In the article Why scientific consensus fails to persuade (September 14, 2010), the National Science Foundation provides a discussion on the truth or credibility of scientific consensus. The article builds on the results of a research conducted by Dan Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith and Donald Braman who are a law professor at Yale University, political science professor at the University of Oklahoma, and law professor at George Washington University, respectively. The main objective of this study was to find out why there always exist sharp and consistent divisions among members of the public regarding issues on which expert scientists largely agree. Therefore, this basis on the findings of this investigation in an attempt to provide explanations to why scientific consensus fails to persuade many people.
The results of the study established consistency between the positions a scientist assumes and that a National Academy endorses does not explain why scientific consensus fails to pursued. On the contrary, the consistency between the stand the scientist assumes and that taken by the majority of individuals who share the same cultural values with the scientist. Research participants who exhibited individualistic tendencies had comparatively lower chances (over 70%) than those with egalitarian values to perceive the scientists as an expert if the scientists were regarding climate change as a real risk. Similarly, those holding egalitarian values were 50% less likely compared to their individualistic counterparts to consider the scientists as an expert if they were seen affirming evidence on climate change as unsettled. Based on these findings the researchers conclude that cultural dispositions influence peoples perception of what constitute a scientific consensus. With this knowledge, the article asserts that neither enhancing trust in scientists nor increasing awareness of what scientists believe cannot address the current disagreements on the scientific consensus. Instead, the paper suggests the utilization of communication strategies that lower the chances that members of the public with different cultural values findings not congenial to their respective cultural positions.
The author demonstrates not only effective writing but also clear and logical thinking. For instance, the writer introduces the article with a brief scenario that effectively provides an adequate background to the paper. Particularly, the author challenges the readers to put themselves in a situation where an individual seeks opinion from an acquaintance on whether a scholar who has authored a book on climate change, holds a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from a reputable university, is faculty in another distinctive institution, and is a National Academy of Sciences member is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. This scenario proves to an effective way to introduce the topic as it solicits thought from the reader. Moreover, the author draws a conclusion of findings of scientific research. It can be argued that the authors discussion and assertions are informed by the study conducted by Dan Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith, and Donald Braman. The use of findings from this study makes the article more trustworthy and credible. Furthermore, the author thinks logically. The article argues for findings of previous studies. Several scholars and studies confirm the argument that cultural commitment influence the position people hold on scientific consensus. A lot of psychological studies has demonstrated that individuals react to scientific or technical evidence in a manner that reflects their preexisting values and values (Cook et al. 5). Also, many people tend to twist or selectively read scientific evidence to match their deep-seated perspectives about morality and the way society ought to be ordered (Myere et al. 1). These observations confirm the authors thinking that people are more likely to reject the trustworthiness of a scientific source due to the perception that it challenges their deeply held views. Additionally, the author solution to the problem of the persuasiveness of scientific consensus is informed by scientific evidence. A recent study reports that perception of the expert consensus is a gateway belief which opens members of the public to the acceptance of other important concepts (van der Linden et al 4). This study found out that enhancing public perceptions of the scientific consensus heightens peoples belief that climate change is taking place, is caused by human activities, and is a serious concern (van der Linden 3). Consequently, changes in these fundamental beliefs result in increased support for public action.
However, the article has a number of weaknesses. First, the article incorporates research evidence from only one study. This article would have been much more convincing would the author have incorporated evidence or ideas from multiple studies and sources. Findings from different studies help to establish consensus on scientific or technical evidence. Another point of weakness that can be identified from the article is the nonprofessional or non-academic tone of the writing. Specifically, the author uses the second person and contractions like isnt makes the article appear less professional. Unlike the popular article, scholarly writing utilizes a specific writing format with appropriate references and citation. Nonetheless, it is imperative to note that this article clear articulate the reason why scientific consensus fails to persuade the public. This discussion offers clear, valid and relevant evidence that support the idea that public perception of scientific consensus is consequential informed by their deeply held preexisting values and beliefs.
Works Cited
Cook, John, et al. "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming." Environmental Research Letters 11.4 (2016): 048002.
Myers, Teresa A., et al. "Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments." PloS one 10.3 (2015): e0120985.
National Science Foundation. Why 'scientific consensus' fails to persuade. September 14, 2010. Web. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2010-09-scientific-consensus.html
van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence." PloS one 10.2 (2015): e0118489.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
