beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics? global talk seminar...
Post on 23-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics?
Global Talk Seminar SeriesCentre for Global Studies
University of Victoria
August 6 2014Justin 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 unknown 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., agent-based 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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)
• #BecauseScience• 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?
top related