Pathologizing Dissent
Article by Judith Curry on her website:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/15/analyzing-agw-skepticism-missing-the-point
Abou a recent conversation (HERE) between Adam Corner, a psychologist, and Geoff Chambers a noted AGW-skeptic about ”Understanding climate scepticism”. There’s been a lot of dicussion about it both on Curry’s blog and at Bishop Hill. Curry links it to an additional study by Sonia Akter, Jeff Bennett Michael Ward, whose abstract reads in part:
Public scepticism surrounding climate change is an obstacle for implementing climate change mitigation measures in many countries. However, very little is known about: (1) the nature and sources of climate change scepticism; and (2) its influence on preferences for climate change mitigation policies.
The general conclusion of Akter et al – and Corner is - wait for it – not all Deniers are funded and fueled by Big Oil after all!
Noooo, turns out some of them are just deluded.
(Sorry, I’m forgetting my Psychobabble - I mean they are driven “by motivated reasoning processes – rooted in ideological differences”)
Yay! Let’s hear it for informed open-minded, non-Orwellian social science!
Judith suggests dialogues and studies like this are “a step in the right direction” towards an acceptance of skepticism as legitimate. If she really thinks so, and isn’t just being brilliantly ironic (I’m sort of assuming she is for now), I fear she might be missing something meaningful.
It might do to reflect, for example, that authoritarians tend to not only demonise unwanted opinions but pathologise them too. In dictatorships and oligarchies dissent is often equated with disease as a means of de-legitimising alternative POVs. And while climate science isn’t quite an oligarchy, I don’t see how it’s really going to be more possible to have dialogue with people who’ve decided you’re crazy rather than simply corrupt.
And what about J’s last para?
“Much of the climate community continues to view AGW skeptics as anti-science, fossil fuel funded troglodytes (Mike Mann’s book is a prime example of this view).”
Surely that’s not quite right? Surely a better summary would be that a vocal subsection within the “climate community” (not really sure how that’s defined actually) are endeavouring to make it appear AGW skepticism is anti-science? Surely it’s also true this is completely impossible to sustain with any reference to data or within any accepted norms of scientific conduct? That it’s a construction designed to conceal the fact that AGW theory is not the Absolute Truth it’s been marketed as being to the non-scientific community where people like Corner get their info?
So, the best way to deal with the likes of Corner and others of the “vocal army of the complacently uninformed” is to point this “inconvenient truth” out to them – and maybe also add that a soft science degree and a subscription to Greenpeace does not entitle someone to patronise people who have looked a little more closely at this subject than the average psychologist.
If Skeptics are going to ‘dialogue’ with people who can willingly surrender judgment to jargon then don’t make polite noises and try to accommodate their smugness, just ask them for the science that justifies viewing doubt as a DSM IV category.
And then ask ‘em again about who’s deluded.
“So, the best way to deal with the likes of Corner and others of the “vocal army of the complacently uninformed” is to point this “inconvenient truth” out to them”
I did. I sent the following comment there 2 days ago, but Adam appears to have found it unacceptable and has deleted it. I think I was making pretty much the same point as you:
Adam
It is clear from your comments that you are desperately clinging to the view that typical informed skeptics are motivated to seek out nitpicking faults in the scientific consensus by factors such as political or social views etc.
This is wrong.
All skeptics I am aware of are primarily motivated by a conviction that the scientific case for CAGW, as propounded by the IPCC and associated groups, is not merely less certain than publicly admitted, but based on circular reasoning, projections by unvalidated computer models, and cherry picked data, and supported by a “conspiracy” (as revealed by Climategate) among leading scientists to suppress opposing views and “off message” data.
Try starting from that standpoint if you really want to understand sceptics.
Well, see Peter, Adam doesn’t want to talk about the *science* – he just wants to talk about what’s wrong with the people who don’t accept it:
http://talkingclimate.org/understanding-climate-scepticism-a-sceptic-responds/comment-page-1/#comment-288
“this post is about research on the psychology of scepticism, what it can and cannot show etc, and so ANY POST GOING INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE SCIENCE WILL NOT GET THROUGH”
What can one say?
Arrogant shite
“ANY POST GOING INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE SCIENCE WILL NOT GET THROUGH”
I read that too. Sounds a bit petulant! Or perhaps he knows the science is bust, but doesn’t want to admit it and get frozen out by his chums.
I’m not a climate scientist and just lurk mostly at various climate sites and blogs but agree with your opinions. I mostly read Bishop Hill because he has a very accessible way of explaining, and I also appreciate the humour of Josh. Humour of that kind is very powerful and I think you are employing it too. Josh should illustrate your posts, just a suggestion.