Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

teagan-obrien
beliefs values opinions evidence and facts a role for policy informatics n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics?

play fullscreen
1 / 22
Download Presentation
Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics?
88 Views
Download Presentation

Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Beliefs, values, opinions, evidence and facts: a role for policy informatics? Global Talk Seminar SeriesCentre for Global StudiesUniversity of Victoria August 6 2014 Justin Longo and Rod Dobell (slides, draft paper, etc. available at http://jlphd.wordpress.com)

  2. Outline • Objectives of policy informatics • Explaining Divergence • Recalibrating policy informatics

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. Climate Change: The 97% Consensus • Is global warming happening? • Is human activity the main cause?

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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?