>
In April and May of 2013, Yale Law professor Dan Kahan — working with coauthors Ellen Peters, Erica Cantrell Dawson, and Paul Slovic — set out to test a question that continuously puzzles scientists: why isn’t good evidence more effective in resolving political debates? For instance, why doesn’t the mounting proof that climate change is a real threat persuade more skeptics?Ah, the good old psychologization of politics ("those disagreeing are not just wrong, they're crazy or at least mentally affected"). Stalinist USSR would be proud.
The idea that this might be a charged political question for a reason didn't cross their minds, or that there might be valid subtleties like:
Is scientific fact a matter of consensus?
Is something a "consensus" if those disagreeing are excluded (while still being scientists with credentials and everything) - which also means those that potentially disagree have reasons to hide appear as agreeing?
Consensus is not really required in hard science judgements where you can just measure things or do an experiment and be done with it. So this is not that cut-and-try then, but depends on interpretation of lots of data points and theories?
Can scientists ever consent on something that's nevertheless wrong?
Does it still count as disagreeing if you agree on climate change being a problem but disagree on the identification of the main causes?
Does it still count as disagreeing if you agree on climate change being a problem but disagree on the solutions proposed?
Of course you don't get grants or fill politics-adjacent papers by being subtle about such things.
Ah, the good old psychologization of politics ("those disagreeing are not just wrong, they're crazy or at least mentally affected"). Stalinist USSR would be proud.
The idea that this might be a charged political question for a reason didn't cross their minds, or that there might be valid subtleties like:
Is scientific fact a matter of consensus?
Is something a "consensus" if those disagreeing are excluded (while still being scientists with credentials and everything) - which also means those that potentially disagree have reasons to hide appear as agreeing?
Consensus is not really required in hard science judgements where you can just measure things or do an experiment and be done with it. So this is not that cut-and-try then, but depends on interpretation of lots of data points and theories?
Can scientists ever consent on something that's nevertheless wrong?
Does it still count as disagreeing if you agree on climate change being a problem but disagree on the identification of the main causes?
Does it still count as disagreeing if you agree on climate change being a problem but disagree on the solutions proposed?
Of course you don't get grants or fill politics-adjacent papers by being subtle about such things.