September 30, 2010

MEANWHILE...:

Why 'Scientific Consensus' Fails to Persuade (ScienceDaily, Sep. 14, 2010)

Suppose a close friend who is trying to figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket that the author received a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from a major university, is on the faculty at another one, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Would you advise your friend that the scientist seems like an "expert"?

If you are like most people, the answer is likely to be, "it depends." What it depends on, a recent study found, is not whether the position that scientist takes is consistent with the one endorsed by a National Academy. Instead, it is likely to depend on whether the position the scientist takes is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.

This was the finding of a recent study conducted by Yale University law professor Dan Kahan, University of Oklahoma political science professor Hank Jenkins-Smith and George Washington University law professor Donald Braman that sought to understand why members of the public are sharply and persistently divided on matters on which expert scientists largely agree.


...that scientist's opinion was, likewise, determined by what those who share his cultural values believe.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 30, 2010 2:22 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« IT'S ODD, GIVEN HAT THEY ALL PLAY TEAM EVENTS IN COLLEGE...: | Main | WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?: »