Why does no-one listen to us?
Dan Kahan, a researcher in the Cultural Cognition project at Yale Law School, has an interesting post on “the science communication problem”
The motivation behind this research has been to understand the science communication problem. The “science communication problem” (as I use this phrase) refers to the failure of valid, compelling, widely available science to quiet public controversy over risk and other policy relevant facts to which it directly speaks. The climate change debate is a conspicuous example, but there are many others
Thomas Lumley (@tslumley) is Professor of Biostatistics at the University of Auckland. His research interests include semiparametric models, survey sampling, statistical computing, foundations of statistics, and whatever methodological problems his medical collaborators come up with. He also blogs at Biased and Inefficient See all posts by Thomas Lumley »
I’d suggest that “science communication” was so good and so unanimous on Global Warming that everyone immediately smelt a rat.. and so it proved.
JC
11 years ago
You make a plausible case, except for the complete lack of fit to the facts.
It took a long time for scientific consensus on there being a real problem, but that happened quite a while ago. And, of course, it still is a real problem, despite the efforts of various groups with money to conceal it. And there is a slowly increasing public recognition that there is a real problem, but not with much willingness to act.
11 years ago
Thomas,
Could you please quote a valid source for the allegation that money is the reason behind the”attempts to conceal it”. I know it is frequently made, and repeated, but I have yet to see any research that provides any evidence that it is the case.
Thanks for your help in this matter. I am looking forward to reading your source as I have been looking for the evidence to back up this claim for a while.
11 years ago
Try this report from Greenpeace and references therein. Or this recent article in the Independent.
11 years ago
Greenpeace directly profit out of scares and admit they make stuff up.
The independent article is shambolic.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/24/independent-koch-up.html
If chicken little band wagoneers want to be taken seriously they should utilise statisticians to vet their papers.
11 years ago
I suggest cognitive dissonance is a big reason. It’s more comfortable and convenient to believe what you already, well, believe.
Thus exposure to and processing of information is motivated and funneled by existing beliefs, partisanship, biases, etc.
11 years ago