Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy have changed. We think you'll like them better this way.

The Science Comprehension Thesis

  • Broadcast in Politics
  • 0 comments
BostonRed

BostonRed

×  

Follow This Show

If you liked this show, you should follow BostonRed.
h:19973
s:6300787
archived

The leading theory, Kahan and his coauthors wrote, is the Science Comprehension Thesis, which says the problem is that the public doesn’t know enough about science to judge the debate. It’s a version of the More Information Hypothesis: a smarter, better educated citizenry wouldn’t have all these problems reading the science and accepting its clear conclusion on climate change.

But Kahan and his team had an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps people aren’t held back by a lack of knowledge. After all, they don’t typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies. Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don’t want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument. Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth — purposes like increasing their standing in their community, or ensuring they don’t piss off the leaders of their tribe. If this hypothesis proved true, then a smarter, better-educated citizenry wouldn’t put an end to these disagreements. It would just mean the participants are better equipped to argue for their own side.VOX

Jerry Pippin brings the hypothesis to main street America.

Comments

 comments