Whoops! Thanks ApplegateRanch!
|
Posted on 07/16/2011 12:47:20 AM PDT by neverdem
A new study suggests that your values, not science, determine your views about climate change.
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.
Many science writers and policy wonks nurse the fond hope that fierce disagreement about issues like climate change is simply the result of a scientifically illiterate American public. If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education. In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate.
Led by Yale University law professor Dan Kahan, the Cultural Cognition Project has been researching how cultural and ideological commitments shape science policy discourse in the United States. To probe the public’s views on climate change, the Yale researchers conducted a survey of 1,500 Americans in which they asked questions designed to uncover their cultural values, their level of scientific literacy, and what they thought about the risks of climate change.
The group uses a theory of cultural commitments devised by University of California, Berkeley, political scientist Aaron Wildavsky that “holds that individuals can be expected to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce values that they share with others.” The Wildavskyan schema situates Americans’ cultural values on two scales, one that ranges from Individualist to Communitarian and another that goes from Hierarchy to Egalitarian. In general, Hierarchical folks prefer a social order where people have clearly defined roles and lines of authority...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I’ve been calling Communitarians “Totalitarians with a human mask” for years. They don’t like it when you call ‘em that.
I was involved with analyising the Yucca Mountain risk assessment people, Wildavsky being one of them.
As a whole, they are lying skunks.
They've mis-stated this. It should read "The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are to either know that climate change is a hoax, or TO PERPETUATE THAT HOAX.
That is, IF you are both scientifically literate and continue to state that AGW is real, THEN you know that you are part of the conspiracy and are endorsing false "science" to advance your political ends.
You can be "scientifically literate" without being scientific -- i.e., being honest.
The scientific method is a tool, like mathematics.
You can misuse the SM, just like you can misuse mathematics, but bastardizing the peer review process doesn't affect the value of the process.
You didn't invalidate the process, you just ignored it. Part of the SM process is to point out publicly when this happpens, as has been done in this case.
THANK YOU for linking to the PRINTABLE version!
52% of the general public lean democrat? I saw quoted 37% conservative, 38% moderates and 20% leftist, with 5% far left in this essay. Using their own numbers and splitting the moderates down the middle, *I* get 56% “right” and 44% “left”, but that’s old style arithmetic...
I also found the political leanings percentages of the scientists surveyed telling as well. I still can’t see even an ivory tower intellectual thinking the gov’t runs things well, let alone 57% of them...
The implicit null hypothesis of AGW, or "climate change", is that the NORMAL state of "global climate" is invariant, and that the observed variances are therefore ABNORMAL (and thus require explanation).
Of course, the true state (historical, geological, oceanographic, archaeological evidence all agree) of "global climate" is chaotic, in fact strikingly so, and any observed variances in the historic period are in fact quite minor compared to the generally accepted variances of pre-history.
The whole of AGW "science" is so unscientific, it makes me wanna holler.
Must read, IMHO.
I can't agree with the above. The journal editors and peer reviewers who are supposed to be guardians of the process have NOT done so. They have participated in pushing only one side of the story.
The ONLY reason that the "anti-GW" side of the equation has gotten any exposure at all has been due to the availability of the internet and the ability to bypass the people who have foresaken their guardianship, and become "gatekeepers" instead. Or perhaps the informational equivalent of "Maxwell's demon".
So, no.....I do NOT see that the "scientific method" has succeeded in this case. Quite the contrary. OTOH, the true "freedom of the press" HAS succeeded.
I'm not sure what the answer is to fixing the SM. Perhaps, since most journals are now moving to electronic distribution, each submitted article might have an "open comments forum" associated specifically to that article to allow much more extended "peer review". Include the comments from the "official" peer reviewers as the first "posts" in the forum, and go from there. Leave comments open, for, say, a calendar year.
Quite correct. But "the scientific method" does not fail because the guardians misbehave. You think this has never happened before?
Exposing the misbehavior of the guardians is itself part of the process of the scientific method.
It appears that authors of Yale studies aren't immune to it either:
If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education.If only those stupid skeptics would become better educated, they'd become believers.
You’ve misread the sentence and misunderstood the study.
The authors’ conclusion is that more scientific knowledge only makes people more convinced of their own position, it does not lead them to change sides.
This is probably because the root of this issue is social and political, not scientific. Science is being used as a rationale for political change, rather than as a tool for disinterested inquiry.
Wrong.
Of course it has, but in past incidents, the exposure was done by other scientists within the scientific community, and not via "trial by newspaper/website/blog".
"Exposing the misbehavior of the guardians is itself part of the process of the scientific method."
Indeed, but the process has been so corrupted these days that going outside the normal channels of scientific discourse has been necessary. I don't recall any case where that course has ever been necessary before.
Of course, I'm glad that the "backup channel" was/is available, otherwise they might well have "gotten away with it".
A US Oil Boom--Unless Greens Abort It. USA is on the Verge of a Golden Era in Oil Production.
TARP’s Shadow: Why Tea Partiers won’t listen to the establishment, even as a debt crisis looms
War in Libya: Dumb and Dumber (Victor Davis Hanson)
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Clearly, the study itself is not "scientific." Science does not accept ambiguities that allow valid results in polar opposite conclusions.
As to the scientific level of competence of the opposing camps, I supect the hoaxsters are sadly deficient, demonstrably evidenced by reliance on "consensus," data manipulation and personal attacks.
I remain proudly in the denier camp, and would challenge any "the world is going to die" nutcase to a science test devoid of social and political BS.
Wish they had included a link to the method of testing the scientific competence of the "1500 adults" tested.
The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax...In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate. Led by Yale University law professor Dan Kahan, the Cultural Cognition Project has been researching how cultural and ideological commitments shape science policy discourse in the United States... conducted a survey of 1,500 Americans in which they asked questions designed to uncover their cultural values, their level of scientific literacy, and what they thought about the risks of climate change... The Wildavskyan schema situates Americans’ cultural values on two scales, one that ranges from Individualist to Communitarian and another that goes from Hierarchy to Egalitarian. In general, Hierarchical folks prefer a social order where people have clearly defined roles and lines of authority...I think the hierarchical folks in the climate debate should each be given a line of authority -- one with a noose on one end. Then an egalitarian volunteer will slap the horse on the rump.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
