Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Lewandowsky, Stephan
Mann, Michael E.
Brown, Nicholas J. L.
Friedman, Harris
Abstract / Description
When the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.
Keyword(s)
rejection of science public involvement in science critical debate transparency harassment of scientistsPersistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2016-08-18
Journal title
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Volume
4
Issue
2
Page numbers
537–553
Publisher
PsychOpen GOLD
Publication status
publishedVersion
Review status
peerReviewed
Is version of
Citation
Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Brown, N. J. L., & Friedman, H. (2016). Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604
-
jspp.v4i2.604.pdfAdobe PDF - 451.48KBMD5: cb92154623188d81bbd5e7cc826dbe53
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Lewandowsky, Stephan
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Mann, Michael E.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Brown, Nicholas J. L.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Friedman, Harris
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2018-11-26T12:44:57Z
-
Made available on2018-11-26T12:44:57Z
-
Date of first publication2016-08-18
-
Abstract / DescriptionWhen the scientific method yields discoveries that imperil people’s lifestyle or worldviews or impinge on corporate vested interests, the public and political response can be anything but favorable. Sometimes the response slides into overt denial of scientific facts, although this denial is often claimed to involve “skepticism”. We outline the distinction between true skepticism and denial with several case studies. We propose some guidelines to enable researchers to differentiate legitimate critical engagement from bad-faith harassment, and to enable members of the public to pursue their skeptical engagement and critique without such engagement being mistaken for harassment.en_US
-
Publication statuspublishedVersion
-
Review statuspeerReviewed
-
CitationLewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Brown, N. J. L., & Friedman, H. (2016). Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604en_US
-
ISSN2195-3325
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/1420
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1732
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychOpen GOLD
-
Is version ofhttps://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604
-
Keyword(s)rejection of scienceen_US
-
Keyword(s)public involvement in scienceen_US
-
Keyword(s)critical debateen_US
-
Keyword(s)transparencyen_US
-
Keyword(s)harassment of scientistsen_US
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleScience and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticismen_US
-
DRO typearticle
-
Issue2
-
Journal titleJournal of Social and Political Psychology
-
Page numbers537–553
-
Volume4
-
Visible tag(s)Version of Record