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

« Do you see an effect here? Some data on correlation of cognitive reflection with political outlooks | Main | Which provides more information--probability density distribution or scatter plot with locally weighted regression line? Which is easiest to comprehend? »

Now "in press": the Gateway Belief Illusion . . .

Coming soon to a newstand near you . . . .

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (10)


OK - so I went and found this:

Obviously, it's mostly based on the VLFM study you take down in your article. But, Lewandowsky is a coauthor. The dates are significant - the SciAm article is 4/28/2015, while Cook & Lewandowsky first submitted their "Rational Irrationality" paper on 3/27/2015.

I don't know how long it takes to go from submitting an article for SciAm to getting it published. But, I would assume Lewandowsky had some knowledge of his results well before 3/27/2015 - should he have done something with the SciAm article - added caveats or perhaps retracted his coauthorship?

What do you think?

June 26, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

@Jonathan-- I have no idea what Lewandowsky was thinking in that regard. I don't believe necessarily that he should have refused to co-author. But maybe you should write him & ask? Then report back?
I know that he was publicly acknowledging the "backfire" effect in summer of 2015.
Realize, too, that he doesn't think there is a "backfire" effect in Australia, where he had also conducted a "97%" study

June 26, 2017 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan


So.... CC/backfire is the inconvenient truth, you're Gore, Lewandowsky is Frank Lucas, and van der Linden is James Inhofe and the VLFM paper is the snowball? And Wood&Porter is the warming "pause"?

History is no longer satisfied with just repeating itself, so it's forming a fractal.

June 26, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

@Jonathan-- I'm better looking than Gore (at least for now)

June 27, 2017 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Jonathan -

Related to the nature of humans as truth-seekers:

June 27, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

There's also this:

June 27, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua


"Related to the nature of humans as truth-seekers:" - well, thinly so.

On the truth-seeker subject, am reading these now:

June 27, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan -

=={ well, thinly so. }==

Well, just to be clear, I wasn't endorsing the thickness of the article...but I do think that the article, along with the two books reviewed in the article, does open a window into the public discussion of the issues at hand.

REALLY liked the Friesen et al. It speaks very directly to my observations of these issues - in particular my opinion that there is a lot of cross-over between "motivation" to find truth and the motivation to be "right." They are directly related goals, but there are also some important distinctions.

And this, also.. "...and political partisans construe political issues as more unfalsifiable (“moral opinion”) instead of falsifiable (“a matter of facts”; " jibes with my observations that people's views on the "morality" and "values" on issues can be quite variable, depending on how the context changes. That is why I think there is some limitation to trying to study how reasoning overlaps with "values" (such as people do when they use a taxonomy based on "values" such as "hierarchical-individualist," as I find that people's degree of individualism or hierarchicalism? can be quite context-dependent.

June 29, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Regarding "moral opinions" and falsifiability....

Check this out at about 2:45 minutes in:

About 30% of the people who voted in the last presidential election, couldn't reliably place Pubs and Dems on a spectrum of fundamental issues such as more services versus less spending.

"It's more about identity than it is about policy...."

As pointed out in the interview, Trump told us that could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still remain popular with his voters.... What does that tell us about the relationship among "moral opinions," identity, reasoning, and truth seeking?

June 29, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Oh - and falsifiability.

June 29, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

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>