[Vision2020] "Cultural Cognition", not Stupidity

[Joe Campbell]

"The cultural cognition hypothesis holds that individuals are
motivated by a variety of psychological processes to form beliefs
about putatively dangerous activities that match their cultural
evaluations of them. Persons who subscribe to relatively
individualistic values, for example, tend to value commerce and
industry and are inclined to disbelieve that such activities pose
serious environmental risks. Persons who subscribe to relatively
egalitarian and communitarian values, in contrast, readily credit
claims of environmental risks, consistent with their moral suspicion
of commerce and industry as sources of inequality and symbols of
excessive self-seeking." (Wikipedia)

This is a perfectly general thesis that applies to all of us, not just
climate change deniers. The fact that this single study concentrates
on climate change deniers is irrelevant for it is just ONE study. At
Yale they have a whole research program devoted to exploration of the
thesis. So yes, Paul, the researchers likely DO think that the values
of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) proponents influence their
interpretation of empirical data. It is a perfectly general scientific
thesis.

Note that the thesis is about how values influence the interpretation
of scientific evidence: those who adopt individualistic values
disbelieve certain scientific findings and those that adopt
egalitarian/communitarian values tend to believe those same findings.
This is a psychological, or perhaps, sociological thesis having to do
with individual, or group, belief formation. It is independent of the
particular scientific findings. But that is the real issue, right?
Whether or not the empirical data suggests that human activities have
played a role in global warming. No one denies that there is global
warming. The debate is over whether or not human activities play a
role.

And on this issue, within the scientific community -- the community of
experts -- there is really not much of debate as long as one is
careful about how to frame the hypothesis. In Physics for Future
Presidents, Richard Muller quotes the findings of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

“The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together
with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely
unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be
explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due
to known natural causes alone.” (273)

This is a very carefully formulated thesis. It is also endorsed by the
vast majority of members of the scientific community. It is not a
radical claim; it is really just the suggestion that human actions can
have global consequences.

If we take all of this into consideration, what are we left with? On
the one hand, there is reason to think that few of us develop beliefs
solely on the basis of scientific evidence and good reason to think
that in most cases values influence what we believe. In other words,
people are not fully rational when it comes to belief formation.
That's exactly why science is so important. I'm not a scientist but I
know enough about it to know that it is a myth to think that science
is value-neutral, so there is no reason to think that scientists are
immune to the phenomenon of cultural cognition. Nonetheless, science
is our best bet when it comes to limiting the impact of values and
other non-rational factors on our claims about the world. In other
words, given that there are non-rational factors that influence
individual and social beliefs, the rational thing to do would be to
accept the findings of scientists, who do as much as is humanly
possible to limit those factors. Thus, in general, people should
accept the consensus views of scientists when it comes to empirical
claims about the world. In this case, the most rational thing to do is
to adopt the thesis of AGW.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I don't think it is a question of intelligence, I think it is a question of
> marketing their product, "Stop Global Warming". It is a horribly
> run campaign that appeals to only the most far left political thinkers. I
> believe that more moderate and conservatives would agree to help stop global
> warming if it was re-branded and geared to their values and interests.
>
> If you want to motivate people to act, you have to appeal to their immediate
> self interests, not just an ideal distant goal of saving a tree frog in the
> Amazons or polar bears in Alaska. There are numerous things the government
> can do. It needs to use a carrot and stick, not just a big branch and loud
> voice. For example, pay people to use public transportation. It sounds
> crazy, but it would seriously reduce congestion, fuel consumption, health
> problems, accidents, and generate more disposable income for many families.
> Require gas stations to have tire pumps and remind drivers how it saves them
> to have a fully aired tire. It could also use the stick, put a 25 cents tax
> on each plastic or paper grocery or retail bag used. People would remember
> to bring their own and reuse. Imagine all those plastic bags out of our
> or oceans. The same could be done for soda and plastic water bottles.
>
> There are thousands of little things that could be done that would
> both improve economical and personal interests of a consumer and be kinder
> on the planet at the same time.
>
> I do believe that every generation for thousands of years understood it was
> their duty and responsibility to God and their children to ensure that they
> leave this planet as they found it or better.  Somehow, for some reason,
> many people feel this is no longer their responsibility. A generation that
> leaves the planet worse than it found it is a generation that has failed.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>
> From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Cultural Cognition", not Stupidity
>
>
> Reading about the climate change debate is like looking through some sort of
> stained glass window.  I guarantee you that they wanted to show that AGW
> skeptics are less scientifically literate than the AGW proponents.  When
> that failed, they blamed it on their politics.  They are more scientifically
> literate, but their cultural cognition is causing them to latch on to only
> those facts that fit their beliefs.  It couldn't possibly be that the AGW
> proponents are doing the same thing, it has to be only the skeptics that are
> throwing away valid scientific arguments to meet their world view.  It
> couldn't be that skeptics have valid scientific criticisms, because they are
> going against the consensus and the consensus *has* to be right. If the
> skeptics show their skepticism even after "97 of 100 climate scientists
> agree that man is causing climate change", then they are simply denying what
> everyone knows is true despite their greater scientific literacy.
> Especially if they mouth off about how unscientific polls of climate
> scientists actually are.
>
> The idea that man is causing the majority of the warming has become the new
> story of the Garden of Eden.  Mankind used to live in a blissful state, at
> one with nature, until we threw away our purity in the name of corporate
> greed and burned all the oil.  Only repenting that sin will lead back to a
> state of grace. It certainly can't be that this narrative is in any way
> shaping the political climate (no pun intended) of this debate, which in
> turn is shaping what gets funded and what gets studied.  Potential natural
> climate cause?  Oh, we'll get to that when we're done trying to wrestle tree
> ring data into showing that it's warmer now than it's ever been, or trying
> to figure out how to classify climate change skepticism as a disease.
>
> Paul
>
> On 05/29/2012 01:29 PM, Ron Force wrote:
>
> May 29, 2012
>
> Study rules out stupidity as a cause of disbelief in climate science
>
> And the Yale research published today reveals that if Americans knew more
> basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning it would still
> result in a gap between public and scientific consensus.
> Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate,
> the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become
> even more divided on the risks that climate change poses.
> Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study was conducted by
> researchers associated with the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law
> School and involved a nationally representative sample of 1500 U.S. adults.
> "The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses," said Dan Kahan, Elizabeth
> K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School
> and a member of the study team. "The first attributes political controversy
> over climate change to the public's limited ability to comprehend science,
> and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values. The findings supported
> the second hypothesis and not the first," he said.
> "Cultural cognition" is the term used to describe the process by which
> individuals' group values shape their perceptions of societal risks. It
> refers to the unconscious tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to
> positions that predominate in groups to which they belong.
> The results of the study were consistent with previous studies that show
> that individuals with more egalitarian values disagree sharply with
> individuals who have more individualistic ones on the risks associated with
> nuclear power, gun possession, and the HPV vaccine for school girls.
>
> via www.enn.com
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================