The science of why we don't believe in science

[Jeff Lebowski]

I need to recommend one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-mooney?page=1

The author is Chris Mooney. I had the chance meet Chris a little over a year ago when he did a workshop in SLC on the topic of "communicating science to the public". He is a journalist who covers science issues. Brilliant guy.

Anyway, the article presents a fascinating analysis of how we ingest new facts and information when they challenge our preconceived notions. A few highlights:

When we attempt to rationally respond to things that challenge our world view:

In other words, when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers (PDF). Our "reasoning" is a means to a predetermined end—winning our "case"—and is shot through with biases.

On numerous controlled studies regarding how people process scientific information:

In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario.

...

The study subjects weren't "anti-science"—not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that "science" was whatever they wanted it to be.

...

And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.

Plus, a fascinating analysis of climate science, evolution, vaccine-autism link, etc. Also discusses how democrats and republicans process scientific information differently.

Check it out. Can't recommend it highly enough.

[USUC]

Interesting read with a lot of good points, although I believe he oversimplifies how democrats and republicans process scientific information. Clearly, Mooney has a political ideology in this (as evidenced by his previous publications... and that this is from Mother Jones). Democrats and Republicans share many of the same pitfalls when it comes to processing scientific information. Its easy to point to Global Warming and Evolution and see a divide (although I'd guess there is a small but substantial portion of the Democratic Party who also reject Evolution). But many liberal/Democrat ideology regarding energy, GMOs, and some environmental causes are equally anti-science. The point is people in general suck at processing scientific information.

[scottie]

I enjoyed that, thanks for sharing. Good stuff here:

The upshot: All we can currently bank on is the fact that we all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature itself?

Given the power of our prior beliefs to skew how we respond to new information, one thing is becoming clear: If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.

...

In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting read with a lot of good points, although I believe he oversimplifies how democrats and republicans process scientific information. Clearly, Mooney has a political ideology in this (as evidenced by his previous publications... and that this is from Mother Jones). Democrats and Republicans share many of the same pitfalls when it comes to processing scientific information. Its easy to point to Global Warming and Evolution and see a divide (although I'd guess there is a small but substantial portion of the Democratic Party who also reject Evolution). But many liberal/Democrat ideology regarding energy, GMOs, and some environmental causes are equally anti-science. The point is people in general suck at processing scientific information.

I see you are following the pattern and rejecting hard data that conflicts with your world view.

He does point out that the vaccine-autism anti-science group is overwhelmingly democratic/liberal. I would agree with you on energy issues. As for environmental issues I think anti-science thinking is probably evenly-distributed on both sides. Ditto for gun control.

[USUC]

I see you are following the pattern and rejecting hard data that conflicts with your world view.

He does point out that the vaccine-autism anti-science group is overwhelmingly democratic/liberal. I would agree with you on energy issues. As for environmental issues I think anti-science thinking is probably evenly-distributed on both sides. Ditto for gun control.

I agree. I get a little bit touchy when it comes to ideology and science. I work in academia and I constantly hear about the science denying Tea-Party and conservatives all the while hearing them spew equally as ridiculous anti-science ideology. At the end of the day it comes down to what issues are moralized according to a certain world view. Once an issue is moralized, costs, trade-offs, and compromises become much more difficult to conceptualize because the issue is either right or wrong (My obvious libertarian/laissez faire worldview showing here perhaps).

Dan Kahan has a lot of interesting publications about the issues Mooney brings up.