Are Smart People Ruining Democracy? | Dan Kahan | TEDxVienna
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- Is political polarization over the reality of climate change, the efficacy of gun control, the safety of nuclear power, and other policy-relevant facts attributable to a simple deficit in public science literacy? Dan Kahan reviews study results showing that polarization on complex factual issues rises in lockstep with culturally diverse citizens' capacity to comprehend scientific evidence generally. The talk also reviews surprising evidence about how curiosity affects polarization.
More information on www.tedxvienna.at
Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. His primary research interests (for the moment, anyway) are risk perception, science communication, and the application of decision science to law and policymaking. He is a member of the Cultural Cognition Project, an interdisciplinary team of scholars who use empirical methods to examine the impact of group values on perceptions of risk and related facts. In studies funded by the National Science Foundation, his research has investigated public disagreement over climate change, public reactions to emerging technologies, and conflicting public impressions of scientific consensus.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. His primary research interests (for the moment, anyway) are risk perception, science communication, and the application of decision science to law and policymaking. He is a member of the Cultural Cognition Project, an interdisciplinary team of scholars who use empirical methods to examine the impact of group values on perceptions of risk and related facts. In studies funded by the National Science Foundation, his research has investigated public disagreement over climate change, public reactions to emerging technologies, and conflicting public impressions of scientific consensus. Current work of the Project is centered on integrating the methods of the science of science communication into the tool kits of professional communicators in diverse contexts ranging from local democratic decisionmaking to science-documentary filmmaking. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
The "high numeracy" subjects probably already had consumed many other studies on each controversial topic so they tended to reject the unintuitive results because most other sources contradicted that result. They were not necessarily biassed or making reasoning blunders, but were filtering out the deliberately false data presented to them in the experiment. The problem is that the political factions had already studied biassed data fed to them by their communities.
In the study here at issue, the subjects were presented data (not necessarily true), that should necessarily lead to a given conclusion if interpreted in a non-biased way. And it is those numbers and graphs only that they were asked to interpret.
Once you see this phenomenon in yourself, you see it everywhere. It's fascinating and frustrating but ultimately deeply transformative and rewarding in the quest to remove it from oneself. There's identity deconstruction, humbling self-discovery, and more! Collect the whole set.
Is there a television network dedicated to presenting false data on scientific subjects? Because if such a network existed, it would skew this data. The incredulity resulting from being exposed to a constant assault of misinformation on political subjects would be noteworthy. If such a network existed, and its reporting were widely disseminated throughout the internet as factual, then any consumer of new information would be rightly suspicious of the veracity of any "facts" concerning controversial, politically charged subjects.
It is funny that at minute 10:33 the presenter trows me off with his hipothesis because all I see is that the liberals were correct all along on the subjects of global warming and fracking. In other words, both groups moved in the same direction, but in the direction of the original liberal point of view.
sorry to be off topic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an Instagram account??
I stupidly forgot my login password. I would appreciate any assistance you can give me.
@Kashton Mario instablaster =)
@Callen Adan Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site thru google and im trying it out atm.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Callen Adan It did the trick and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much you saved my account !
@Kashton Mario no problem =)
“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”
― Michio Kaku
Given enough time, yes. Eventually we have to pay the piper, but in the short term, scientific careers and reputations are protected and those who challenge them are destroyed politically and economically and do not receive any vindication until their corpses have rotted away. It's just the way the game is played. A PHD makes you more responsible to the truth and to curiosity, not less. We still have a long way to go on this front.