[ RadSafe ] presentations on controversial public issues work better with social science

Karen Street Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jul 24 14:38:00 CDT 2012


Thank you for reading my blog post.

US social scientists will often assume the US National Academy of Sciences reports (unless there is disagreement from the scientific community) articulate positions of scientific consensus. They then look at what motivates people to get their sources from elsewhere, and a different understanding. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs. Motivated reasoning is the active method of using one's reasoning to get results you are motivated to get. It turns out that exploratory reasoning, using your reasoning abilities to explore what is, is not particularly common. Social scientists find that most people—especially those who talk or write about controversial social issues—are motivated to confirm gut reactions that often occur in < 1 second on issues for which the people have no or inadequate background. 

I have sent out another post asking exactly what it is you believe. I look forward to your answers.

> Indeed, Karen,
> "- consider which sources are trustworthy-"
> Edward Teller, who managed production of our nuclear deterent at Livermore (LLNL)
> signed at www.petitionproject.org the 15 pages of carefully critized data,
> (31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs)
> "There is no convincing scientific ecidence that human release of carbon sioxide
> - will cause catastrophic heating -"
> This Sat and Sun at Long Island Mariott, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 
> will have 16 presentations, many on the climate "State of Fear" and others on radiatuion,
> like Jerry Cuttler's on the benefit of treatment with low dose radiation.
> See www.ddponline.org for details.
> Howard Long MD MPH
> howard.long at comcast.net
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Karen Street <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I did some presentations on climate change and nuclear power in June, now have blogged on it. Basically, if you include what social scientists say about the parallels among all who reject scientific consensus, the discussion becomes more understandable and safer; so does changing minds. Based on these two presentations anyway.
>> http://theenergycollective.com/karenstreet/96306/using-insights-social-science-presentations-climate-change

Best wishes, 
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php

More information about the RadSafe mailing list