Week 3: Science: Partisanship, Rejection

Conclusion of Study: Democrats (Shaw and Blank)

- "Our findings may also offer a specific path for strategists who are seeking to mobilize or persuade Left-leaning voters: if you want to get Democrats on your side, you may want to use scientific research to back up your policy positions. The self-expressed willingness of those on the Left to defer to scientists indicates that political arguments based on objective, scientific research might have a powerful influence on opinion."

The Cognition Underlying the Rejection of Science (Lewandowsky & Oberauer)

- "Similar heuristics that affect the processing of scientific information are readily triggered in the laboratory. When participants are presented with synthetic data that are amenable to a quick—but inaccurate—interpretation, and a complex—but accurate—understanding, the quick heuristic-based interpretation is triggered whenever it is worldview congruent. The more complex and accurate reading of the data is backgrounded when it challenges participants' worldviews." - each group foregrounds that aspect of the information that is consonant with their worldview: Liberals focus on environmental and health risks, and conservatives focus on the benefits of economic development." - When people are motivated to reject an overwhelming scientific consensus, one way in which they may explain this consensus is via the ideation of a conspiracy among researchers" - "Accordingly, around 20% of U.S. residents have been found to endorse the idea that climate change "is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research"

Conclusion of Study: Partisanship, Science & Public Policy (Shaw and Blank)

- "scientific recommendations on public policy are taken seriously by partisans of all stripes. Thus, what science has to say about an issue appears to be a reasonable starting point for lawmakers or bureaucrats seeking to forge consensus on a given issue. " - "not arguing that everyone will simply accept the edicts of science on every issue; in fact, it may be that deference erodes as scientists turn their attention to issues that require massive government regulation or challenge the edicts of faith." - "In a time of extreme polarization, though, there is some reason to believe that science can offer common ground."

LEWANDOWSKY & OBERAUER TEXT

- Author: Lewandowsky, S., and Oberauer, K. - Year: 2016 - Motivated Rejection of Science.

Conspiratorial thinking

- Authorities don't want what's best for you but what is best for them. On one hand people reject expertise because there was a trust in expertise which has been broken-- betrayed and science didn't lead to better conditions. - On the other hand, there may be cognitive desire to believe in something. If expertise is no longer there, then you can find minority spaces with people to agree with your viewpoint. E.g. with youtube/the internet having spaces which foster all types of views. - Thus, the motivated rejection of science is a complex problem. It is not just about people not understanding science & so not believing, but other factors are at play.

Motivated Rejection of Science & Education/ Party (Lewandowsky & Oberauer)

- General education and scientific literacy do not mitigate rejection of science but, rather, increase the polarization of opinions along partisan lines. In contrast, specific knowledge about the mechanisms underlying a scientific result—such as human-made climate change—can increase the acceptance of that result." 218 - "There has been a decades-long, gradual erosion of trust in the scientific community among conservatives—but not liberals—since the mid-1970s (Gauchat, 2012). Whereas conservatives and liberals did not differ in their trust in science at the beginning of the 1970s, by 2010 the polarization had become quite striking, with liberals retaining trust in the scientific community and conservatives having reduced theirs." - This erosion of trust has coincided with the emergence of multiple scientific findings that challenge core conservative views, such as belief in the importance and beneficence of unregulated free markets. - Nowhere is this more apparent than with climate science. The overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from human economic activity are warming the planet (e.g., Cook et al., 2013) is endorsed by the majority of liberals and Democrats but rejected by the majority of Republicans and conservatives."

What do we mean by the public understanding of science?

- How the public interprets scientific findings/results and how they use that in their own context to help position themselves in regards to science (pro/anti). - Scientific literacy. - What authority to give to science.

Rational Denial

- Institutionally organized denial - e.g. tobacco companies purposefully misinforming the public based on their profit margin. - Forces trying to manufacture doubt and scepticism & so discredit science specifically. Acting rationally to manufacture and create doubt about scientific doubt e.g. oil companies, tobacco companies---climate change, vaping industry-- companies mostly owned by tobacco companies-- use it to get people back to smoking as well as quit.

What motivates members of the public to reject science? & What does this entail?

- People may reject science because it challenges their paradigm/world views by advocating for a position inconsistent with their beliefs. - Science is perceived as less interpretive which is maybe why people look to reject it as opposed to other disciplines which can be seen as more open. (Although this isn't necessarily true). - There is a gap between science itself and the way the way the public interprets it. The public accesses knowledge through articles as opposed to direct access to scholarship which means science mediated through the media-. The way articles are sensationalised in the media and claims are exaggerated can change the way people see science.

Scientists, credibility & public opinion (Shaw and Blank)

- Scientists are certainly elites. They are highly educated and often granted a platform for communicating with the public when they happen to produce research that is politically and/or personally relevant. And people think this is generally a good thing. "------ " - both scientists and the public overwhelmingly say it is appropriate for scientists to become active in political debates about such issues as nuclear power or stem cell research.

Science in conflict with views on the right

- Scientists in general tend to be more liberal and science occasionally enters into conflict with the worldview on the right. - E.g. Climate change and regulating industries as a result of it (the right advocates for an unregulated free market), creationism, development of later safer abortions and contraceptive pill (more free, autonomous woman)-- threat to natural social structure of the family & female's role — in conflict with traditional family values - Historically science has entered into conflict with those who believe in free market -- strong link between tobacco & lung cancer link discovered in 1950s. Took decades of misinformation by tobacco companies, link between cancer & tobacco for them to put in warning labels on packets (more regulation). - The right side--- science In conflict with creationism (Biblical literalism) , age of the world, museum of creationism in Kentucky. Creationists argues world is around 8000 years, trying to disprove evolution and the big bang theory.

Communicating Contested Science (Lewandowsky & Oberauer)

- The communication of contested science is therefore inextricably caught up in political battles, and at least in the case of climate change, it is unlikely that communication alone can achieve a reduction in polarization. People's opinions are partly shaped by the elite cues provided by political leaders (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012), and without a significant change in those cues, scientific communication efforts face considerable challenges. - Several techniques that can assist in communicating contested scientific findings . For example, a mere change in wording—from "tax" to "offset"— increased Republicans' willingness to pay for carbon- producing activities (Hardisty, Johnson, & Weber, 2010). Informing people about the pervasive scientific consensus on climate change has also repeatedly been shown to increase acceptance of science across the political spectrum - 220/221--- Other research has identified the use of narratives—that is, personal anecdotes or "storytelling"—as a powerful means to communicate science (e.g., Dahlstrom, 2014). - 221: "even though general education and science literacy are not associated with acceptance of climate science (Kahan et al., 2012), recent evidence suggests that providing a brief mechanistic explanation of the basic greenhouse effect can reliably and lastingly enhance acceptance across the political spectrum

Science in conflict with views on the left

- The scientific community can also be in conflict with the left e.g. on nuclear power. There is scientific consensus that it is one of the safest and cleanest types of energy. However, for those on the left who belief in environmentalism and are concerned about nuclear waste, they may object to a nuclear power plant being established in their area. - However, the media does not frequently highlight conflicts between science/scientific consensus and the right. - The aforementioned evidence highlights that there are segments of the public that actively reject & discount science.

Ignorance

- There is a correlation between not knowing about science and having a mistrust of it because of it. The lack of engagement makes your reject it. - The public interacts with science as it is presented/mediated by the media. The exaggeration/ sensationalised stories of science by the media can lead to distrust because people don't know what to believe. - People may also reject science/expertise because people became apathetic and angry at being told how to live their lives/that the way they live their lives aren't correct. Challenges worldview. Class important to consider.

What cognitive processes are involved in the rejection of science?

1. Motivated Reasoning 2. Rational Denial 3. Ignorance 4. Conspiratorial Thinking

Politics, Science & Public policy Overview (Shaw and Blank)

18/19 - "Americans are suspicious of science, especially when it comes to the political application of scientific research." 19 - "The data demonstrate that most Americans view scientific expertise as relevant—even on the most politically charged issues. The willingness to defer to science varies considerably across issue domains, however." - And while party, ideology, and religious beliefs clearly influence attitudes toward science, Republicans are not notably skeptical about accepting scientific recommendations. Rather, it seems that Democrats are particularly receptive to the advice and counsel of scientists, when compared to both independents and Republicans."

The development of political affiliation & effect on policy ideas (Shaw and Blank)

19/20 - "They develop attitudes—most notably, party identification—in early childhood and throughout their adolescent years through the same sociali- zation processes that drive attitude formation more generally. - But these attitudes consist mostly of broad notions of affect and identity; an individual identifies as a "Republican" and feels positive toward other Republicans. For most Americans, there is little substance or depth to these attitudes." 20 - "when faced with questions about politics and specific policies, most Americans must therefore "construct" opinions based on a sampling of available considera- tions" - "For those Americans who are paying attention, party and other elite sources of "credible" information serve as useful guides for opinion. we know what to think when "our" elites articulate an issue position and we happen to hear about it. elites thereby introduce "constraint" to public policy discussions, at least among those who are following along." - To the extent that individuals have opinions or broader attitudes on political questions, they seem to be more interested in reinforcing them than subjecting them to rigorous deliberative scrutiny. - "Most notably, "motivated reasoning" occurs when people encounter information that is inconsistent with their existing attitudes or opinions on a subject, and then discount that information to mitigate cognitive dissonance."

Do scientists have ideological preferences? (Shaw and Blank)

20 - Scientists have distinct political and ideological preferences. In the Pew survey, 52 percent of scientists identified themselves as "liberal" (compared with 20 percent of the public) and only 9 percent identified as "conservative" (compared with 37 percent of the public)." - "Do Americans, especially those on the Right, notice that scientists are disproportionately liberal? And, more to the point, does this affect the willingness of conservatives or Republicans to accept the recommendations of scientists on public policy matters?"

Motivated Rejection of Science Overview 1 (Lewandowsky & Oberauer)

216 - Rejection of scientific findings is mostly driven by motivated cognition: People tend to reject findings that threaten their core beliefs or worldview." - " At present, rejection of scientific findings by the U.S. public is more prevalent on the political right than the left. Yet the cognitive mechanisms driving rejection of science, such as the superficial processing of evidence toward the desired interpretation, are found regardless of political orientation"

Motivated Rejection of Science Overview 2 (Lewandowsky & Oberauer)

217 - "Scientific findings are rejected simply because the public is misinformed about an issue. A famous recent case involves the nonexistent but widely publicized link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism." - ""In many other situations, scientific findings are rejected not only because the public is misinformed about an issue but because the science is in conflict with people's worldviews, or political or religious opinions. In those cases, science is rejected on the basis of motivated identity-protective cognition that cannot be understood without consideration of the broader societal and political context."

Rational Denial (Lewandowsky & Oberauer)

220 - institutionally organized denial - the fingerprint of corporate interference is readily detectable." - "operation that has clear political and economic goals. Seen in this light, the tobacco industry's conspiracist labeling of the medical research community as a "cartel" that "manufactures alleged evidence" - Cook and Lewandowsky showed that participants who strongly supported free- market economics lowered their acceptance of human- caused global warming in response to information about the scientific consensus. This "backfire" effect could be modeled within a rational framework because people adjusted their trust in climate scientists downward, thereby not only avoiding an adjustment of their belief in the science but also safe-guarding their endorsement of free-market economics.

Conclusion of Study: Republicans & Democrats (Shaw and Blank)

31 - "Both the simple means and the multivariate models demonstrate that Democrats are relatively more likely to say they defer to scientific expertise." 32 - ""Republicans are not especially different from independents (and other non-Democrats) in their willingness to defer to science." - Republican identification is associated with an increase in the deference to science rating for fourteen of sixteen issues. On only two issues, mandatory health insurance and gay adoption, does being a Republican correlate with a decreased willingness to defer to what science says. And even here the effect is not statistically significant-- specifically to do with Republican ideology

SHAW & BLANK TEXT

Authors: Blank, J., and Shaw, D. Year: 2015 Title: Does Partisanship Shape Attitudes toward Science and Public Policy? The Case for Ideology and Religion

Motivated Reasoning

People tend to reject findings that threaten their core beliefs or worldview.