follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

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

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

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

« "Fake news"--enh. "Alternative Facts presidency"--watch out! (Talk summary & slides) | Main | Politically biased information processing & the conjunction fallacy »
Friday
Feb172017

Roadtrip

Will send postcards

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (9)

You got a mention:

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-expert-science-fake-news.html

February 18, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

@Jonathan-- did you happen to see that the article you linked is a press release issued by Brosard's university? A pretty big part of AAAS annual mtg is to generate material for science journalists

February 19, 2017 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Andras-- there is a video link to first panel here: http://meetings.aaas.org/program/remote-viewing/misinformation/

The second one doesn't seem to have been uploaded; I might have ruined the video by jumping of the dais & walking around the room as I presented. But if it is uploaded, I'll note that in blog post on the session

February 19, 2017 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Dan

I did see the article had "Provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison" at the end. But no link to the original source release that I could find. Note to science journalists: Provide links to supporting sources!

February 19, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Dan, where's the peer reviewed research on the effects of prancing on audience interaction and science communication?

I'm following the AAAS proceedings with the hopes that participants will come up with some guidelines for those of us out in the hinderlands regarding upcoming public communication events including pros and cons of the March for Science and possible alternatives.

I would have liked to attend, but have landed on the wrong coast at this time. Missed the San Francisco AGU meeting earlier by traveling in the opposite direction then too.

Videos are very helpful! Maybe you could get a small bodycam and we could listen while watching the audience watch you. Could help us know what our partisan allignments should be.

February 19, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

Dan -

I took the time to watch those presentations while on the elliptical. (I thought your presentation was interesting and well presented, FWIW).

I watched because I hoped that doing so might help clarify for me, confusion on my part, as to why you draw a few particular conclusions that don't quite add up for me. Unfortunately, I didn't make much progress in that regard...but I wanted to follow up on one in particular of those areas of confusion.

In your presentation, you mention how farmers act in response to a high likelihood of "human caused" climate change - that stands in contrast to their stated "beliefs" rejecting the idea of human caused climate change.

I remember seeing you engage with a few "skeptics" on the question of whether those farmers are actually acting in response to "human caused" climate change as opposed to "naturally" caused climate change. To be honest, I couldn't follow the technical ins and outs of those discussions. I am inclined to think that those "skeptics" are likely to be strongly "motivated" in their reasoning on that issue, and while I am somewhat inclined to grant you a baseline of less "motivation" because you actively collect and analyze the data, I certainly can't exclude you from a similar predilection to confirm a bias. And so I'm wondering if you have some relatively clear and simple way to reference the evidence that allows you to conclude that the farmers are acting in response to "human caused" climate change as differentiated from "naturally caused" climate change?

I might add, also, in the larger picture I think this is a relatively insignificant point: I certainly believe that people are not merely capable of, but highly likely to hold internally contradictory beliefs across different "belief domains" or "clusters" - particularly when those domains overlap with polarizing ideological identifications. I see no reason to think that "skeptical" farmers (or climate "skeptics" or climate "realists") should in any way be excluded from a high prevalence of such a behavior pattern. But this is a minor issue where I would like to better reconcile my understanding with your stated conclusions.

February 19, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

There was a protest rally coordinated with this AAAS event:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/19/we-did-not-start-this-fight-as-trump-era-dawns-scientists-rally-in-boston/

Love the "Objective Reality Exists" placard, but it needs more bite. How about "Get Real or Die!"?

February 19, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan, IMHO, both "objective Realtiy Exists" and "Get Real or Die" are slogans with more appeal to the marchers than others, who might read said signs, who are currently unconvinced of the importance of the pro-science cause. The latter sign also has the disadvantage of being antagonistic.

I also think that this is the sort of messaging that increases polarization and may convince those who have been Trump supporters to rally behind him and fight harder. Additionally, as in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-supporters-see-a-successful-president--and-are-frustrated-with-critics-who-dont/2017/02/19/496cb4b4-f6ca-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.f62916008223. perceived disrespect is a strong driving force. At the end of this article a supporter notes: "I think the only thing that’s going to reunite us is maybe the Lord coming back.”" For believers in Armageddon, the world is supposed to end, and they are expecting it to be a very good thing, for them, not the rest of us.

February 20, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

"Jonathan, IMHO, both "objective Realtiy Exists" and "Get Real or Die" are slogans with more appeal to the marchers than others, who might read said signs, who are currently unconvinced of the importance of the pro-science cause."

the Trumpians are pro-science, they just don't think the marchers are.

February 23, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

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>