Date: February 24, 2010 | Author: Jay Novella
Category: General Science, Neuroscience/Psychology | Comments: 8 »
I read a very interesting study that came out recently that tries to explain why people accept some scientific data and reject other even though the quality of the data is similar. Before I get into the study let me set the stage and throw in my opinion.
Are you hot or cold to the idea of global warming? Regardless of increasing evidence that supports the idea that humans have an effect on the rising global temperature, doubt is steadily growing around this topic. Why? We have discussed global warming on my podcast many times, often inciting emails from some concerned/aggravated listeners. Some have written in arguing the point that the “global consensus” is either wrong or misrepresented. Others believe in global warming but don’t agree with man’s influence on it. These emails reminded me of similarly toned emails from anti-vax believers. In the face of a mountain of legitimate data and the vast majority of experts in the field agreeing, some people just don’t buy it.
My logic works as follows. I don’t claim to be an expert on any topic I discuss on the show or in person. I am, like most people, a reader and regurgitator of other peoples work. I vet what I read as best I can and only after time and consideration (this greatly varies depending on the claim) do I consciously let things become truth to me. I happily change what I consider truth when information is improved. Even when I really relate to a longtime belief if better information comes my way I am willing and capable of changing my mind. This happens often enough. We as skeptics relate to this concept since its part of the scientific process. When I read about topics like the proven benefits of vaccination, who am I to question the overwhelming consensus that it works? I am not a researcher, scientist, scholar or teacher. I am a reader, a thinker, a fan of science and what it teaches us. When there’s a scientific consensus about a topic, my trust in the data and conclusions drawn from that data are as high as it gets.
I of course am not saying that we should not question things. That’s all I do..sometimes too much. But when we get down to it, if we don’t trust the leading scientific consensus what can we trust? Why then would I believe the bulk of most studies on any particular topic especially when the actually studies conducted could be as low as one? The holy grail of evidence to a guy like me is scientific consensus. I’ve trusted science and engineering so much I let a machine fly me to 42,000 feet. All this trust without once reading a study on jet propulsion.
An organization called The Cultural Cognition Project which is “a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs”, recently designed a study that tests the hypothesis that cultural cognition shapes perceptions of scientific consensus. From the above website, cultural cognition “…refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities.”
This study attempts to explain why people accept some information and reject other. They have studied the perception of risk in varied topics ranging from climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes and Nanotechnology .
The study concluded the following:
“…scientific opinion fails to quiet societal dispute on such issues not because members of the public are unwilling to defer to experts but because culturally diverse persons tend to form opposing perceptions of what experts believe. Individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept as a result of a cultural availability effect that influences how readily they can recall instances of expert endorsement of those positions.”
It seems from this study that there indeed is measurable causation. I don’t see me using this study in a future argument with someone I’m crossing swords with but it does show how affected we are by our culture. I would be fascinated to see an example of this in effect in my own beliefs.
Posted in General Science, Neuroscience/Psychology | 8 Comments » |
Bishop Richard Williamson, the ultra-controversial clergyman whose 