Skepticism of Science - When Will We Learn?
Chapter 18 of I'm Right and You're an Idiot brought a lot of light to the issues surrounding the faith society puts into science. Although it is common knowledge that science isn't believed nor supported by everyone in the world, this chapter emphasized the number of people who fall into this non-believer category.
The chapter emphasized that all people believe differently. In other words, not everyone will believe what a scientist has to say, simply because they are a scientist.
For instance, the chapter states the following: "There are multiple publics, all with different levels of knowledge, gaps in their knowledge, fundamental misunderstandings and different values which predispose them to interpret information in very different ways. They have different politics. They trust different messengers and don't trust certain messengers. They get their news and information from different sources."
---
The chapter also discusses surprising statistics. There were quite a few mentioned, so I've compiled a list that can be found below:
According to the Yale Project's March 2018 report:
* "7 out of 10 Americans think global warming is occurring"
* "Fewer than 1 in 10 believe it is not happening"
* "More than had of those surveyed think global warming is primarily due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels"
* "Only 3 in 10 say it is mostly due to natural changes in the environment"
According to a poll conducted in 2018, a Couple of Months After Yale's Report:
* "69 percent of Americans were 'worried' about warming"
* "28 percent see it is harming people"
Other Statistics:
* "...only 1 in 7 knows that nearly all climate scientists (more than 97 percent) have concluded that global warming is happening"
* After Climategate, "12 percent of those surveyed said they had less belief in climate change and more importantly were less trustful of scientists in general"
* According to the research of Maibach and Leiserowitz, "...the Alarmed group of Americans, about 21 percent, is 'apologetically concerned' about what tomorrow will bring as a result of climate change. They are developing a state of helplessness because they look at the very people who should be making better decisions and see they're not even having the conversation about options"
* When public statements are modified and "'primed for scientific reasoning,'" researchers see spikes in the number of those who place faith in science
---
One of the most interesting things found in this chapter was the categorizing of American audiences. The chapter states that there are "six unique audiences - the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive groups."
Now, which of these groups do you consider yourself to fall into? Why?
Lastly, I want to discuss the mentioning of frames. According to this chapter, "all aspects of global warming have been trapped for the past 20 years in one of three frames: In the climate science frame, we hear endless debate about whether it's human caused or not. We will never reach consensus on this...Second, the message has been trapped in the environment box where it's about polar bears and not people...And this is the political frame: If you're left wing, a good Democrat, you believe in global warming, and if you're on the right, you don't."
This, then, makes me question which frame would be the most beneficial, if we had no choice but to remain trapped in one of them. What are your opinions?
---
In my opinion, everything is rooted in scientific evidence. I, personally, will take a scientist's word over anything else, especially when it comes to issues of global warming's significance. I think a major issue in today's society is that everyone has the desire to be right - regardless of how many facts are given, some people will be consistent in their beliefs that "global warming is a hoax." This mindset, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous. In avoiding the confrontation of real danger, we are only allowing the danger to get stronger, therefore more dangerous.
When will we, as a society, come to the realization that facts are facts? When will we realize that there are people who have studied these anomalies their entire lives, therefore they are much more knowledgeable than the average person, telling us that the outcome of global warming is inevitable?
First of all, I will agree that I found the statistics in chapter 18 very interesting. I wonder if there will ever be a time where humanity can trust the scientific facts presented to them. I think skepticism is good, but to flat out deny that global warming is not happening is a totally different thing than being skeptical about facts about global warming. Out of the six audiences, I wish I could change the "doubtful" audience to "skeptical," but perhaps there is no difference between the two. I would have to say I think I fall into the doubtful category just because I like facts to be clarified, however, I still believe in the facts that are presented by scientists, which is why I think a bit of skepticism doesn't hurt. I definitely agree that, as a society, I hope we can move forward where trust in facts is normal rather than controversial.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say the statistics surprise me so much, honestly. I feel like I've known the scientific community has agreed on this for a while. I would like to think that of all the groups presented I fall into the Cautious, but chances are I actually fall into the Disengaged because while I know these issues exist, I can't bring myself to actually do anything productive about it.
ReplyDeleteYou ask when society might understand experts are, in fact, experts. I would like to make the claim that that will simply never happen. There are those that are so entrenched in their choices and beliefs that any information that attempts to rattle those beliefs will quite simply be ignored. I forget which part of the book talks about this, but there is a section saying that facts are not enough, that factual discourse is outdated and emotion reigns supreme in almost all arguments. I hate to admit it, but that seems to be most likely. Therefore anyone who doesn't believe just has to be swayed on a personal level while using facts only occasionally.
I feel that it is important to pay attention to the facts and listen to scientists that are experts in this field. Out of the six unique audiences, I believe I would fall most under cautious. I believe in facts, but I also do not believe in every single thing I read on the internet. I am worried about what could happen if we do not take strides to defeat global warming. Even though I believe in this issue, I do not take a large part in solving the issue. I have become more cautious with where I purchase my clothes. While not all of my clothes are from sustainable companies, I have made an effort to stop shopping at certain fast fashion stores.
ReplyDeleteOver time, I believe more people will come to the realization that facts are facts. While I do not believe this mindset will reach everyone, I believe more people will begin to trust science.
This post covers something I've been thinking about more recently, which is where I stand in terms of being skeptical of science. I believe in or at least have the benefit of the doubt for most science-backed findings, but I find it easy to empathize with people who don't as well. I'm not sure if it was my familial upbringing or if it's the current climate of dishonesty we seem to be in right now, but I can see and understand why some people don't trust science. I've been thinking about what it is that ultimately makes me decide to trust science even if at first I'm skeptical and it comes down to evaluating things for yourself and realizing that the most rational route to take is the one the trained professionals (importantly, a large number of trained professionals) suggest. If people don't evaluate these things and just base their trust off of what they already feel and believe, then they are ripe for becoming a conspiracy theorist.
ReplyDeleteI think about this topic a lot. I think it is important to point out that scientists may agree that something is happening but not agree on how to deal with it. I think it also is good to keep in mind that the term "global warming" was quickly changed to "climate change" as a broad term once the former received more and more controversy.
ReplyDeleteI took a class called Ecological Dimensions of Culture in Spring '20 (highly recommended even if you are not an anthropology major). We talked about how climate change is already destroying people's homes that are close to sea level, literally being washed away every day until there is no dry land left and they have to escape to other islands. We talked about how with temperatures rising, growing seasons for crops will lengthen meaning more crops can be grown but our soil will grow barren faster even with field rotation measures. We talked about trade offs. Climate change is an issue that will affect everyone at some point or other. However, the statistics do not surprise me. Looking at the six groups (Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive) I could apply that to the topics we talked about in the class. The alarmed and concerned are the scientists and people directly being affected right now. The cautious could be said to be certain government officials on the state level that are trying to use renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive are the more conservative officials and leaders as well as climate change deniers who argue that climate change is not real and do not trust the data that the vast majority of scientists agree with.
ReplyDelete