Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: [email protected]...

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.

comments questions: [email protected]

papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.culturalcognition.net/

Science Communication & Judicial-Neutrality Communication Look the Same to Me!

Dan M. Kahan Yale University

www.culturalcognition.net

Figure 2. An accepted grasp for chick sexing. (Modified from “Chick Sexing” by J.H. Lunn, 1948, American Scientist, 36, pp. 280-87. Copyright 1948 by the American Scientist. Photograph by the University of Minnesota Photographic Laboratory. Adapted by permission.)

Three parallels

1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking

2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking

3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking

||

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

compulsory psychiatric treatment

Abortion procedure

compulsory psychiatric treatment

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

Individualism Communitarianism

Environment: climate, nuclear

Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination

Gays military/gay parenting

Gays military/gay parenting

Environment: climate, nuclearhierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian

No Argument BalancedArgument

Pct

. Agr

ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5

No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate

Expected AdvocateAlignment

UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment

Intramural AdvocateAlignment

Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Arg ument Argu me nt Expe cted Advoc ate/ Argumen tAli gnment

Une xpect ed Ad voca te/ArgumentAlignment

Plur alistic Advocate /Arg umentAlig nment

Hierarchi cal Individual istEgalitarian Communitari an

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Pct

. Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Culturally Identifiable ExpertsHierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

Source: Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010).

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Pct

. Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






ExpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

BalancedArgument

Pct

. Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






UnexpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct

. Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5







Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct

. Agr

ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

54%

65%

47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Culturally Identifiable ExpertsHierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

Source: Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010).

Climate ChangeNuclear Power

Climate ChangeNuclear Power

Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

randomly assign 1 “It is now beyond reasonable scientific dispute that human activity is causing ‘global warming’ and other dangerous forms of climate change. Over the past century, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—called a “greenhouse gas” because of its contribution to trapping heat—has increased to historically unprecedented levels. Scientific authorities at all major universities agree that the source of this increase is human industrial activity. They agree too that higher C02 levels are responsible for steady rises in air and ocean temperatures over that period, particularly in the last decade. This change is resulting in a host of negative consequences: the melting of polar ice caps and resulting increases in sea levels and risks of catastrophic flooding; intense and long-term droughts in many parts of the world; and a rising incidence of destructive cyclones and hurricanes in others.”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:

American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences

“Judged by conventional scientific standards, it is premature to conclude that human C02 emissions—so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’—cause global warming. For example, global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite significant increases in C02 during that period. In addition, rather than shrinking everywhere, glaciers are actually growing in some parts of the world, and the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is at the highest level since measurements began 30 years ago. . . . Scientists who predict global warming despite these facts are relying entirely on computer models. Those models extrapolate from observed atmospheric conditions existing in the past. The idea that those same models will accurately predict temperature in a world with a very different conditions—including one with substantially increased CO2 in the atmosphere—is based on unproven assumptions, not scientific evidence. . . .”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:

American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences

High Risk(science conclusive)

Low Risk(science inconclusive)

Climate Change

randomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”

Oliver Roberts

Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:

American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences

“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.

Oliver Roberts



Low Risk(safe)

High Risk(not safe)

Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”

Oliver Roberts



“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.

Oliver Roberts



“So-called ‘concealed carry’ laws increase violent crime. The claim that allowing people to carry concealed handguns reduces crime is not only contrary to common-sense, but also unsupported by the evidence. . . . Looking at data from 1977 to 2005, the 22 states that prohibited carrying handguns in public went from having the highest rates of rape and property offenses to having the lowest rates of those crimes. . . .To put an economic price tag on the issue, I estimate that the cost of “concealed carry laws” is around $500 million a year in the U.S.”

James Williams Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences

“Overall, ‘concealed carry’ laws decrease violent crime. The reason is simple: potential criminals are less likely to engage in violent assaults or robberies if they think their victims, or others in a position to give aid to those persons, might be carrying weapons. . . . Based on data from 1977 to 2005, I estimate that states without such laws, as a group, would have avoided 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and 60,000 aggravated assaults per year if they had they made it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Economically speaking, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”

James Williams

Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences

High Risk(Increase crime)

Low Risk(Decrease Crime)

Concealed Carry Laws

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low RiskHigh Risk

N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence

ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%61%

72%

Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response

60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low RiskHigh Risk

Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree

Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree

Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...

||

Three parallels




Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)

Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

Experimental Conditions

Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center

EI v. HC EC v. HI

Anti-demonstrator

Pro-demonstrator

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion

Anti-military Anti-abortion


Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion

Anti -mil itary Anti -abortion

Anti -mi litary Anti-abortion

Anti-mili tary

Police liable Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal Ind ivdHier CommHier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

10 0%

Anti-abortion

Anti-military Anti-abort ion

Anti-military An ti-abortion

Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin police Damag es vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Ind ivid

“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”

Hypotheses

Pct

. Agr

ee

Protestors blocked Screamed in face

Pedestrians just not want to listen

Police just annoyed

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion


Anti-milit ary Anti-abortion

Anti-milit ary

Police liable Enjoin police Damag es vs. police

Egal CommEgal Ind ivdHier CommHier Individ

50%

69 %

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77 %

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

10 0%

Anti-abortion

Anti-military Anti-ab ortio n


Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100 %

Ant i-abortion

Ant i-mi litary Ant i-abortion

Anti-military Anti -abortion

Anti-military

Police li able Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Indiv id

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abortion

Anti-military Ant i-abortion

Anti -mil itary Anti-abort ion

Anti-military

Police li able Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police

Egal Comm

Egal IndivdHier CommHier Indi vid

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Screamed in face

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Police just annoyed

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Pedesterians not want to listen

Dependent Variable

Force

Justified Lethal Risk to Public

Lethal Risk to Police

Chase Not Worth Risk

Harris More at Fault

Female

-0.15 (0.10)

-0.01 (0.11)

0.09 (0.10)

0.03 (0.10)

-0.08 (0.12)

Black (v. White)

-0.66 (0.22)

-0.45 (0.22)

-0.60 (0.22)

0.46 (0.22)

-0.92 (0.22)

Other Minority (v. white)

0.09 (0.16)

0.09 (0.17)

0.06 (0.16)

-0.03 (0.16)

-0.32 (0.17)

Age

-0.01 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

0.01 (0.00)

-0.01 (0.00)

Household income

0.03 (0.01)

0.06 (0.02)

0.02 (0.01)

-0.03 (0.01)

0.04 (0.02)

Education

-0.08 (0.03)

-0.05 (0.03)

-0.06 (0.03)

0.03 (0.03)

-0.02 (0.04)

South (v. West)

-0.02 (0.14)

0.08 (0.14)

-0.10 (0.14)

0.08 (0.13)

-0.21 (0.16)

Midwest (v. West)

-0.21 (0.15)

0.06 (0.15)

-0.05 (0.15)

0.27 (0.14)

-0.20 (0.17)

Northeast (v. west)

-0.33 (0.15)

-0.17 (0.16)

-0.25 (0.15)

0.30 (0.15)

-0.48 (0.17)

Urban

0.15 (0.14)

0.18 (0.15)

0.13 (0.14)

0.04 (0.14)

0.14 (0.16)

Married

0.27 (0.11)

0.32 (0.12)

0.16 (0.11)

-0.22 (0.11)

0.31 (0.13)

Parent

-0.01 (0.12)

0.04 (0.13)

0.15 (0.12)

-0.07 (0.12)

0.17 (0.14)

Republican (v. Democrat)

-0.01 (0.13)

-0.03 (0.14)

-0.04 (0.13)

-0.31 (0.13)

0.29 (0.16)

Independent (v. Democrat)

-0.03 (0.33)

0.00 (0.33)

0.01 (0.33)

-0.03 (0.31)

0.15 (0.38)

Conservative

0.05 (0.05)

0.09 (0.05)

0.05 (0.04)

0.03 (0.04)

0.08 (0.05)

Hierarchy

0.46 (0.08)

0.10 (0.08)

0.16 (0.08)

-0.39 (0.08)

0.39 (0.09)

Individualism

0.07 (0.09)

0.04 (0.09)

0.08 (0.08)

-0.08 (0.08)

0.07 (0.10)

R2 (McKelvey/Zavoina) .11 .06 .04 .09 .14 log likelihood -2060.64 -1731.62 -2049.7 -2296.53 -1393.14 Prob > Chi2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 N = 1,347. Dependent variables are indicated responses measures. Ordered log-odds (logit) coefficients. Bolded and underlined coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05; bolded only and not underlined are significant at p ≤ .10. Parentheticals indicate standard errors

Deadly force warranted by lethal risk posed by driver

Derived by monte carlo simulation based on logistic regression model. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

Like

lihoo

d of

agr

eein

g w

ith S

. Ct.

maj

ority

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ron Linda Bernie

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ron Linda Bernie

Ron

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ron Pat Linda Bernie

Ron BernieLindaPat

Like

lihoo

d of

agr

eein

g w

ith S

. Ct.

maj

ority

R o n

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R on Pat Lind a Ber nie

Ro n B ernieLin daPa t

Ron

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ron Pat Linda Bernie

Ron BernieLindaPat Ron

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ron Pat L inda Bernie

Ron BernieLindaPat

Ro n

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ron Pat Li nda Ber ni e

R on B ern ieLi ndaPatR o n

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

10 0 %

R o n Pa t Lin da B ern ie

Ron BernieLindaPat

“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)

Three parallels




Cultural-credibility heuristic

Narrative framing

Value affirmation


Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr

ee

“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

54%

65%

47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





Risk Perception by Condi ti on, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5



Une xpectedAdvocate Al ignment

Intramural Ad vocateAl ignment

Hierarch Indiv idual ist

Egalitarian Com mun itari an

02

46

810

Den

sity

.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhihi

Hperry/merck big oilguns lawyers

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099

Kernel density estimate

02

46

810

Den

sity

. 4 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 . 9hhh ihi

Hper r y/ m erck big oi lguns law yer s

ke r ne l = e p an ec h nik o v, ba n dw id th = 0 .0 09 9

Kernel dens i ty estim ate

02

46

810

Den

sity

.4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 . 9hhhi hi

Hp err y/ mer ck big oi lguns law yer s

ke r ne l = e p an e ch n iko v , b a nd w id th = 0 .0 0 99

Kernel dens i ty estim ate

02

46

810

Dens

ity

.4 .5 .6 .7 . 8 . 9hhhi hi

Hper ry/ mer ck bi g oilguns law yer s

ke rn el = e p an ec h ni kov , b an dw id t h = 0 .0 0 99

Kerne l dens ity es timate

02

46

810

Dens

ity

.4 . 5 .6 . 7 . 8 . 9hhhi hi

Hper ry/m er ck b ig oi lguns la wyer s

ke rn el = ep a n ec hn ik ov , ba n dw i dth = 0 .0 09 9

Kernel densi ty es tim at e

Impact of narratives on high political sophistication hierarch individualists(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)

Likelihood of supporting campaign finance reform

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

control anti-pollution geoengineering

US

UK

Diff.

in s

tudy

_val

idity

lesspolarization

more polarization

anti-pollutioncontrol geoengineering

U.S.

England


science communication remedies


Narrative framing

Value affirmation


Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr

ee


02

46

810

Den

sity

.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhihi




02

46

810

Den

sity

. 4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 .9hhhi hi

Hper ry /m erc k bi g oi lguns l awyer s

k e rne l = ep an e ch n iko v , b an d wi dt h = 0 .0 0 99

Kernel dens i ty estimate

02

46

810

Den

sity

.4 . 5 . 6 .7 . 8 .9hhhi hi

Hp er r y/m er ck bi g oi lguns la wyer s

ke rn e l = e pa n ec h ni ko v, b an d w id th = 0. 0 09 9

Kern el densi ty es tim ate

02

46

810

Dens

ity

.4 . 5 .6 .7 . 8 .9hhhi hi

Hpe rr y/m erc k bi g oilguns lawyer s

k e rn el = ep a ne c hn ik ov , b a n dw id th = 0 .0 09 9

Ker nel densi ty estimate

02

46

810

Dens

ity

.4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 . 9hhhi hi

H per ry/ mer ck big oi lg uns law yer s

ker n el = ep a ne c hn ik ov , ba nd w id th = 0 .0 09 9

Kernel dens ity es timate




Narrative framing

Value affirmation


Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr

ee


02

46

810

Den

sity

.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhihi




02

46

810

Den

sity

.4 . 5 . 6 .7 . 8 .9hhhi hi

Hp err y/m er ck bi g oi lguns la wyer s

k er ne l = e p an ec h ni ko v, b an dw id th = 0 .0 09 9

Ker nel dens ity estim ate

02

46

810

Den

sity

. 4 .5 .6 .7 .8 . 9hhh ihi

Hper r y/m er ck big oilguns lawyer s

ke rn e l = e p an e ch n ik ov , b a nd w id th = 0 .0 09 9

Kernel densi ty es tim ate

02

46

810

Dens

ity

.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 . 9hhhihi

Hp err y/ m er ck bi g oi lguns l awyer s

ke rn el = e pa n ec h nik o v, b an dw i dt h = 0 .0 0 99

Kernel dens it y estimate

02

46

810

Dens

ity

. 4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhi hi

Hpe rr y/m erc k bi g oi lguns la wyer s

ke rn e l = e pa n ec h nik o v, b an dw i dt h = 0 .0 0 99

Ker nel densi ty est ima te



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

control anti-pollution geoengineering

US

UK

Diff.

in s

tudy

_val

idity

lesspolarization

more polarization


U.S.

England


Three parallels




Three parallels




4. How to study public conflict over science || how to study public conflict over neutrality :

By conjecture and refutation—not storytelling and bombast!

Dan M. KahanYale Law School

Donald BramanGeorge Washington University

John GastilUniversity of Washington

Geoffrey CohenStanford University

Paul Slovic University of Oregon

Ellen PetersOhio State University

Hank Jenkins-SmithUniversity of Oklahoma

David HoffmanTemple Law School

Gregory MandelTemple Law School

Maggie WittlinCultural Cognition Project Lab

Lisa Larrimore-OueletteCultural Cognition Project Lab

Danieli EvansCultural Cognition Project Lab

June CarboneUniv. Missouri-Kansas City

Michael JonesSafra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ.

Naomi CahnGeorge Washington University

Jeffrey RachlinksiCornell Law School

John ByrnesCultural Cognition Project Lab

John MonahanUniversity of Virginia

www. culturalcognition.net

“I am you!”

Date post:	25-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	justus
View:	61 times
Download:	0 times

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: [email protected]...

Documents