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
Mustafa Quit says “if I put 50 geologists into a room and gave them a day to discuss (say) continental drift, I’d get 50+ duffering angles.”
That is why you should only work with one-armed geologists. You never get that “well on the one hand…”
Ref – INGSOC says:
September 19, 2010 at 6:02 am
I’m an American, and I’ve always thought Americans were egalitarian. Well, the real ones were, are, forever will be. I don’t think the guys who wrote this quacky study should be given a pass to anywhere. They represent a click of whackos who inhabit the walls of our society and who sneek out and foul everything they touch when no one is looking. They have committed a BIG BIG blunder, they have insulted my intelligence (for what it’s worth it’s all mine) and have mixed up some metaphores, and adjutives, and nowns, and verbs. That, to me is subtrefuge! They’re trying to confuse and distract me while their weesel friends go after my wallet. That’s American too, but I don’t like it.
It surprises me that Kahan, Jenkins-Smith and Braman haven’t done a phrenological map of AGW deniers. Deniers must indeed have some interesting bumps on their craniums, and would be most unlike the bumps in Kahan, Jenkins-Smith and Braman’s skulls – such a phrenological study would provide further support for the scientific consensus on human behaviour well established by the 1840’s.
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”?
———————–
I’d suggest they read that Book! and quite a few others that differed and use their brain…
uh..assuming they have one?
this is what really narks me re the warmist side,
ALL of us sceptics have to read their hype first to form an opinion and research whats said. and hear/see/read it, on every radio tv and magazine
but the blind warmists will NOT seriously read or consider any other views.
or even allow them airtime.
A Man From Europe- I agree with you. My wife and I both were borderline diabetic.
She had symptoms very like your wife’s. We did a modified Atkins/South Beach type diet, and largely, eat in a “Caveman” style diet or should I say more like our own Native American ancestors. That little fact was hidden from both my wife and I by our respective Southern/Appalachian grandmothers. We had a doctor that truly freaked out when we went Atkins on him. “You will kill yourself! ” “Science says!” ad nausium.
Well for me 65 lbs. and my wife 75 lbs. later, our blood work is quite normal, and we have a new lease on life. That coupled with more than a bit of alternative medicine,
we walk miles a day, and have a skeptical view of “consensus ” whatever that is.
One other thing. My personal heroes tend to be those who fought “consensus “:
Galileo. Newton. Pasteur. Einstein. Bell(s) both Alexander G. and Lawrence,founder of Bell Aircraft. Richard Fenyman, Burt Rutan. et. al. But these people who fought the
mainstream are where real science starts. ..
—
John R. Walker had written:
“So to all the campaigning academics and politicians who have spent their lives in their blinkered institutionalised worlds I have a message – you will never control me unless you kill me…”
To which I add the words of Robert A. Heinlein:
—
Oh, this is an excellent conclusion:
“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.”
So scientific discoveries must now go through the mill of ‘communication strategies’ in order that even we hicks and thickos start believing and stop questioning?
Has science become so impoverished that the discoveries cannot stand on their own scientific merits?
Looks to me like another attempt at brainwashing the (scientifically) uncultured masses, who think it is actually cold when they find their houses and streets covered in feet of snow rather than seeing it as another sign of ‘warming’ …
I guess this reminds me of the Myers-Briggs personality test that many of you have taken.
We have two types of people in terms of how they make judgements or reach conclusions:
“Thinking” – Thinkers decide based primarily on logic, and when they do so, they consider a decision to be made. They tend to see the world in black and white and dislike fuzziness. Perhaps because people are so variable, they focus on tangible things, seeking truth and use of clear rules. At work, they are task-oriented, seek to create clear value. Interacting with them tends to brief and business-like. They may be seen as cold and heartless by Feelers.
“Feeling” – Feelers decide based primarily through social considerations, listening to their heart and considering the feelings of others. They see life as a human existence and material things as being subservient to this. They value harmony and use tact in their interactions with others. At work, they are sociable and people-oriented and make many decisions based on their personal values (more than value). They may be seen as unreliable and emotional by Thinkers.
Logical reasoning versus Emotion-based reasoning. The world needs both types but Science should be based more on logical evidence-oriented Thinking rather than emotional considerations.
I had the same experience in Psychology 101 .
Ah, such a nice thread full of independent thinkers. Strange how no one is bothering to question this simplistic more CO2 means more plants claim.
Lets make this easy;
Greenhouse != Cultivated, Semi-Cultivated, or Wild
CO2, and to a lesser extent water != Limiting nutrient
No one knows what the net effect of increasing [CO2] will have on plant life. There is conflicting evidence and no consensus. Yes, consensus is important. It appears no one here, including myself, has the requisite training to independently review and verify this topic.
This quote probably says a lot about the author’s slant:
“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.”
This attitude displayed above is common and quite destructive. The underlying assumption is that both the skeptics and egalitarians are starting with the same level of ignorance of the scientific issues. Those connected with industry will more likely have technical backgrounds and be able to follow and evaluate scientific arguments than those not connected. The level of ignorance is not equal.
Likewise, individualists are more likely to question scientific claims and seek out facts that disprove them. Once you have proof that a claim is false, it does not matter how many “experts” believe it.
Those labeled above as egalitarian, more often without the benefit of a technical background, are more likely to rely on “experts” than individualists. They seem to believe that ignorance is global. At least that is what comes through from my “egalitarian” acquaintances seem to think. In their view, non-experts claiming knowledge are merely exposing greater ignorance than their own.
A great example of this is what happened in California a decade ago. If you will remember, California “deregulated” their electric power industry. (How adding tons of new regulations without removing old ones can be called deregulation is a mystery that no one has successfully explained.) How this was done was based upon the recommendation of “experts.” Right off the bat, the California Public Utilities Commission and the state legislature determined that anyone remotely connected with the power industry would be too compromised by conflict of interest to be allowed to have input into the process. Simply having knowledge of the subject was enough to have your statements dismissed. Even university professors in engineering fields were thus disqualified.
Who ended up being the golden child “expert” that provided technical input into the planning of the deregulation fiasco? Enron, of course, whose expertise was limited to commodity trading up to that time. Commodity trading is far different from a “must supply when demanded” market. Even worse, the electric power market was redesigned by university economics professors with no knowledge of how the industry worked. The combination of those two major legislative blunders used up California’s 14 billion dollar budget surplus in only a few months and drove it so far into the hole financially that it has never recovered.
Assuming equal ignorance is a false starting point in evaluating different social responses to a scientific claim.
“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.” That is:
1) exaggerate
2) prevaricate
3) destroy the data
4) hide the decline
5) create deceptive charts (see Huff on statistics)
6) appeal to emotion
7) use logical fallacies
8) prevent dissenting views from reaching citizens
9) suppress dissenters
10) disseminate $10,000,000,000 worth of propaganda
This “study” isn’t merely a study in social engineering, it is *itself* social engineering done by two lawyers and a non-scientist. People for whom this study is a palliative will feel that they can continue being unfair to actual scientists who demand data transparency. I hope people will continue to point out the unfairness of this sort of treatment.
Being a member of the “common” people (unwashed masses??) does not inherently disconnect one from common sense nor intelligence. The world and its people are more easily analyzed a bit at a time, but none of those bits describes the whole. There is at least a little conformity and anarchy in each of us.
I think this paper is basically bemoaning the advent of literacy. If we didn’t read, then we would believe.
Bill Illis says “We have two types of people in terms of how they make judgements or reach conclusions:…”Thinking”…”Feeling”…Logical reasoning versus Emotion-based reasoning. The world needs both types but Science should be based more on logical evidence-oriented Thinking rather than emotional considerations.
Bill that is illogical. We can’t easily divide humans into two end members, thinking versus feeling, or individualistic versus egalitarian. There is nothing wrong with scientists having strong feelings about their work. Is Warren Buffet individualistic or egalitarian (you know, the guy who made 50 billion dollars and then gave it away)?
egalitarian and individualistic are on two different axes:
Starwatcher says: at 8:42 am
Perhaps, Starwatcher, you should stop watching stars for a bit and read all the material collected over here:
http://co2science.org/
When you return you might then take a crack at critiquing your own comment. Before you go though, please explain in simple and direct English the meaning of the two lines under “lets make this easy;”. Are you intending that the symbol “!=” have the meaning of “inequality” a computer programmer might use?
Well, one thing is certain. The egalitarians, or Egalites if you will, will not only be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes, (See Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) but will also be the ones least likely to survive without the massive infrastructure we have built up using “fossil” fuels. The individualists, or Individs shall we say, will not only be the ones pointing the guns during the revolution, but they will also be the ones that can fix the broken machines and find food without a supermarket once the smoke clears.
I for one welcome the coming apocalypse the Egalites foretell.
😉
Here’s the difference between evolutionists’ and AGWs’ defences against disagreements. Evolutionists are often haughty and condescending in addressing disagreements, but by-and-large, they address the disagreements. The AGW crowd addresses the mental deficiency leading to the disagreement.
Frankly don’t care for that second approach.
They continue to produce smoke curtains.
Scientific consensus fails because it’s simply not true.
Only Bud heads, Obamabots, brainwashed lefties, fake environmentalists and corrupt stake holders can be programmed to accept consensus without asking serious questions.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-science-fake-science-and-deliberate.html
Tell this story to mothers of children with autism. Then duck. Believe it or not, the consensus used to be that if one had a child with autism, the mother was most likely cold towards the infant and had failed in her duty to bond with her child. Upon that diagnosis, children were often forceably removed from the home and the mother advised to have no more children as she was unfit to carry out the duties of motherhood.
It wasn’t until the advent of the internet that mothers started message boards, shared their stories with each other, and in the process discovered all kinds of things the “consensus” had overlooked.
The authors make the mistake of assuming that the National Academy of Sciences had an informed opinion on AGW but they don’t and very few scientists do. The issue in dispute is whether the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing are as positive as the models indicate, or only mildly positive, or actually negative. The would have to be familiar with the model diagnostic literature to assess their credibility, and the model independent papers on climate sensitivity and net feedbacks to CO2 in the current climate regime. A far larger part of the the scientific community is expressing an opinion than actual has an informed opinion. Many are just robo-signers who can cite little more than the summary conclusion of the IPCC FAR.
Lemmings Agree!
Diving off the cliff is the ONLY way to save world.
When scientific results determines science funding, all bets are off.
And we are clearly in an era where power-seeking governments and their leadership elites WANT an answer which allows them greater control.
Not to mention the vast looting of wealth and endless source of corruption that cap-n-tax will become.
Tim Williams writes:
“Please provide some evidence for your assertion that the scientific concensus ‘on AGW’ is now dead. Thanks.”
There is an abundance of evidence. There is this website. There is Climateaudit.org. I especially recommend Roy Spencer’s website and his book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder.” There is the fact that the US Senate cannot find enough AGW supporters to attempt a vote on “Cap and Trade” or some similar bill. There is the fact that no UN body expects any substantive agreement on AGW in the forseeable future. Of course, we must not forget that AGW has just been renamed GCD, global climate disruption. Once again, the renamers left off the word ‘anthropogenic’, a weasal tactic if ever there was one. When you give up the name “AGW,” you have pretty much acknowledged that AGW is dead. As for myself, I would also cite the fact that seventy percent of the American people believe that AGW is dead. Well, there is a beginning for you.
You know, most trial attorneys are vehemently opposed to tort reform yet most of the general public is in favor or tort reform. Is this cultural or financial? I maintain that most “climate scientists” (who are funded with government grants…governments that have a vested interest in AGW being “real” enough to justify taxing CO2) are essentially paid to study a “problem”. If the “problem” is shown not to exist there goes their funding and quite possibly their job. Is this “scientific” or financial?
Then we have those with egalitarian values who oppose economic injustice buying into what the “climate scientists” say. I maintain that people with those cultural values are going to be attracted to the solution and therefore will uncritically buy into the problem. It’s the same with nearly every eco-scare.