The recent ABC documentary I Can Change Your Mind About Climate was about two people conservative former politician Nick Minchin and youth activist Anna Rose exposing themselves to information that ran counter to theirdeeply held beliefs. We know from both research and experience thatpeople cling to information that is in line with their beliefs andworldviews, even when they suspect or even know the information tobe false. In other words, people will defend their beliefs. To doso they engage in motivated reasoning . There can be various reasons for motivated reasoning.
People mightbe defending their beliefs in an attempt to protect their feelingsof identity and self-worth. Your deepest beliefs about the worlddefine who you are, and hence you need to defend them to defendyourself. On the other hand, people sometimes publicly defend their beliefseven though they know they are wrong. It could be an attempt torationalise irrational behaviour, or justify decisions that are inactual fact driven by vested interest or a hidden agenda.
Using the documentary, let s have a closer look at the strategiespeople use to defend their beliefs and purport rationality. Denial A brute strategy, of course, is outright denial. One can eitherdeny the evidence (for example, Minchin s claims that there isno empirical evidence and that science is just opinion ) orone can deny the possibility of change (Minchin s even if itwere true we couldn t change it attitude). These are the more basic tools to defend one s worldview, and theyare usually quite easy to counteract by you guessed it presenting the evidence or the necessary course of action. Only afew people then continue with outright denial; in the face of clearevidence it can only be upheld by reverting to conspiracy theories,for example that the world s climate scientists have conspired to conceal the evidence (former carbon modeller David Evans , who appeared in the show) in an attempt to somehow take over theworld. Outdoor Led Display Screen
(Remember, it was scientists who brought you vaccinations,the internet, weather forecasts, clean water, antibiotics ) Counter-arguing A more sophisticated approach to defend one s views iscounter-arguing. Rational counter-arguing is a great tool, andit s basically what scientists do all the time. The problem arises when people start counter-arguing establishedfacts. You can argue all day that you have found a special applethat won t drop to the floor when you release it, but that won tchange the laws of gravity. Evans counter-arguing of temperature measurements as inaccurate(because they could be influenced strongly by local factors such asairport traffic) might seem reasonable, but it was exposed by Professor Richard Muller as flawed. China Curved Led Screen
Cherry-picking As pointedly noted by Yale scientist Anthony Leiserowitz , one of the main players in motivated reasoning is theconfirmation bias. That is, we tend to pay more attention toinformation that reinforces our attitudes than to information thatis at odds with our beliefs and decisions. This is a normal tendency if you just bought a new car you willeagerly read a positive review, and pat yourself on the back aboutthe great purchasing decision you have made. You will ignore thenegative aspects in the review (who needs a full-size spareanyway?). China Irregular Shaped LED Display
However, the confirmation bias becomes a real worry when peopleconsciously take this bias to another level, and cherry pick datato purposely mislead. When you cherry pick data, you are not reallylying for example, by saying the image above shows Mr Bean but you are selectively focusing on what fits your cause, andignoring the rest. So while the image does show Mr Bean (have youfound him?), most people would agree that that s not an accuratedescription of the full picture. In the documentary, a graph presented by Evans was a prime exampleof cherry picking. It showed eight years of relatively constantupper-ocean temperatures while: not showing the dramatic rise in upper-ocean temperatures inpreceding decades, and ignoring all the heat building up in deeper waters.
(When youconsider the full ocean, we see a steady build-up of heat.) All of blogger Marc Morano s arguments (dropping sea levels, growing Arctic sea ice, fallingtemperatures) were just that, cherry picking. One ice shelf growingis not evidence for a cooling trend if there are 100 other iceshelves shrinking at the same time. Misuse and misinterpretation of uncertainty One of Minchin s main points was that climate science does notprovide sufficient evidence to make us act. This could be a purelystrategic move to inflate the perceived uncertainty in order toavoid or at least delay the socio-economic implications of climatechange. (Professor Naomi Oreskes makes this point in an out-take of the documentary, which you canwatch here .) But if we assume that Minchin really believes what he is saying,it demonstrates the fundamental flaws people show when dealing withuncertainty.
Absolute certainty is a rare thing. We like it, but it is rare.Yes, we will all eventually die; yes, the sun will rise tomorrow(it will, right?) and yes, if you hit the freeway on a Monday at5pm you will see other cars there (unless perhaps the sun didn trise). But really, when we speak about the predicted behaviour of anycomplex system, there is no such thing as absolute certainty.Waiting for 100% certainty before you act is hence a fallacy, butif you want to defend your beliefs you can play the uncertaintycard in many contexts. You can smoke in your car with your kids inthe back seat, arguing that the link between passive smoking andcancer is not 100% certain.
That may even be true, but what iscertain is that you wouldn t be doing your kids a favour. The argument that there is not enough certainty to act carriesanother fallacy: our tendency to assume that uncertainty isuni-directional. Minchin obviously takes the probability that theclimate models predictions could be wrong to mean that there s agood chance that it will all be fine. Of course, stating there s a 90% chance that Earth s temperaturewill increase by 3 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years doesnot mean there s a 10% chance that everything will stay the same because things could also be worse than predicted , a risk that is commonly neglected when defending one s beliefs.
Together, the misuse and misinterpretation of uncertainty oftencombine to justify doing nothing. But of course, doing nothing isalso an active choice. Delaying action until there is sufficient evidence is as much a decision and an action as thearguably more rational choice to act according to the bestavailable estimates. Ironically, people will take politicians inaction to imply thatthere is no problem if they re not doing anything, then itcan t be serious. This flawed backward reasoning is known as inferred justification and often contributes to the perpetuation of false beliefs.
Discrediting the information source While Rose s refusal to engage with a condescending Morano isperhaps understandable, calling him a Republican attack dog rather than publically exposing some of his aggressively madeclaims is an example of an ad hominem argument. Typically, peopleuse this when they cannot (or in this case: choose not to) addressthe opponent s arguments: ignore the arguments and attack theperson. Another discrediting strategy is ridiculing your opposition.Examples were blogger Joanne Nova loudly laughing at Rose suggesting climate change may have severeconsequences, or Minchin cracking a joke when a farmer expressedexistential fears about the consequences of rising CO on himand fellow farmers ( it s plant food, mate ). The perhaps most creative way to discredit your opponent is to turnthings on their head and accuse your opposition of what you aredoing yourself.
In psychology, such behaviour is called projection.Morano telling Rose to re-examine [her] conscience was probablythe funniest moment of the documentary (in a disturbing way).Minchin denying the existence of empirical evidence but accusingRose of ostrich behaviour when she refused to engage withMorano was another example. Deflection Finally, changing the topic when you fear you are losing theargument is a common strategy to defend your beliefs. In apassionate outburst, Minchin accused Rose of deflection after theirconversation with Professor Richard Lindzen during which Rose brought up Lindzen s denial of the healtheffects of tobacco. It was a clear case of deflection.
But knowing that Lindzen, one ofthe very few climate scientists doubting man-made climate change,has also been doubting the link between tobacco smoke and lungcancer does seem somehow relevant. But the deflection was not theonly reason Minchin was getting so worked up he, too, is on therecord for questioning the adverse effects of tobacco smoke. I can t change your mind about climate, can I? What this tells us is that hardcore believers have many ways tocling to their beliefs and rationalise this behaviour even in theface of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are wrong. So oncethe science is settled and in the case of climate change itreally has been for quite a while now it is actually a reallygood idea to move on and discuss and implement a course of action(as also suggested by UK conservative Zac Goldsmith ), rather than trying to convince the unconvincible.
Ullrich Ecker is an Australian Postdoctoral Fellow at University ofWestern Australia and John Cook is a Climate Communication Fellow at University ofQueensland .
People mightbe defending their beliefs in an attempt to protect their feelingsof identity and self-worth. Your deepest beliefs about the worlddefine who you are, and hence you need to defend them to defendyourself. On the other hand, people sometimes publicly defend their beliefseven though they know they are wrong. It could be an attempt torationalise irrational behaviour, or justify decisions that are inactual fact driven by vested interest or a hidden agenda.
Using the documentary, let s have a closer look at the strategiespeople use to defend their beliefs and purport rationality. Denial A brute strategy, of course, is outright denial. One can eitherdeny the evidence (for example, Minchin s claims that there isno empirical evidence and that science is just opinion ) orone can deny the possibility of change (Minchin s even if itwere true we couldn t change it attitude). These are the more basic tools to defend one s worldview, and theyare usually quite easy to counteract by you guessed it presenting the evidence or the necessary course of action. Only afew people then continue with outright denial; in the face of clearevidence it can only be upheld by reverting to conspiracy theories,for example that the world s climate scientists have conspired to conceal the evidence (former carbon modeller David Evans , who appeared in the show) in an attempt to somehow take over theworld. Outdoor Led Display Screen
(Remember, it was scientists who brought you vaccinations,the internet, weather forecasts, clean water, antibiotics ) Counter-arguing A more sophisticated approach to defend one s views iscounter-arguing. Rational counter-arguing is a great tool, andit s basically what scientists do all the time. The problem arises when people start counter-arguing establishedfacts. You can argue all day that you have found a special applethat won t drop to the floor when you release it, but that won tchange the laws of gravity. Evans counter-arguing of temperature measurements as inaccurate(because they could be influenced strongly by local factors such asairport traffic) might seem reasonable, but it was exposed by Professor Richard Muller as flawed. China Curved Led Screen
Cherry-picking As pointedly noted by Yale scientist Anthony Leiserowitz , one of the main players in motivated reasoning is theconfirmation bias. That is, we tend to pay more attention toinformation that reinforces our attitudes than to information thatis at odds with our beliefs and decisions. This is a normal tendency if you just bought a new car you willeagerly read a positive review, and pat yourself on the back aboutthe great purchasing decision you have made. You will ignore thenegative aspects in the review (who needs a full-size spareanyway?). China Irregular Shaped LED Display
However, the confirmation bias becomes a real worry when peopleconsciously take this bias to another level, and cherry pick datato purposely mislead. When you cherry pick data, you are not reallylying for example, by saying the image above shows Mr Bean but you are selectively focusing on what fits your cause, andignoring the rest. So while the image does show Mr Bean (have youfound him?), most people would agree that that s not an accuratedescription of the full picture. In the documentary, a graph presented by Evans was a prime exampleof cherry picking. It showed eight years of relatively constantupper-ocean temperatures while: not showing the dramatic rise in upper-ocean temperatures inpreceding decades, and ignoring all the heat building up in deeper waters.
(When youconsider the full ocean, we see a steady build-up of heat.) All of blogger Marc Morano s arguments (dropping sea levels, growing Arctic sea ice, fallingtemperatures) were just that, cherry picking. One ice shelf growingis not evidence for a cooling trend if there are 100 other iceshelves shrinking at the same time. Misuse and misinterpretation of uncertainty One of Minchin s main points was that climate science does notprovide sufficient evidence to make us act. This could be a purelystrategic move to inflate the perceived uncertainty in order toavoid or at least delay the socio-economic implications of climatechange. (Professor Naomi Oreskes makes this point in an out-take of the documentary, which you canwatch here .) But if we assume that Minchin really believes what he is saying,it demonstrates the fundamental flaws people show when dealing withuncertainty.
Absolute certainty is a rare thing. We like it, but it is rare.Yes, we will all eventually die; yes, the sun will rise tomorrow(it will, right?) and yes, if you hit the freeway on a Monday at5pm you will see other cars there (unless perhaps the sun didn trise). But really, when we speak about the predicted behaviour of anycomplex system, there is no such thing as absolute certainty.Waiting for 100% certainty before you act is hence a fallacy, butif you want to defend your beliefs you can play the uncertaintycard in many contexts. You can smoke in your car with your kids inthe back seat, arguing that the link between passive smoking andcancer is not 100% certain.
That may even be true, but what iscertain is that you wouldn t be doing your kids a favour. The argument that there is not enough certainty to act carriesanother fallacy: our tendency to assume that uncertainty isuni-directional. Minchin obviously takes the probability that theclimate models predictions could be wrong to mean that there s agood chance that it will all be fine. Of course, stating there s a 90% chance that Earth s temperaturewill increase by 3 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years doesnot mean there s a 10% chance that everything will stay the same because things could also be worse than predicted , a risk that is commonly neglected when defending one s beliefs.
Together, the misuse and misinterpretation of uncertainty oftencombine to justify doing nothing. But of course, doing nothing isalso an active choice. Delaying action until there is sufficient evidence is as much a decision and an action as thearguably more rational choice to act according to the bestavailable estimates. Ironically, people will take politicians inaction to imply thatthere is no problem if they re not doing anything, then itcan t be serious. This flawed backward reasoning is known as inferred justification and often contributes to the perpetuation of false beliefs.
Discrediting the information source While Rose s refusal to engage with a condescending Morano isperhaps understandable, calling him a Republican attack dog rather than publically exposing some of his aggressively madeclaims is an example of an ad hominem argument. Typically, peopleuse this when they cannot (or in this case: choose not to) addressthe opponent s arguments: ignore the arguments and attack theperson. Another discrediting strategy is ridiculing your opposition.Examples were blogger Joanne Nova loudly laughing at Rose suggesting climate change may have severeconsequences, or Minchin cracking a joke when a farmer expressedexistential fears about the consequences of rising CO on himand fellow farmers ( it s plant food, mate ). The perhaps most creative way to discredit your opponent is to turnthings on their head and accuse your opposition of what you aredoing yourself.
In psychology, such behaviour is called projection.Morano telling Rose to re-examine [her] conscience was probablythe funniest moment of the documentary (in a disturbing way).Minchin denying the existence of empirical evidence but accusingRose of ostrich behaviour when she refused to engage withMorano was another example. Deflection Finally, changing the topic when you fear you are losing theargument is a common strategy to defend your beliefs. In apassionate outburst, Minchin accused Rose of deflection after theirconversation with Professor Richard Lindzen during which Rose brought up Lindzen s denial of the healtheffects of tobacco. It was a clear case of deflection.
But knowing that Lindzen, one ofthe very few climate scientists doubting man-made climate change,has also been doubting the link between tobacco smoke and lungcancer does seem somehow relevant. But the deflection was not theonly reason Minchin was getting so worked up he, too, is on therecord for questioning the adverse effects of tobacco smoke. I can t change your mind about climate, can I? What this tells us is that hardcore believers have many ways tocling to their beliefs and rationalise this behaviour even in theface of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are wrong. So oncethe science is settled and in the case of climate change itreally has been for quite a while now it is actually a reallygood idea to move on and discuss and implement a course of action(as also suggested by UK conservative Zac Goldsmith ), rather than trying to convince the unconvincible.
Ullrich Ecker is an Australian Postdoctoral Fellow at University ofWestern Australia and John Cook is a Climate Communication Fellow at University ofQueensland .
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます