follow CCP

Recent blog entries
« The aporetic judge | Main | Climate-change risk communication and risk management for businesses »
Tuesday
Sep252012

Tragedy of the Science-Communications Commons

Giving lecture today at Hampshire College. Here's the summary:

Culture, Rationality, and Risk Perception: the Tragedy of the Science-Communication Commons

From climate change to the HPV vaccine to gun control, public controversy over the nature of policy-relevant science is today a conspicuous feature of democratic politics in America. A common view attributes this phenomenon to the public’s limited comprehension of science, and to its resulting vulnerability to manipulation by economically motivated purveyors of misinformation. In my talk, I will offer an alternative account. The problem, I will suggest, is not a deficit in rationality but a conflict between what’s rational at the individual and collective levels: ordinary members of the public face strong incentives – social, psychological, and economic – to conform their personal beliefs about societal risk to the positions that predominate within their cultural groups; yet when members of diverse cultural groups all form their perceptions of risk in this fashion, democratic institutions are less likely to converge on scientifically informed policies essential to the welfare of all. I will discuss empirical evidence that supports this analysis--and that suggests potential strategies for securing the collective good associated with a science communication environment free of the conflict between knowing what is known and being who we are.

The talk will feature data from our study of science-comprehension and cultural polarization on climate change and our experimental examination of how using geoengineering as a framing device can promote more open-minded engagement with climate science.

Slides here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

It may be a mistake to consider those who are scientifically educated or even numerate to have any more ability to make judgements outside of their field than the general public. Judgement of relative levels of risk is an area that mankind is strangely incompetent at. Evolutionary risk defences seem to only kick in for the very short term threat. For meaningful risk considerations you have to do the hard work and challenges of actual numerical studies - not just come up with an "opinion". Even the relatively tiny number of scientists working on climate change evidence have only a minuscule snapshot of what may or may not be going on and how it contributes to the whole. As has been proven the "climate change committees" do not even read the evidence to add the small parts of new knowledge into a convincing whole picture. And this is a phenomenon where each potential change is tiny and slow - cast against seasonal changes which vary between snowstorm, heatwave and tornado etc. Having read this blog for some time I think it is not investigating the fundamental real causes of decision bias but just the effects of misinformation. It is an important topic however.

September 27, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterrobert

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>