Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

NNadir's Journal
NNadir's Journal
August 13, 2017

I came across a nice graduate thesis on the disconnect between scientific reality vs. dangerous...

...public perception. It talks about appealing to egalitarian values.

This thesis explores the contradiction by asking why some members of the public refuse to accept the opinion of experts that nuclear technology is low-risk. One explanation asserts that, unlike experts, members of the public have poor science comprehension and are prone to perceiving risk in ways marred by cognitive bias. An alternative explanation contends that preexisting worldviews motivate members of the public to perceive risk in ways that do not necessarily align with the goal of accurate risk estimates. To understand why members of the public sometimes amplify nuclear energy risk, these two competing explanations were turned into testable hypotheses and empirically tested among 575 Canadians.

The present study found evidence which suggests those who strongly agree with egalitarians values are likely to hold amplified nuclear energy risk perceptions, and those who have greater knowledge of basic facts about nuclear energy tend to have reduced risk perceptions towards nuclear energy. Such results affirm the idea that education is an effective policy tool for reducing nuclear energy fears. However, egalitarian values may interfere with educational efforts to transmit facts, which is why educational efforts can prove more effective if nuclear energy facts are framed in a way that appeals to egalitarian values.


Kobel Thesis: Public Risk Perceptions Toward Socially Contentious Technology: How Cultural Values and Basic Knowledge Affect Nuclear Energy Risk Assessments

In this case, it refers to my personal bete noire, anti-nuke ignorance, which is of course, responsible to a large degree for the seven million people who die each year from air pollution. Anti-nuke ignorance is popular on our side of the political spectrum regrettably, although those of us on the left who know better can and should fight it with the same passion we fight creationism on the right. (Creationism is unlikely as responsible for the same number of deaths as anti-nukism, 70 million per decade, but it certainly is in no way harmless.)

Still I think this thesis may have something to say about other far more toxic anti-science views that are widely held, the most toxic surely being climate change denial, another awful fantasy which, like white supremacy, is endangering the future of our country, and more importantly, the world.





Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: New Jersey
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 33,517
Latest Discussions»NNadir's Journal