Beliefs values opinions evidence and facts a role
Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics? Global Talk Seminar Series Centre for Global Studies University of Victoria August 6 2014 Justin Longo and Rod Dobell (slides, draft paper, etc. available at http: //jlphd. wordpress. com)
Outline • Objectives of policy informatics • Explaining Divergence • Recalibrating policy informatics
Moynihan’s Law of Political Discourse • “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts” (attr. to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan) • Part of the framework of the policy sciences movement • Efficiently parses the relationship between values and evidence: we may differ on what the best course of action is; but we can surely agree on what is is.
Science “Debates” • What would Sen. Moynihan make of the climate change “debate”? Or the anti-vaccination movement? Or anti-GMO advocates? Or creationism / intelligent design? • Not debates about the course of action in the face of uncertainty or unknowns, but debates about the findings from scientific research. • Is everyone now entitled to their own facts?
Policy Informatics • Emphasis on technology as both analytical techniques (e. g. , agentbased models, simulation, big data analytics) and tools for deliberation and collaboration • how advances in ICTs can improve decision support and increase the range of voices within the discussion • Complex policy challenges can be addressed in part by leveraging technology to meaningfully connect people, harness knowledge, and facilitate action.
Climate Change: The 97% Consensus • Is global warming happening? • Is human activity the main cause?
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (1) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” (+ epistemic relativism) • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (2) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (3) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (4) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (5) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (6) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Multi-Disciplinary Explanations (7) • Philosophy: Subjects appropriate for a “difference of opinion” • Political science: Willful misrepresentation / agenda setting • Interdisciplinary: Social amplification of risk framework • Sociology: Beliefs, values, attitudes • Psychology: Heuristics and biases (confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning) • Psychology: Identity- protective motivated reasoning • Psychology: Conspiracist Ideation
Possible Strategies (1) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Possible Strategies (2) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Possible Strategies (3) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Possible Strategies (4) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Possible Strategies (5) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Possible Strategies (6) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Possible Strategies (7) #Because. Science Regulating public discourse (Australia) Better science communication Values-based science advocacy Argumentation: Habermas (deliberative democracy) vs. Mouffe (agonistic democracy) • Decoupling identity and belief • Synthetic empathy • • •
Questions for Consideration? • What if everyone agreed that AGW is real and happening now? How would that matter? • What is the research agenda flowing from this survey?
- Slides: 22