WEBVTT - Science Communication Breakdown 0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:05.920 Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how Stuff 0:00:05.920 --> 0:00:14.560 Works dot com. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow 0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:17.560 your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick. 0:00:17.600 --> 0:00:19.560 And today we're going to do an episode following up 0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:22.479 on a panel Robert saw this year at the World 0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:26.920 Science Festival in New York. So we're gonna talk about 0:00:27.040 --> 0:00:31.080 topics having to do with bias, belief, public opinion, and 0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:34.519 science communication. And I think we should start in some 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:37.840 territory that's sure to annoy at least a few listeners 0:00:38.000 --> 0:00:40.280 right from the get go. So Robert, I got a 0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:42.800 pop quiz for you. Don't look at the numbers. If 0:00:42.800 --> 0:00:45.640 you had to guess how many Americans do you think 0:00:45.880 --> 0:00:50.240 accept the scientific consensus on global warming? Oh, well, of 0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:52.280 course that's a big one, because of course, when you 0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:54.360 when you go to answer that question, you think about 0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:57.720 your your immediate you know, sphere of influence and the 0:00:57.720 --> 0:01:01.200 people you know, or perhaps you think of media representations 0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:04.240 on the question. So it depends on on on on 0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:07.880 the reporting, on the on the panels of experts you're 0:01:07.880 --> 0:01:11.440 presented with. I would I would tend to just off 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:13.280 the top of my head, and I'd want to rate 0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:20.319 it of people except the scientific consensus, you're not too 0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:24.640 far off, but that's optimistic. Uh so. Gallup has been 0:01:24.680 --> 0:01:28.440 tracking Americans beliefs about global warming for over a decade now, 0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:31.240 and some of the questions they tend to ask people 0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:34.319 are more subjective. It's things like do you worry a 0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:39.960 great deal about global warming? And uh, intent of people 0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:43.840 said yes. That's up from thirty seven percent in sixteen, 0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:48.480 and up from thirty two percent in But technically, I mean, 0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:51.480 it's worth pointing out that there's no objective fact about 0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:54.160 whether you should be worried or not. Maybe you don't care. 0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:57.360 Oh yeah, it comes down to worry and what what? What? 0:01:57.440 --> 0:02:00.880 To what extent? Are you worrying a great deal about something? Right? Like, 0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:03.600 you can you can realize something is a vital threat 0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:07.120 to the human race. You can just not care anyway. Right, 0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:09.160 you can say, well, if it happens, it happens, or 0:02:09.200 --> 0:02:11.520 you know or what or well that's a problem for 0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:13.800 the next generation to figure out. There are various ways 0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:16.880 of calculating that question in your head. Right. It also 0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:19.560 hinges on the word worry, like maybe you do care 0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:22.640 about fighting climate change, but you wouldn't characterize your feeling 0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:26.000 as worried. You're invigorated by the idea of trying to 0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:28.200 do something about it. Right, Are you worried about it 0:02:28.400 --> 0:02:31.280 versus do you think this is this is a problem 0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:34.720 that government should work together too to address. Right. That 0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:38.960 Some of the other questions have straightforwardly right or wrong answers. 0:02:39.160 --> 0:02:44.680 For example, in seventy one percent of Americans said they 0:02:44.720 --> 0:02:49.600 agree that most scientists believe global warming is occurring. Right, 0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:53.200 So the question is, do you think most scientists believe 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:57.600 global warming is occurring? Se said yes. That's up from 0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:03.240 sixty in sixteen and sixty, so there's there's a climb 0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:05.919 in that number. More people are saying yes, I think 0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:09.880 most scientists believe that the Earth is warming. There is 0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:12.960 just an objective fact to the matter about whether most 0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:16.680 scientists or most climate scientists believe the planet is warming. 0:03:16.960 --> 0:03:21.079 They do. There's no debate about that. Now, what has 0:03:21.120 --> 0:03:24.720 been reasonably debated is the exact figure of the agreement, 0:03:25.000 --> 0:03:28.639 because it's not necessarily easy to calculate exactly what numbers 0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:33.120 of scientists agree with a certain proposition. Right, Yeah, I mean, 0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:36.680 if you if you just give yourself this assignment and 0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:40.680 start hitting Wikipedia. Yeah, you're gonna find lists of scientists 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:43.200 who or either opponents or proponents. But then when you 0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:45.240 start trying to peal back and figure out who these 0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:48.480 people are and what their field of expertise are, it 0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:52.040 just gets increasingly complicated. Right, But there are studies that 0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:55.000 look into this. They try to impose a methodology and say, Okay, 0:03:55.040 --> 0:03:59.200 what do scientists think or what has the published literature said. Now, 0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:01.600 one study like this was published in two thousand nine 0:04:01.640 --> 0:04:07.720 in EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Uh good 0:04:07.840 --> 0:04:12.240 good professional publication title there, and it's called Examining the 0:04:12.240 --> 0:04:15.200 Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. And so what they did 0:04:15.320 --> 0:04:18.440 is they sent invitations out to more than ten thousand 0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:22.440 Earth scientists, basically all of the geoscientists they could find 0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:26.800 at universities and public research institutions, with two survey questions. 0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:30.400 And these were the two questions. First question, when compared 0:04:30.440 --> 0:04:33.960 with pre eighteen hundreds levels, do you think that mean 0:04:34.040 --> 0:04:39.000 global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:43.080 And then the second question, do you think human activity 0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:48.320 is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? 0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:52.080 So of the people they pinned with this survey, three thousand, 0:04:52.080 --> 0:04:55.440 one forty six geoscientists responded. They said, that's about a 0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:59.799 standard survey response rate over all of the earth sciences. 0:05:00.120 --> 0:05:04.960 Nine of participants answered risen to the first question. Now, 0:05:05.040 --> 0:05:08.479 that's geoscientists. That's people who study the Earth in anyway, 0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:14.919 so geologist, ocean hydrologists, meteorologists, economic geologists. Um, what about 0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:18.480 people who study the climate specifically? Well, Of the subset 0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:21.480 of respondents who were experts in climate science and had 0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:24.159 published more than half of their recent papers weighing in 0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:27.599 on the subject of climate change, ninety six point two 0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:31.680 percent or seventy six of seventy nine answered risen to 0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:35.280 the first question. That's a high that's a high percentage 0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:39.640 right there, right yeah. And there have been multiple other 0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:43.679 studies that use different methodologies to ask slightly different questions, 0:05:43.720 --> 0:05:47.359 but all of them have found overwhelming agreement among scientists 0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:50.839 in general, and especially among climate scientists in particular, that 0:05:50.920 --> 0:05:54.400 the planet is rapidly warming. So those seventy one percent 0:05:54.480 --> 0:05:57.440 of Americans who say that most scientists believe global warming 0:05:57.560 --> 0:06:01.880 is happening, they are factually correct. Those who disagreed are incorrect. 0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:03.960 Though it is worth saying that a large share of 0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:06.960 the people who didn't agree with that said they were unsure. 0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:10.120 So if you're unsure, you're unsure. But if you if 0:06:10.160 --> 0:06:13.680 you didn't agree with that, you are incorrect. But then, 0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:15.920 of course, there you get into questions in the global 0:06:15.920 --> 0:06:18.039 warming debate that are not quite as cut and dry 0:06:18.080 --> 0:06:21.160 as whether the majority of scientists agree that the Earth 0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:26.479 is warming. For example, what's causing the warming? Is global 0:06:26.520 --> 0:06:30.280 warming caused by human activity primarily greenhouse gas emissions, or 0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:33.640 by natural causes? Well, it shouldn't be surprising that there 0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:36.200 have been plenty of attempts to study the opinion of 0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:39.800 scientists on this question as well. So, for example, in 0:06:39.880 --> 0:06:42.600 that same survey from two thousand nine we just mentioned 0:06:43.240 --> 0:06:46.719 a d two percent of all Earth scientists said yes 0:06:47.040 --> 0:06:50.640 that humans are a major contributing factor, and nine seven 0:06:50.720 --> 0:06:56.200 point four percent of active climate researchers said yes. Again, 0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:59.080 these are high percentages. If these were the experts telling 0:06:59.120 --> 0:07:01.440 me that I should cut something out of my diet 0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:04.440 or maybe, you know, make other some sort of major 0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:07.200 change in my life, I would be seriously inclined to 0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:09.720 listen to them. Okay, sure, but maybe maybe you say, well, 0:07:09.760 --> 0:07:12.320 that's just one study, but has anybody else studied this? 0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:15.760 Actually yes. So a commonly cited figure is from a 0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:19.800 study in the journal Environmental Research Letters by John Cook 0:07:19.960 --> 0:07:23.160 at All that what they did is looked at abstracts 0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:25.680 of published papers on the subject. They looked at about 0:07:25.680 --> 0:07:29.240 twelve thousand research papers published over the previous two decades, 0:07:29.960 --> 0:07:33.960 and uh they found quote, sixty six point four percent 0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:38.360 of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming, meaning 0:07:38.400 --> 0:07:42.600 human cause global warming, thirty two point six percent endorsed it, 0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:46.840 and zero point seven percent rejected it, and zero point 0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:49.560 three percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming. 0:07:50.120 --> 0:07:52.800 So this means that among papers that expressed a view 0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:56.360 on the cause of global warming, ninety seven point one 0:07:56.480 --> 0:07:59.800 percent endorsed the consensus. Now, I want to just cut 0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:01.800 in are real quick and say if it sounds like 0:08:01.840 --> 0:08:03.160 we're just hitting you over the head with a bunch 0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:06.800 of figures and numbers to drive home the fact that 0:08:06.920 --> 0:08:09.560 climate change is caused by hum an activity, the vast 0:08:09.560 --> 0:08:12.400 majority of this episode is dealing not with those facts, 0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:15.080 but how we process those facts. Right, We just want 0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:18.760 to establish clearly what the scientific consensus is beyond any 0:08:19.000 --> 0:08:22.400 reasonable doubts. We will get to science, communication and public 0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:26.080 consumption of the information in a bit right. Uh. So 0:08:26.280 --> 0:08:28.680 you've got this Cook paper, and obviously there's a lot 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:31.840 of people in the general public don't agree with climate change. 0:08:31.880 --> 0:08:35.520 So there's been plenty of criticisms of the cook papers methodology. 0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:39.120 For example, in there was a Dutch born economist named 0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:42.040 Richard Toll who criticized the Cook study and tried to 0:08:42.080 --> 0:08:45.520 revise the estimates down. Uh. Toll is often cited as 0:08:45.559 --> 0:08:48.120 a critic of the consensus on global warming. But even 0:08:48.160 --> 0:08:51.880 when he revised the numbers down, he recrunched them and said, no, 0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:54.400 actually it's not as high as they said. He found 0:08:54.559 --> 0:08:59.600 nine one percent agreement instead of agreement. And I should 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.160 add that Cook also defended their original figure on in 0:09:03.160 --> 0:09:07.200 a response article that attributed tolls lower figure of to 0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:11.800 a math era one last study before we move on, Uh, 0:09:11.960 --> 0:09:15.920 andreg at all expert credibility and Climate Change Proceedings of 0:09:15.920 --> 0:09:19.720 the National Academy of Sciences two thousand ten. They used 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:22.720 a data set of one thousand, three seventy two climate 0:09:22.760 --> 0:09:28.040 researchers to determine that of climate scientists in general were 0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:30.720 convinced that human activity was the main cause of global 0:09:30.760 --> 0:09:34.120 warming and of climate scientists who were actively publishing in 0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:38.760 the field, between nine and percent of them agreed with 0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:41.640 the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:44.520 i p c C, which concluded that the main reason 0:09:44.559 --> 0:09:49.440 the climate is changing is human activity, primarily greenhouse gas emissions. 0:09:49.480 --> 0:09:53.480 So this is pretty unambiguous anyway you cut it. The 0:09:53.640 --> 0:09:57.320 large majority of scientists, especially those that study the climate 0:09:57.360 --> 0:10:00.360 directly and published in the field, agree that the Earth 0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:03.320 is warming and that human activity is the main cause. 0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:08.000 But let's go back to those gallop results. Only of 0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.160 Americans agree with the objective fact that the majority of 0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:14.640 scientists believe the Earth is warming, and only sixty eight 0:10:14.679 --> 0:10:18.880 percent of Americans agree with the clear consensus that human 0:10:18.920 --> 0:10:22.560 activity is a significant cause of this warming. And this 0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:27.319 gap between the expert consensus in public opinion is sometimes 0:10:27.360 --> 0:10:31.439 maddening to science and science communicators, Like if you are 0:10:31.480 --> 0:10:34.560 a dissenting climate researcher and you've got some reason of 0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:39.240 your own to disagree, sure, but why would non experts 0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:42.920 like you and me disagree with the overwhelming majority of 0:10:42.960 --> 0:10:46.360 people who know what they're talking about. And the ungenerous 0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:49.600 question that comes out of frustration with this situation is 0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:54.320 why don't they believe in science? And is that really 0:10:54.320 --> 0:10:56.840 what's going on? So that's a question we wanted to 0:10:56.880 --> 0:11:00.480 ask today is the city. Is the situation really that 0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:03.800 they don't believe in science or is that there's something 0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:08.400 particular to this issue where their ability to judge science 0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:14.240 has been corrupted. Now, obviously you're listening to a science podcast, 0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:17.640 so I'm we're not gonna try and belabor the point 0:11:17.679 --> 0:11:20.800 here too much. But of course science, science is the 0:11:20.800 --> 0:11:24.079 true path as a systematic exploration of the universe and 0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:26.880 the properties that government science. I mean, this has allowed 0:11:26.960 --> 0:11:30.240 humanity a path out of darkness, ignorance, and disease. It 0:11:30.320 --> 0:11:33.520 underlies all the marvels of modern technology and provides us 0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:36.200 with a chance for humanities a long term survival on 0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:40.959 and potentially beyond Earth. I mean, if you listen to 0:11:41.000 --> 0:11:43.160 the podcast, you know I'm not saying that that science 0:11:43.440 --> 0:11:47.800 will answer all of life's questions, especially in teleological questions 0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:50.280 related to him like why do I exist? What's my 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:52.680 purpose in life? Right? But if you're trying to answer 0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:57.120 facts about the material universe with reliable accuracy, uh, I 0:11:57.160 --> 0:12:00.360 mean we're science advocates around here, right, you have the 0:12:00.400 --> 0:12:04.120 science you have the scientists, and here's the thing. For 0:12:04.200 --> 0:12:07.400 the most part, we trust it, or at the very 0:12:07.480 --> 0:12:10.320 least we claim to trust it. That's right. Is pointed 0:12:10.320 --> 0:12:13.600 out in an often cited uh Pew research study from 0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:19.040 two thousands sixteen. Americans in particular trust only the military 0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:21.679 over scientists. So there's a whole ranking. Yeah. So they 0:12:21.760 --> 0:12:25.160 repeatedly do this study where they'll put up public institutions 0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:27.760 and they'll ask you how much trust you have in them, 0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:31.080 like great deal of trust, a significant amount of trust, 0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:34.320 not too much, exactly like that, And people will rank 0:12:34.440 --> 0:12:37.440 these different institutions, including things like the media. You can 0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:40.760 guess where that goes. But how does the ranking work out? Well, 0:12:40.920 --> 0:12:43.160 based on this two thousand and sixteen ranking, it goes 0:12:43.200 --> 0:12:47.400 as follows military at the top, then medical scientists, scientists 0:12:47.920 --> 0:12:51.920 k through twelve principles, religious leaders, news, media, business, and 0:12:51.920 --> 0:12:54.760 finally elected officials. Yeah. Now, one of the main people 0:12:54.760 --> 0:12:57.520 we're gonna be talking about from this seventeen World Science 0:12:57.559 --> 0:13:02.320 Festival panel, Dan Kahan, is what he made this point 0:13:02.480 --> 0:13:04.320 in the panel that I thought was great. He said, 0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:09.319 even religious people say on this survey that they generally 0:13:09.400 --> 0:13:14.280 trust science more than they trust religious leaders. And and 0:13:14.400 --> 0:13:18.320 percentages for trusting these groups a great deal, because, like 0:13:18.360 --> 0:13:21.520 you said, there are different levels of it and the questions. 0:13:21.960 --> 0:13:24.880 Uh So, the percentages for trusting these groups a great 0:13:24.920 --> 0:13:28.440 deal range from thirty three for the military and twenty 0:13:28.480 --> 0:13:31.439 four and twenty one for medical scientists and scientists, respectively, 0:13:32.120 --> 0:13:34.640 down to a mere three percent for elected officials. Just 0:13:34.679 --> 0:13:37.600 to let you know what politicians, Yeah, I don't know 0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:41.319 why we don't trust them more. But but particularly noteworthy 0:13:41.400 --> 0:13:43.600 here is the fact that of the Americans poll, the 0:13:43.600 --> 0:13:48.959 participants expressed a fair amount of confidence in medical scientists 0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:54.240 and scientists. So, uh, that alone, I think it is 0:13:54.360 --> 0:13:59.120 is telling about our overall cultural trust in scientific expertise. 0:13:59.240 --> 0:14:00.880 And of course that's not been getting into the fact 0:14:00.880 --> 0:14:02.720 that if if you're talking about the military, aren't you 0:14:02.720 --> 0:14:05.800 also talking about military scientists. But that's that's kind of 0:14:05.800 --> 0:14:09.360 a separate question. Yeah, and so that's interesting. Generally, people 0:14:09.400 --> 0:14:11.920 say they put at least a fair amount of trust 0:14:12.000 --> 0:14:14.280 and scientists. A lot of people put a great deal 0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:17.640 of trust in scientists. People claim to believe in science, 0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:20.480 people claim to say that scientists are working with the 0:14:20.480 --> 0:14:25.400 public's best interests at heart. But there are particular issues 0:14:25.960 --> 0:14:29.479 where for some reason, the public's understanding of the scientific 0:14:29.880 --> 0:14:33.280 consensus gets very out of whack. Yeah. Yeah, we have 0:14:33.400 --> 0:14:37.320 this polarizing effect, or seemingly polarized based on what we 0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:40.840 see and what we hear in the media. That how 0:14:40.880 --> 0:14:43.880 can we hold such high opinions of scientists and science 0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:47.320 in general and disagree on the clear scientific consensus regarding, 0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:50.520 for instance, human driven climate change? Why are so many 0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:54.440 of us scared away by the prospect of Frankenstein food? Um? 0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:59.000 And then other other topics, of course are vaccine safety, 0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:02.160 uh for um, evolution and whether your kids should watch 0:15:02.200 --> 0:15:05.240 Dinosaur Train? What does Dinosaur train? Dinosaur Trains a lovely 0:15:05.280 --> 0:15:09.240 show by the Jim Hinson Company where dinosaurs travel in 0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:12.600 time on a train through a wormhole and your child 0:15:12.680 --> 0:15:16.240 memorizes all of these complex dinosaur names. That's wonderful. Yeah. 0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:17.920 And then of course another big one, This is what 0:15:18.040 --> 0:15:20.000 I hadn't really thought about much, but I understand you've 0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:23.520 you've covered in the past for Harvard thinking. Yeah, is 0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:28.240 the deep geological isolation of nuclear waste. Yeah, so, high 0:15:28.320 --> 0:15:31.840 level radioactive waste. I mean, there's pretty clear scientific consensus 0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:33.600 that the best thing we need to do with it 0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:36.360 is bury it deep underground. But when you pull the 0:15:36.400 --> 0:15:39.920 general public, even the educated public, people who say they're 0:15:39.920 --> 0:15:43.800 into science, you you do not get the high levels 0:15:43.840 --> 0:15:46.960 of agreement with the scientific consensus on this. And what 0:15:47.120 --> 0:15:49.840 some of these UH things should indicate is, I mean, 0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:54.800 it's no secret that the consensus on climate change has 0:15:54.880 --> 0:15:58.480 been particularly identified with one half of the political spectrum, 0:15:58.520 --> 0:16:01.000 at least in the United States. But this is not 0:16:01.040 --> 0:16:04.360 to criticize conservatives, because there are plenty of these issues 0:16:04.480 --> 0:16:09.040 where where. Apparently if you pull people, liberals are more 0:16:09.120 --> 0:16:12.160 out of tune with the scientific consensus than conservatives are. 0:16:12.240 --> 0:16:15.080 Like last time I saw more liberals were out of 0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:18.920 tune with the scientific consensus on vaccine safety, namely that 0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:23.280 they are safe uh than conservatives. Now we've already mentioned 0:16:23.400 --> 0:16:26.640 that the the World Science Festival panel that I attended 0:16:26.760 --> 0:16:29.480 UH and then you watched online, and then you too, listener, 0:16:29.600 --> 0:16:32.320 can watch online. I'll include either a link or embedded 0:16:32.400 --> 0:16:34.520 video of it on the landing page for this episode 0:16:34.560 --> 0:16:36.760 Stuff to Abow your Mind dot com. But the title 0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:39.840 the discussion was Science in a Polarized World. It was 0:16:39.880 --> 0:16:43.800 moderated by author and journalist John don Van UH and 0:16:44.120 --> 0:16:50.240 the panelist included astrophysicist France Cordova, physicist and World Science 0:16:50.240 --> 0:16:55.760 Festival co founder Brian Greene, geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, and 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:58.200 most notably that one of the individuals we are probably 0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.520 gonna spend the most time with here today, Ale law 0:17:00.560 --> 0:17:05.520 professor and science communication expert Dan Kahan. He's the Elizabeth K. 0:17:05.720 --> 0:17:09.200 Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale 0:17:09.280 --> 0:17:13.600 Law School, and his primary research interests are risk perception, 0:17:14.000 --> 0:17:18.240 science communication, and the application of decision science to law 0:17:18.280 --> 0:17:21.080 and policy making. Yeah, so I was looking at some 0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:24.560 of his research in preparing for this episode, and it's 0:17:24.560 --> 0:17:26.880 an interesting thing he's doing. Obviously he's not the only 0:17:26.880 --> 0:17:29.840 person doing it, but trying to apply, for example, psychology 0:17:30.000 --> 0:17:33.919 psychological science to laws. So he'd published things in the 0:17:33.960 --> 0:17:37.080 Harvard Law Review that are saying, hey, you know, judges 0:17:37.119 --> 0:17:41.000 should be aware that human brains tend to work like X, Y, 0:17:41.080 --> 0:17:45.360 and Z like. For example, one thing that judges might 0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:48.880 really benefit from being aware of is that research shows 0:17:49.480 --> 0:17:53.040 that when you tell people to be rational and objective, 0:17:53.400 --> 0:17:56.680 they do not become more rational and objective to get 0:17:56.680 --> 0:18:00.000 more entrenched. Al Right. So in this discussion panel everybody. 0:18:00.119 --> 0:18:06.280 He had some great commentary on on polarization regarding a 0:18:06.320 --> 0:18:11.760 scientific consensus. Um Sir Paul Nurse was wonderful. Uh, Brian Green, 0:18:12.600 --> 0:18:15.560 the physicist, it just was really fired up for this 0:18:15.600 --> 0:18:18.480 one and it was just you know, enjoy to watch 0:18:18.480 --> 0:18:21.680 and listen to. But one of the things that Brian 0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:24.719 Green was saying in the panel was, you know, so 0:18:24.760 --> 0:18:28.239 we've got this problem of polarization of public opinion on 0:18:28.280 --> 0:18:30.879 scientific issues. There were some issues where the public, as 0:18:30.920 --> 0:18:33.000 we talked about at the beginning of the episode, just 0:18:33.200 --> 0:18:37.200 doesn't line up with what scientists are saying. Why is that? 0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:39.280 And I think Brian Green was coming at it from 0:18:39.320 --> 0:18:41.400 the point of view like, if we could just make 0:18:41.440 --> 0:18:45.520 them understand science better, if we could just teach, we 0:18:45.520 --> 0:18:49.600 could educate people better in the scientific process and what 0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:54.200 science is about, then they would agree with the scientific consensus. 0:18:54.800 --> 0:18:57.840 And Kahan had a really interesting response to this. I 0:18:57.880 --> 0:19:01.040 think his answer was was, don't get ahead of yourself. 0:19:01.080 --> 0:19:03.960 That's not necessarily the case, right, because I mean, because 0:19:04.040 --> 0:19:07.720 Brian Green's question makes sense, right because you think, well, 0:19:08.040 --> 0:19:09.639 you want to say, what do you realize that that 0:19:09.800 --> 0:19:13.320 science is to quote Sir Paul Nurse, tentative knowledge that 0:19:13.440 --> 0:19:17.439 we're it's it's not a complete, prepackaged understanding the universe. 0:19:17.480 --> 0:19:19.919 It's a continued exploration. You want to say, don't you 0:19:20.000 --> 0:19:23.080 understand the mistakes are part of it. This was definitely 0:19:23.119 --> 0:19:25.760 Brian Green's argument that if you want to talk about 0:19:25.760 --> 0:19:29.440 people who are skeptical of climate change, talk to the 0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:33.399 climate change scientists who have studied it, because science is 0:19:33.400 --> 0:19:35.480 about you. If you you have a hypothesis and you're 0:19:35.480 --> 0:19:38.119 studying it, you were skeptical about it every step of 0:19:38.119 --> 0:19:40.560 the way. Yeah, if you're not being skeptical about the 0:19:40.560 --> 0:19:43.640 theory you advocate, then you're not doing science right, right, 0:19:43.640 --> 0:19:46.160 You're not being very good at your job. So all 0:19:46.200 --> 0:19:48.199 of the that, that entire argument makes sense, and it 0:19:48.240 --> 0:19:50.760 does lead one to think, all right, it's just it's 0:19:50.760 --> 0:19:55.320 scientific literacy or lack of reasoning that's being employed here. 0:19:55.640 --> 0:19:58.560 But yeah, Kahan is saying that you'll find plenty of 0:19:58.600 --> 0:20:02.520 people resisting sientific consensus who are highly literate in science 0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:06.120 and highly logical, and they just wind up applying their 0:20:06.119 --> 0:20:09.760 cognitive resources to fit their beliefs in worldview. In fact, 0:20:09.760 --> 0:20:13.360 it gets crazier than this, because it's not just that 0:20:13.440 --> 0:20:16.639 people who are highly educated in science, who apparently, if 0:20:16.680 --> 0:20:19.679 you test them, they understand how science works. It's not 0:20:19.760 --> 0:20:23.000 just that they can disagree with the scientific consensus, but 0:20:23.480 --> 0:20:27.120 that people who have more rational capacity and who have 0:20:27.280 --> 0:20:32.000 greater cognitive resources in fact, tend to apply those more 0:20:32.119 --> 0:20:37.520 strongly on entrenching themselves against the scientific consensus when they 0:20:37.520 --> 0:20:40.720 disagree with it. It's like people who are better educated 0:20:40.760 --> 0:20:44.199 in science are better at coming up with reasons to 0:20:44.400 --> 0:20:48.439 explain why they don't agree with scientists or why they 0:20:48.480 --> 0:20:51.080 don't agree. Not just don't agree with scientists, but don't 0:20:51.080 --> 0:20:54.639 agree about even objective facts like the fact that the 0:20:54.640 --> 0:20:57.600 majority of scientists to endorse the fact that the Earth 0:20:57.640 --> 0:21:00.680 is warming. Yeah, and it is worth noting here that 0:21:00.720 --> 0:21:04.600 when we're talking about these these dissenting individuals, like it's 0:21:04.600 --> 0:21:07.240 generally it's not across the board. They're not they're not 0:21:07.359 --> 0:21:11.320 dissenting on all scientific consensus. It's about a particular topic, 0:21:11.359 --> 0:21:15.760 be that topic climate change, or be that topic, um, 0:21:15.760 --> 0:21:20.240 you know, vaccines or genetically modified organisms. Yeah, and it's 0:21:20.240 --> 0:21:23.400 it's also important Kahan points out that you also see 0:21:23.400 --> 0:21:25.560 this this sort of thing outside of science. You see 0:21:25.640 --> 0:21:29.840 you see the same process involved with say, abortion or 0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:34.199 military recruitment, any issue in which protests becomes a badge 0:21:34.200 --> 0:21:37.119 of identity. And this place specifically into one paper that 0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:41.600 Khan refers to, which is this paper they saw a protest. Uh. 0:21:41.760 --> 0:21:45.320 So this comes up in the conversation where you you 0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:49.480 can show people video of a protest taking place, right, 0:21:49.760 --> 0:21:53.040 and you ask them just objective facts about what they 0:21:53.040 --> 0:21:56.440 see at the video. Did you see the protesters, uh, 0:21:56.560 --> 0:22:00.280 screaming in someone's face, did you see the protesters bocking 0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:03.439 someone's path? Did you see the protesters doing this and that? 0:22:03.560 --> 0:22:06.919 All these sort of negative behaviors that would render the 0:22:06.960 --> 0:22:10.240 protest in a bad light. And it turns out people 0:22:10.359 --> 0:22:13.760 claim to see different things in the video depending on 0:22:13.920 --> 0:22:17.520 whether they think the politics of the protesters line up 0:22:17.560 --> 0:22:20.879 with their own. So if you show a person with 0:22:20.920 --> 0:22:24.240 certain politics a video and you say that it's people 0:22:24.280 --> 0:22:28.120 protesting outside an abortion clinic, they'll have a very different 0:22:28.320 --> 0:22:30.480 report of what they see in the video than if 0:22:30.480 --> 0:22:33.960 you tell them that it's protesters outside a military recruiting 0:22:34.000 --> 0:22:37.840 center protesting. Don't ask, don't tell. And this is a 0:22:37.840 --> 0:22:41.080 specific example of motivated reasoning. Maybe we can talk about 0:22:41.200 --> 0:22:44.080 motivated reasoning more later on, but it's the fact that 0:22:44.119 --> 0:22:47.679 we we just do not process the facts of reality 0:22:47.720 --> 0:22:51.600 and the evidence of our senses with perfect objectivity. We 0:22:51.680 --> 0:22:55.040 in fact process them in a highly goal oriented way, 0:22:55.080 --> 0:22:57.960 and a lot of times that goal is I don't 0:22:57.960 --> 0:23:00.840 want people like me or the people in my group 0:23:00.920 --> 0:23:04.200 to look bad. All Right, we're gonna take a quick break, 0:23:04.200 --> 0:23:06.560 and when we come back, we're gonna jump jump right 0:23:06.600 --> 0:23:17.359 back into Kahan's research. Than all right, we're back. So 0:23:17.440 --> 0:23:20.920 one of the things that people obviously do when they 0:23:20.920 --> 0:23:24.520 are motivated to arrive at a certain conclusion is that 0:23:24.600 --> 0:23:28.520 they cherry pick facts. Right that you can. You can 0:23:28.520 --> 0:23:31.800 always find stuff that makes your worldview look better or 0:23:31.840 --> 0:23:35.040 stuff that makes the other person's worldview look better. And 0:23:35.200 --> 0:23:38.280 it is in fact, incredibly easy and causes almost no 0:23:38.480 --> 0:23:42.639