Not everything, of course. Just the basic scientific or statistical facts necessary for having informed political views. I'll believe what you say about skin rashes, but not about anything controversial. In fact, I'd be better off finding someone much less bright to tell me the facts about, say, Brexit or global warming.
From the conclusion:
"The reason that citizens remain
divided over risks in the face of compelling and
widely accessible scientific evidence, this account
suggests, is not that that they are insufficiently rational;
it is that the that they are too rational in extracting
from information on these issues the evidence
that matters most for them in their everyday
lives. In an environment in which positions on particular
policy-relevant facts become widely understood as symbols of individuals’ membership in and
loyalty to opposing cultural groups, it will promote
people’s individual interests to attend to evidence
about those facts in a manner that reliably conforms
their beliefs to the ones that predominate in the
groups they are members of. Indeed, the tendency
to process information in this fashion will be
strongest among individuals who display the reasoning
capacities most strongly associated with science
comprehension.
Thus, improving public understanding of science
and propagating critical reasoning skills—while
immensely important, both intrinsically and practically
(Dewey 1910)—cannot be expected to dissipate
persistent public conflict over decision-relevant
science."
No comments:
Post a Comment