The Motivated Rejection of Science

Layzej writes "New research (PDF) to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found that those who subscribed to one or more conspiracy theories or who strongly supported a free market economy were more likely to reject the findings from climate science as well as other sciences. The researchers, led by UWA School of Psychology Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, found that free-market ideology was an overwhelmingly strong determinant of the rejection of climate science. It also predicted the rejection of the link between tobacco and lung cancer and between HIV and AIDS. Conspiratorial thinking was a lesser but still significant determinant of the rejection of all scientific propositions examined, from climate to lung cancer. Curiously, public response to the paper has provided a perfect real-life illustration of the very cognitive processes at the center of the research."

Comments

Wow

[geek]

This "story" is just one big ass troll isn't it? Seriously, bunch of socialist shrinks deem people who believe contrary to them are crazy. This isn't news.

Re:Suprising how?

[jmorris42]

Damned right. As a rational person pissed at the debasement of science by the political hack poseurs.

At most a climitologist can rightfully say the Earth is warming, CO2 is the cause and human activity is the likely cause of the increase of CO2. Beyond that they should say NOTHING. Other scientists, in other fields, are qualified to evaluate proposed policies. What to do about it in the policy realm is as far outside their expertise in climatology as Sally Field's infamous Congressional testimony on the plight of farmers because she had played one in a movie. The second they use the cloak of science to push policy solutions they aren't scientists anymore, they are amateur politicians. Emphasis on the amateur.

Re:Suprising how?

[swan5566]

The paper doesn't seem to be relying on the theory of climate change being true..

Re-read the opening paragraph. The author's stance is obvious, but doesn't come out and explicitly say "all who don't wholly buy into global warming ideas are idiots", because that would be too easy of an attack point. Rather, they set up a straw man and let the reader knock it down. Yes, you could say strictly speaking that the methodology of the study doesn't need to assume the validity of global warming, but then that only begs the question of why the author's opening paragraph was stated in the way that it was. They could have simply said "global warming is a controversial subject...", and still provided the same motivation.