The Anti-Science Mindset and Climate Denial
Here’s an article that speculates on the psychology of climate denial, i.e., the mental processes that enable people to disbelieve the science on this subject. A few thoughts as you read through this:
• Reason is only one of many ways in which people form beliefs and adhere to them. Despite an incalculable amount of physical evidence in the form of molecular biology, anthropology, and paleontology that supports the theory that our species evolved from early hominids about two million years ago, 42% of Americans believe God created man 10,000 years ago.
• Forming beliefs and adhering to them are two different things. I would assert that beliefs that are generated by forces other than by reason are far harder to discard in the face of given new evidence than those informed by science.
• In the past decade or so, our society has associated concern about climate change with the political left, and thus political conservatives feel themselves backed into a corner and find themselves obliged to adopt anti-scientific positions. As climate change has taken up this distinctly political mantle, we see that Republicans, even those with college degrees, are three times more likely to be climate deniers than Democrats. This seems to revolve around the (erroneous) idea that accepting and dealing with the threat of climate change means damaging the standing of the U.S. in the world, and reducing Americans’ quality of life, so as to favor people in other countries, or generations as yet unborn.
• Science of all types has fallen out of favor in U.S. culture over the past few decades. If I chose 100 Americans at random and asked them to name some actors, rock stars and athletes, I’m sure I’d get an immediate waterfall of answers. But how many could name a single living scientist?
• The decline of our educational standards is at least partly to blame. In particular, those with no understanding of science tend to have little respect for it; perhaps this is the “sour grapes” phenomenon, i.e., “I can’t get it, so it must be of no value.”
• The author picks up on the important concept of “confirmation bias.” We have a natural inclination to want to confirm—rather than disconfirm—our beliefs, which means seeking data that supports our positions and avoiding data that might disprove them. Regrettably, there is enough misinformation available on climate change to support essentially any belief of one’s choosing: the Earth’s not warming, it’s warming but not from human activity, it’s warming but there’s nothing we can do about it, etc.
In any case, I hope you’ll check out the article, and perhaps suggest some theories of your own.
If I had my way, at the high school level one year of physics, one year of chemistry, and one year of biology would be required. To get a college degree, one year of each of the subjects would be required at the college level.
Frank,
The concept of students gaining a more rounded university experience is certainly noble, but impractical.
The cost of education is already beyond the resources of most students without committing to years of debt. Your suggestion would add an additional burden for subjects of no practical value.
Since you attended college, the number of degree courses and level of knowledge has grown immensely. Competition among students has also increased.
Very few students have the luxury of studying of Chemistry, biology or even physics without any any practical career applications.
Craig,
Hmmm,.. reading your dissertation, I detect a striking similarity with other advocates for various sects and beliefs.
All share a common theme, “Why doesn’t everyone believe the same as me? They all must be stupid, ignorant, evil and in need of correction”!
(Sadly, this has been the bane of civilization for millennia).
But how can anyone take you seriously when you start with an self serving, but totally implausible claim ?
“42% of Americans are Creationists” !
While it’s true the US has more creationists than nations like the UK, the percentage is still under 15%. Christian fundamentalism is more prevalent in the US than in Europe or other English speaking countries.
Do the math. There are nearly 80 Million Roman Catholics in the US, making up 24 % of the population. Since it was the Augustinian friar, Abbot Gregor Mendel in the 1830’s whose work on genetics inspired Darwin, and the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, by Pope Pius XII endorsed Darwinian evolutionary concepts while reserving the nature of the soul as a creation of god.
Another 10-24% of American’s describe themselves as having “no belief in god” although most expressed discomfort with directly and publicly admitting such feelings.
And so on. Once you start eliminating all those liberal arts students, West Coast liberals, East Coast intellectuals, etc etc, it’s easy to see there must be something wrong with your reasoning.
What you’ve done is taken a vague survey question like ;
” Do you believe God (or some other intelligent force) was involved in any way with the origin of humans ?”
to derive the answer you needed.
It’s obvious a very high percentage of people will agree with the wording of the poll question.
However, that doesn’t mean these people are ‘creationists” ! The Reverend Charles Darwin himself would affirm the God’s creation of humans, all living creatures and the universe !
So if that’s the level of intellectual honesty and accuracy you display from the beginning, why should anyone trust the rest of your dissertation ?
The emotive term “Deniers” was not a term coined by “political conservatives feel themselves backed into a corner”, but as a weapon employed by strident fanatic’s determined to silence debate and any dissent contrary to their agenda.
These are the “94% of scientist have reached a consensus” propagandists. This mantra is still continually shouted, although easily disproved.
True conservatives are open-minded, pragmatic and flexible. Moderate dissent is not only accommodated, but encouraged by most conservatives since conservative politics embraces a broad church of opinion.
The bitterness, intolerance and rage has come from the old hard left, who with the fall of socialism in the late eighties, turned to the environmentalist movement as a green disguise to peddle their outdated doctrines.
Thus was born the “watermelon” activist advocate ! A new green skin, but still red all the way through !
These activists hi-jacked the science and scientists, and welded scientific discussion into a sort of new quasi-religion/political ideology.
Naturally, with more virulent political activism and the more intertwined scientists became with politics, the more the general public lost it’s former respect for scientific independence and prestige.
I think the day the media sensationalized the statement ” the ‘debate’ is over, Global Warming is a fact, no further discussion should be tolerated !”, that was the day the general public stopped listening, and a deep mistrust set in.
People dislike being lectured and harangued by people who don’t even like them. Environmental extremists mistook browbeaten silence for acquiescence and agreement.
That is, until the arrival of populists like Trump. Populists gave permission and voice to long suppressed resentment.
Like all fanatic’s the outrage of ‘true believers’ against perceived heretics, intensified with growing dissent.
The reaction in the US has been more extreme since politics is more polarized. In the rest of the world, moderate forces from the centre recognized the emerging public anger and rallied to combat political and environmental extremism.
Hopefully, we will see the demise of intolerance, fanatical activism, wild advocacy and witness the growth of genuine environmental and economic development and prosperity.
The general public will no longer tolerate wild advocates with delusions of revolutionary grandeur.
Hopefully, the public will still eagerly embrace the evolution of exciting new technology offered to them as consumer choice, not mandated to conform to a political/ideological agenda without their consultation or input.
Craig, if I’ve learned anything from life’s experiences, it’s this:
It’s must easier to sell someone on change when you include them in deciding on the benefits to them and their family, than demanding they adhere to your ideological agenda.
I know it takes more patience and tolerance, but it’s better to persuade and be inclusive. In the end often the difference between success and failure is the level of support you allowed to grow of its own volition.
It’d be great if such respected voices as your own could join in the growing chorus of positive, moderate, responsible environmentalists and clean tech investors.