Science often becomes politicized when the societal implications become more important than the science itself. When society intersects with scientific policy, heuristics and the low information rationality model are often a quick resort (Scheufele, 2015). The low-information rationality model is the empirical reality of how humans interpret the world: as cognitive misers. This theory states humans are constantly presented with overwhelming amounts of information and, to process this, shortcuts such as stereotypes and interpersonal influences are used as substitutes of mentally-enervating rationalization. Humans act as cognitive misers, selectively interpreting what they think is most important in the information provided (Scheufele, 2006). For example, political party affiliations may be deemed most important to an individual, helping them form their choices in voting. Instead of assessing the available scientific evidence, individuals often take these “shortcuts” and instead utilize the beliefs of their political party. Minimal energy is invested to form opinions and understanding until they’re satisfied. This occurs while knowledge and systematic thinking play in essential roles in shaping the attitude of science. It is common for an individual to mentally categorize controversial topics, such as climate change, in order to efficiently form their opinions on the matter. Often, it is the case that controversial science becomes politicized and categorized into party affiliations. More than 85% of Americans agree that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by federal government” according to the National Science Board (2008). Ame... ... middle of paper ... ...rbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. These conceptual definitions serve as guidelines for investigating theories of factors in voting. Each individual would be asked two questions regarding a controversial scientific topic, more specifically climate change. The first question would identify which political party the individual identifies themselves with. The second question would ask the individual to pick a politician to support and would state the politician’s belief. Except with this question, the politician would be paired with a statement contrary to their true belief. This would indicate that when given a statement on climate change from a political figure, individuals who side with their party member makes choices based on group affiliation while individuals who do not side with their party make choices based on values, rather than party loyalty.
Furthermore, the authors aim to unfold the scientific logic of their analysis of the effects of hidden biases so people will be “better able to achieve the alignment,” between their behavior and intentions (Banaji and Greenwald, 2013) preface
In the article “Climate of Complete Certainty” by Bret Stephens, he argues upon the topic that politicians exaggerate scientific certitude to benefit themselves. Stephens uses Clinton’s campaign loss and the climatic debate as illustrations to show that scientific fact doesn’t always give the defining factor of gains or losses. As stated by Stephens, Brexit showed the Clinton campaign that the populist tide causes a major surprise factor when determining the end result. With this example in mind, Stephens conveys that the end result strayed away from absolute certainty. Another instance in which scientific certitude is altered is within the topic of climate change.
When this finding infringes on someone’s lifestyle or corporate interests, the reaction to the discovery becomes unfavorable. A contributing factor to the rejection of scientific findings is directly related to political affiliation. Since the 1970s, conservatives have experienced a continuous decay of trust in the scientific community. By 2010, the contrasting trust in the scientific community has become more evident, with liberals retaining more trust in them and conservatives reducing theirs. Climate science has contributed greatly to this conflict.
Critical thinking skills in daily life can be the difference between a good decision and a bad decision. Skeptical thinking, likewise, is an important tool that many people use in order to discern between these decisions, and to make educated choices about their lives and the things that they choose to believe. As a consumer of science, I believe that it is important for people to have a repertoire of skeptical thinking skills, or tools, in order to make decisions deriving from the barrage of information (both false and true) that we absorb on a daily basis. I’ve chosen six skepticism tools from Carl Sagan’s article, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, that I think are the most important for scientific purposes and for everyday life. These skills include discussing the matter at hand, ignoring position of power, personal detachment from the subject, a sound argument, an understanding of Occam’s Razor, and the ability to test the subject for falsities.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
Tompkins displays, in her essay’s conclusion, the necessity to “piece together the story… as best I can,” because diverging perspectives inhibit a person’s ability to find, with confidence, a purely unbiased fact about any situation (9). These kinds of quandaries exist in many modern social spheres. Although much more objective, an issue, such as climate change, relies on an individual researching and uncovering facts from various sources, just as Tompkins did. Similarly, the individual must then “[believe] this version up to a point, that version not at all, another almost entirely,” so they may move forward toward a conclusion. If they fail to move toward a conclusion, they will tarry too long at the epistemological gateway and fail to effectively address the issue, by voting in misinformed politicians or not recycling. While the environment relies on more objective and easily accessible information, it exists in clear relation to Tompkins’ dilemma. Academic uncertainty halting the important flow of social progress. However, while academic uncertainty appears to be at fault, without academic uncertainty, science and fact would not achieve the proper rigor for it to call itself fact. And, without social progress,
The analysis of political behavior operates under the assumption that political behavior is not a special form of human activity, independent of what is known about general social behavior. (Political Behavior, 1968) The majority of political behavioral research is focused on identifying not only an individual’s behavior, but also with predicting the behavior of a group of people. It is understood that these groups do not exist without individuals; therefore, it is the individual dynamic that constitutes a collective group action. This is the focus of political behavioral research. The three widely accepted behavioral models of voter choice are: the sociological model, the social-psychological model, and the rational choice model. These three models diverge in methodology and application of research, but each has provided important data regarding the factors that influence voter choice.
In 2010, and every year since, Bernie Sanders has strongly spoken out against proposals to dismantle environmental protection programs. He believes that imminent environmental threats should be treated the same as a doctor would treat a cold or broken bone, with straight to the point scientific facts, not opinions. He states, “...this discussion about global warming is now political, not scientific. And this is absurd…” This statement speaks to the Republican party’s clear refusal to acknowledge that climate change is real and human
A population’s views on political issues may change as different circumstances occur each day. The environment around us has a powerful influence on the decisions that we produce and the views that we as American citizens choose to hold. After a semester in political science class my views and my political ideology have altered. Today I will explain how political science class has influenced my political ideology.
Climate change created by human activity is one of, is the single biggest threat to life on earth, sea levels are rising at a rate double then that of the last century,400,000 people die a year from climate change related causes, and if we don’t do anything about it within 25 years, millions of people will suffer from disease, fall into poverty, and suffer from extreme hunger. Despite all the evidence, one of our country’s major political party refuses to acknowledge that climate change is man made or a threat.
Studies have found that most people learn a large amount about science through consuming mass media news (Wilson 1995) and many surveys ha...
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
...ce of news frames and science background on attributions about embryonic and adult stem cell research frames as heuristic/biasing cues. Science Communication, 35(1), 86–114. doi:10.1177/1075547012440517
Often, scientists are tasked with the role of providing evidence to support theories or to predict future outcomes based on scientific research. This methods or research are usually accepted in natural sciences like chemistry and physics. This is because unlike social science, they usually use formulas, well laid out structures and methods (Guttin, 2012). However, when it comes to social science, researchers usually work using theories by formulating hypothesis, and researching to prove or disapprove the theories. When doing this, social science researchers usually become advocates in certain circumstances. This paper highlights some of the pros and cons of scientists becoming advocates, and gives examples of when social scientists become advocates and situations where they observe objectivity.
Public understanding of science is considered to be one of the most important issues facing educators in today’s technological world. It is see...