could offer good reason for approving of the scientist. It seems that Kahan’s description of one set of cultural values reveals that the people holding them do not have the ability to identify good science and scientists. So, in conclusion, it seems that Kahan’s description of one culture undermines his claim that its members do as well in identifying good science as do members of the other culture or cultures.
There is a larger truth that must be repeated at this time and all times. Scientific concensus fails to persuade today for the same reason it failed to persuade Galileo. The real motivation for this study is to resurrect the recently deceased scientific consensus on AGW. At least, they are trying to keep the concept alive so that we will not be tempted to rely on critical reason and scientific method. Good old NSF: “The consensus is dead; long live the consensus!”
Look – this study seems to me to be very narrowly based on values pertinent to the USA community.
I have strong indivilistic values but I also believe strongly in a harmonous society.
I try to evaluate cases on their merits, even if the outcome is uncomfortable to myself.
Does that make me a nut case or merely a rational minded, facts based, socially conscious individual?
Damn – there are advantages and disadvantages in every real alternative for every real problem.
It’s just that I don’t like chasing smoke dreams or nightmares in the sky.
So I have views on AGW, atomic power stations and concealed weapons.
I’m sure on at least one of these I will disagree with you.
Some grandmothers I might be tempted to buy. Mann’s, Hansen’s, or Gore’s …not so much.
Steamboat McGoo says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:18 pm
I don’t understand.
They refuse to give up, don’t they?
________________
It’s like the cartoon devise where the character keeps running madly even after he has run off the edge of the cliff. Then he looks down, then he looks at the camera, whispers “mama”, and only then does he plummet to the canyon floor. It takes a while to diffuse the momentum. Doubtless this “study” was conceived and commenced before CAGW hit the abyss and the people doing it were so busy “running” they haven’t yet realized there is nothing underfoot. There is a lot of this going on. The denial is demonstrated everywhere in CAGW circles by handwringing about reworking the terms and the message. Which is little more than a wonderful example of frantic cartoon running without any traction. The free fall is coming but they haven’t quite figured it out yet.
Those who are supporting the paradigm CO2 is a dangerous pollutant appear to have not taken a basic biology course. It does not seem possible that the facts could become this distorted.
The AGW paradigm seems to have a taken on a life of its own. Billions and billions are advocated for CO2 sequestration and a CO2 trading scheme. Billions and billions are advocated for a massive bureaucratic world monitoring agency and CO2 police force. This is not a right wing vs left wing issue. This is reality vs a manufactured panic.
If the discussion was energy conservation, more fuel efficient cars and houses, thoughtful cost effective and focused pollution control, it would move likely move ahead with the support of the majority.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#the
Introduction
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.
For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. (My comment cereal crops such grain and rice experience a 40% increase in yield for a doubling of CO2. )
Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.
Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.
Lance of BC says: at 8:46 pm “jumped the shark”
Just in case you do not know:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jump%20the%20shark
Huh, “individualistic values” vs “egalitarian values”? Well, unless Parrots think, since when is groupthink even thinking? And apparently the authors think that all thought is or could be a matter of groupthink:
Instead, it [who you would say is an ‘expert’] is likely to depend on whether the position the scientist takes is consistent with the one believed [verbalized] by most people who share [verbalize] your cultural values [as verbalized].
But this is a “finding” which would therefore include as likely groupthink in structure the Authors’ own thought from their own “culture”, making their study equally non-objective by virtue of their own argument. And from there it just keeps getting worse:
Obviously, in the Authors’ world, objective science does not exist. It, too, is only “cultural”. So is rational thought. Likewise, there is no such thing as reality, since it varies per “culture”. In fact, the same goes for word meanings themselves, in effect making communication itself not possible, unless communication only means repeating the “correct” or “incorrect” noises, etc., as determined by the specific “culture”.
So that, finally, “Might makes right!”
Or else the Authors need to explain why they have apparently avoided any discussion of individual rational thought and real Science in considering the matter of what people think and why – and of course along with the question of what is the best thing to do in any particular situation.
“people with egalitarian values, who resent economic inequality” is a nice way to say “socialists”. They’re the same people who believed in “scientific Marxism” until even the Russians couldn’t stand it anymore. They’re the people who believe in what sounds nice without regard for hard things like evidence, reason, logic and truth.
It would seem that people that believe in warm and fuzzie thinking can’t understand why Realists insist on seeing the facts. Sorry, I must be brain damaged, because I work in the REAL world. Wishful thinking does not solve real problems and things that work should not be “fixed”. pg
Many textbooks used to contain phrasing of this sort, “this issue is not well understood,” and usually implied “we don’t know.” Such honesty seems to have gotten misplaced over the years and if these professors would like to do something useful they could try to figure out why. Climate activists and their scientist supporters have given us plenty of reasons to mistrust them. Why so?, is another researchable issue.
“The problem won’t be fixed by simply trying to increase trust in scientists or awareness of what scientists believe,” added Braman.
Right. The problem will be fixed when scientists are truthful.
From my essay of Sept. 10th:
“The problem won’t be fixed by simply trying to increase trust in scientists or awareness of what scientists believe,” added Braman. “To make sure people form unbiased perceptions of what scientists are discovering, it is necessary to use communication strategies that reduce the likelihood that citizens of diverse values will find scientific findings threatening to their cultural commitments.”
Here I find Braman just a bit cynical. Let me suggest a rewording: []
To make sure people form unbiased perceptions of what scientists are discovering, it is necessary to be totally honest in every communication. It is through completely open and honest discourse, that wise public policies can be crafted. Science must always keep itself to that which it is capable of doing, i.e. rigid adherence to the scientific method, deductive logic and hypothesis falsification.
Scientists can and should contribute their world views and philosophical values to that discourse, in addition and separate from, not in place of, their science. The findings of science will rarely threaten the cultural commitments of anyone. They are what they are and nothing more. The public policies that are crafted from science may do so and perhaps should do so. At least they will be understandable if not always palatable. It is not the findings of science but the results of propaganda, ideology, questionable models based on unreliable assumptions, and so on, that are causing many of or current public discourse and policy problems. It is the true believer, demigods among us that do the greatest disservice to society.