follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

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

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« "They saw a statutory ambiguity"--judges & motivated reasoning | Main | Are judges politically biased? New paper, new study, new methods, new body piercings--new new new! »

Science of Science Communication 2.0, Session 11.1: Teaching science in a polluted science communication environment, part 2 -- Climate

It's that time again!  "Science of Science Communication 2.0" session 10. Reading list here, & study/discussion questions below.  

Share your wisdom please (don't hoarde & be selfish!)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (4)

Hi Dan
I'm assuming all the questions are designed to be thought provoking and the start of a discussion, as they are a bit odd.. ;-)

ie climate science has nothing much to say, over choice of energy polices.. say nuclear and/or wind.. or even coal/gas - as it is very possible to fully accept AGW, and even think it is serious, and still think coal and/or gas will be important, for may reasons not least economic, technological, etc.. climate science is but one input to that mix.

April 8, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

@barry: then you are in disagreement with a growing empirical literature on "climate science" education, examples of which were featured in the reading. So were many but not all class members; it qas a good discussion for sure

April 8, 2015 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

educating about climate science - ie atmospheric physics, clouds, oceans, , etc

or the wider 'climate science' policies, politics, psychology of public, etc?

ref: growing empirical literature, on 'climate science' education,

sounds like 1) a big appeal to authority, rather than addressing my question...

and 2) something that wlll be looked back on, with 'interest' in 30 yrs
(too be cruel, my analogy is peer reviewed homeopathy journals)

April 9, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

The article by Fiora, et. al. is just creepy. It's just brainwashing, regurgitate facts, do as you are told, etc. Teachers can fall into the trap of emphasizing obedience over knowledge, these people are building the trap. They are turning out the raw material for dictators, not a free society. I'm not a climate change denier, I don't object to what they "teach" but how they teach it, and what they leave out.

Any course on climate science is incomplete without dealing with the political aspects. There will be certain students that are unteachable. The best you can do is illustrate, over and over again, the difference between science (knowledge) and religion (belief) and minimize the intrusion of science into the realm of belief. Evolution does not deny God, randomness does not deny God. When religion intrudes into science, teach the scientific method, particularly the willingness to adapt to new knowledge. Teach that taking a poll of climate scientists is not the scientific method. Taking a poll of people you admire or detest is not the scientific method.

April 10, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterFrankL

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>