Loading Session...

Climate Science and Public Interests: Social Values and Climate Change - Women's Caucus Prize Symposium

Session Information

Central empirical findings of climate science are beyond reasonable doubt and many climate change impacts are increasingly being observed. Yet, significant proportions of the general public in many countries still resist accepting these findings, or appear to be unaware of their existence. The diagnosis from science studies is that this situation pertains to at least three kinds of problems: the complexity of the issue, a strategic manufacture of doubt, and climate information that is incompatible with decision-making processes. However, it is largely unclear how scientists should behave given the situation. The symposium addresses the broad question of how the practice of science should be modified in the hopes of better engaging and reaching non-scientists. It brings methodological, psychological, and epistemological perspectives together with the aim of elucidating whether there are specific communicative strategies, political behaviors, or methodological choices that would help to ameliorate the current problems. While each paper addresses this central theme differently and some are in disagreement on specific issues, the papers collectively speak to three areas upon which scientists could improve: how they address the spread of misinformation, how they handle dissent, and how they make scientific information more readily available and usable.

03 Nov 2018 09:00 AM - 11:45 AM(America/Los_Angeles)
Venue : Ballard (Third Floor)
20181103T0900 20181103T1145 America/Los_Angeles Climate Science and Public Interests: Social Values and Climate Change - Women's Caucus Prize Symposium

Central empirical findings of climate science are beyond reasonable doubt and many climate change impacts are increasingly being observed. Yet, significant proportions of the general public in many countries still resist accepting these findings, or appear to be unaware of their existence. The diagnosis from science studies is that this situation pertains to at least three kinds of problems: the complexity of the issue, a strategic manufacture of doubt, and climate information that is incompatible with decision-making processes. However, it is largely unclear how scientists should behave given the situation. The symposium addresses the broad question of how the practice of science should be modified in the hopes of better engaging and reaching non-scientists. It brings methodological, psychological, and epistemological perspectives together with the aim of elucidating whether there are specific communicative strategies, political behaviors, or methodological choices that would help to ameliorate the current problems. While each paper addresses this central theme differently and some are in disagreement on specific issues, the papers collectively speak to three areas upon which scientists could improve: how they address the spread of misinformation, how they handle dissent, and how they make scientific information more readily available and usable.

Ballard (Third Floor) PSA2018: The 26th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association office@philsci.org

Presentations

The Dilemma of Climate Change Communication

Philosophy of Science 09:00 AM - 09:30 AM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/03 16:00:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 16:30:00 UTC
Anna Leuschner (Leibniz Universität Hannover)
As shown by science studies, strategic climate change denial has caused scientists to display significant conservatism in conducting and presenting their research. This will be illustrated by two examples: the history of the five 'reasons for concern', and the use of the concepts 'climate change' and 'global warming'. On that basis, I argue that climate scientists face a dilemma. If they choose to be conservative their findings are marginalized. If they choose to be rather engaging they are discredited as hysterical alarmists. Discussing this dilemma, I will conclude that climate scientists should choose clarity and engagement in public communication contexts.
Presenters
AL
Anna Leuschner
Leibniz Universität Hannover

For "Alternative Facts," There Is No Alternative to Logic

Philosophy of Science 09:30 AM - 10:00 AM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/03 16:30:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 17:00:00 UTC
Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol)
Imagine a world in which knowledge is derided as "elitist" and in which scientific evidence is replaced by an "opinion market" on social media that determines whether a new strain of avian flu is contagious. This dystopian future is not entirely futuristic, given the frequent reliance on "alternative facts." How can science operate under those circumstances? What argumentative techniques might counteract "alternative facts" and the political operations that seek to undermine scientific evidence and authority? I develop suggestions by analyzing three streams of literature: on debunking of misinformation, on inoculation against misinformation, and on the incoherence of science denial.
Presenters Stephan Lewandowsky
University Of Bristol

The Probability Argument

Philosophy of Science 10:15 AM - 10:45 AM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/03 17:15:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 17:45:00 UTC
Erin Nash (Durham University)
I develop the 'Probability Argument', which highlights the consequences, in democratic societies, of non-experts having distorted perceptions of the probabilities that empirical hypotheses are correct. In contrast to both the 'deficit' and 'cultural cognition' models of science communication, my model accounts for a number of considerations that have been overlooked in the literature, such as the impact of the communication of misinformation, the place of higher-order evidence (i.e. evidence about putative experts, and the processes they have used to arrive at their first-order claims), and the role that intermediaries play in the communication of both first- and higher-order evidence.
Presenters Co-Authors
EN
Erin Nash
UNSW (Sydney)/Durham University

Climate Change Attribution: When Is It Right to Accept a New Approach?

Philosophy of Science 10:45 AM - 11:15 AM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/03 17:45:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 18:15:00 UTC
Elisabeth Lloyd (Indiana University), Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University)
Recently, some scientists have offered a new approach to the analysis of extreme weather events, in which an autopsy of the causes of the event is given, in contrast to the usual approach which focuses on questions of risk. This new method was met with a great deal of resistance, some of it quite bitter and polemical. The newer "storyline" methods may overstate anthropogenic contributions to extreme weather events, while the older "risk-based' methods may understate them. We believe that scientists should achieve a better balance in assessing these risks and choose appropriate methods for each case accordingly.
Presenters
EL
Elisabet Lloyd
Indiana University
Co-Authors
NO
Naomi Oreskes
Harvard University

Making Climate Data Useful: The Role of Values in Climate Services

Philosophy of Science 11:15 AM - 11:45 AM (America/Los_Angeles) 2018/11/03 18:15:00 UTC - 2018/11/03 18:45:00 UTC
Greg Lusk (Michigan State University), Wendy Parker (Durham University)
Climate services is an emerging area of climate science meant to provide "scientifically-based information and products that enhance users' knowledge and understanding about the impacts of climate on their decisions and actions." Achieving this aim requires scientists be responsive to the needs, value systems and decision frameworks of users. What this responsiveness might involve in practice, however, has not been articulated in detail. We investigate how scientists might meet this requirement through an examination of the products of climate services, and in particular, specify whose values should be appealed to during the provision of climate information.
Presenters Co-Authors
GL
Greg Lusk
Michigan State University
WP
Wendy Parker
Durham University
787 visits

Session Participants

User Online
Session speakers, moderators & attendees
Leibniz Universität Hannover
Indiana University
UNSW (Sydney)/Durham University
Michigan State University
University of Bristol
Washington State University
Dr. Irina Mikhalevich
Rochester Institute of Technology
65 attendees saved this session

Session Chat

Live Chat
Chat with participants attending this session

Questions & Answers

Answered
Submit questions for the presenters

Session Polls

Active
Participate in live polls

Need Help?

Technical Issues?

If you're experiencing playback problems, try adjusting the quality or refreshing the page.

Questions for Speakers?

Use the Q&A tab to submit questions that may be addressed in follow-up sessions.