DG -
For your literature search, maybe these help. At least if I understand
you correctly, you may find these of interest (and their references).
Particularly compelling to me is the work on cultural cognition (Kahan,
Braman, Slovic et al.). Jost and colleagues - political psychologists -
add compelling additional perspectives:
Kahan, D. M., &
Braman, D. (2008). The self-defensive cognition of self-defense. American
Criminal Law Review, 45(1), 1-65.
Kahan, D. M., &
Braman, D. (2006). Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law
&
Policy Review, 24: 147-170.
Kahan, D. M.,
Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). The
Second
National Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of - and Making Progress
In - The
American Culture War of Fact. SSRN eLibrary, http://ssrn.com/paper=1017189.
Gastil, J., Kahan,
D. M., & Braman, D. (2006). Ending polarization: The good news
about the
culture wars. Boston Review, 31(2), http://bostonreview.net/BR31.32/gastilkahanbraman.php.
Jost, J. T., &
Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the
palliative
function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13,
111-153.
Jost, J. T., &
Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying
ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14,
260-265.
Jost, J. T.,
Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political
conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin,
129(3),
339-375
Jost, J. T.,
Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008). Shared reality, system
justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social
and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171-186.
Jost, J. T.,
Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P., &
Ostafin,
B. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with
political
conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social
Psychology
Bulletin, 33(7), 989-1007.
Jost, J. T., Nosek,
B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social,
personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on
Psychological
Science, 3, 126-136.
DG Webster wrote:
In support of Frank's comment, response to the opinion
piece he posted, and just because I'm interested in others' reponses:
I've gotten to the point where I start almost every freshman-level
course with a discussion of positive statements (or statements of
fact), normative statements (or statements of opinion), and statements
of uncertainty. It never fails to shock my students when I tell them
that all science is uncertain, or to enlighten them when I explain the
role of replication and generalization in the scientific process.
I'm not sure if the students are shocked by what I tell them or shocked
that a professor would say such things. My guess is that it's a mix of
the two. Science has given us many answers to big problems, it's
provided an illusion of control that is seductive, and, like almost any
social construct, "pure science" has its atheists and its true
believers but most of the the world only really cares when it's
viscerally connected to their daily lives. Even then, psychologists
have shown that response to scientific advice depends as much on the
perceived costs and benefits to the individual and their preconceived
ideas as the actual evidence. With our faith in rationality we have
become expert at rationalization. I wouldn't go as far as Sarewitz and
Thernstrom, saying that politics is the only solution to this
disconnect, but it does seem that there must be other forces than
science in play if we are to deal with a global-scale problem like
climate change.
This brings up an interesting but neglected aspect of the human side of
ecosystems--the role of the diversity of perspectives and personalities
across individuals (or states). If we all believed the same thing, then
when we are wrong we will be very very wrong. When there are many
different beliefs, it's more likely that some will be right, but less
likely that we'll all act together based on that person's position.
Thus, as frustrating as the stolen e-mails, the climate negotiations,
and the differences of opinion may be to the list, these are symptoms
of a profound aspect of human--and non-human--existence: variation is
key to our survival. That it could also be the source of our downfall
is ironic, but not inevitable.
As I said above, I'm hoping for input on this idea. There's probably a
whole section in the literature that addresses just this topic and I
just haven't found it yet.
Happy holidays to all and to all a good night!
dgwebster
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Alcock,
Frank <[email protected]>
wrote:
I
suspect that there will be many voices speaking for climate change with
little consensus on the horizon regarding authoritative claims to truth
in the form of "science." Less philosophically, I suspect it'll take
some time before the claim that "4 out of 5 scientists surveyed
conclude that..." will be a trump card in political debates.
Related to this issue, I
was wondering what the listserv folks think of this recent editorial:
From: [email protected]
on behalf of Susanne Moser
Sent: Sun 12/20/2009 2:22 PM
To: Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe
Subject: Re: Climategate Impacts
This strikes me as an interesting thing to pursue
a bit.
So, let's take quick stock: For years, scientists were the most trusted
regarding climate change, although overall shrinking, especially among
some audiences. There always has been and is more so now a deep partisan
divide over trust in scientists (I actually think there is also a class
divide here, but that's for another day). By comparison anyway, the
media, NGOs, industry or government have all had lower ratings of trust.
Second, scientists have been widely criticized for their slow response
to the hacked email (I really think it's wrong that we perpetuate the
misguided allusion to Watergate, so I don't), which has given this
entire affair a double whammy: exposure of emails that could easily be
and have, of course, been terribly, savagely misinterpreted (though NO
wrong-doing has actually been found, let's recall!) AND the completely
lame, politically naive response of the wider scientific community.
Consequently.... drum roll please... the curtain rises for rightwing
media publicly slaughtering scientists and the science of global warming
(which was, let's recall, already prior to the hacked emails on the
downturn for a variety of reasons), and now this unsurprising polling
result. Duh!
What - is my question here - can be done? Who is left to be trusted as
messengers for climate change? Do we now depend on Mother Nature as the
most immediate, un-media-ted "witness" to tell us her truth? Or is there
someone else to fill the gaping hole?
As we know from hazards and other studies, trust, once lost, is VERY
hard to rebuild. If we lose the weakly, but still (relatively) most
trusted messenger, and only untrusted ones remain - who is left to speak
for climate change?
Thanks for indulging me.
Susi
Wallace, Richard wrote:
>
> Lovely. The poll is a blunt instrument to be sure, but let’s hope
> public disaffection with the climate debate and resulting distrust
of
> “scientists on the environment” doesn’t bleed into other areas,
like
> biodiversity, deforestation, transboundary pollution, etc. Worth
> watching, anyway.
>
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Richard L. Wallace, Ph.D.
>
> Associate Professor
>
> Environmental Studies Program
>
> Ursinus College
>
> P.O. Box 1000
>
> Collegeville, PA 19426
>
> (610) 409-3730
>
> (610) 409-3660 fax
>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> *From:* [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]
*On Behalf Of *Wil Burns
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:48 PM
> *To:* [email protected];
'Global Environmental
> Politics Education ListServe'
> *Subject:* Climategate Impacts
>
> Ooops… scientists getting hit…a new Washington Post-ABC News poll
> after “climategate.” Scientists “significantly” losing credibility
> with the public:
>
> “Scientists themselves also come in for more negative assessments
in
> the poll, with four in 10 Americans now saying that they place
little
> or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.
> That’s up significantly in recent years. About 58 percent of
> Republicans now put little or no faith in scientists on the
subject,
> double the number saying so in April 2007. Over this time frame,
> distrust among independents bumped up from 24 to 40 percent, while
> Democrats changed only marginally. Among seniors, the number of
> skeptics more than doubled, to 51 percent.”
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800002.html
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief***
>
> */Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy/***
>
> *1702 Arlington Blvd.***
>
> *El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA*
>
> *Ph: 650.281.9126*
>
> *Fax: 510.779.5361*
>
> *[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>***
>
> *http://www.jiwlp.com <http://www.jiwlp.com/>*
>
> *SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348*
>
> *Skype ID: Wil.Burns*
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4704 (20091220) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D.
Director, Principal Scientist
Research Associate
Susanne Moser Research & Consulting
Institute of Marine Sciences
134 Shelter Lagoon Dr.
University of California-Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
email: [email protected]
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4704 (20091220) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--
D.G. Webster
Assistant Professor
Environmental Studies Program
Dartmouth College
6182 Steele Hall
Hanover, NH 03755
phone: 603-646-0213
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~envs/faculty/webster.html
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D.
Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate
Susanne Moser Research & Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences
134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064
email: [email protected]
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4704 (20091220) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
|
