There is a correlation between positions taken on some scientific questions and political leaning. One way to explain this correlation is the cultural cognition hypothesis (CCH): people's political leanings are causing them to process evidence to maintain fixed answers to the questions, rather than to seek the truth. Another way is the different background belief hypothesis (DBBH): people of different political leanings have different background beliefs which rationalize different positions on these scientific questions. In this article, I argue for two things. I argue that two attempts by proponents of the CCH to discredit the DBBH fail. And I argue that this matters, because while the CCH makes epistemic paternalistic interventions seem c...
Under embargo until: 2022-05-19Phillips and colleagues claim that the representation of knowledge is...
We know that we are fallible creatures, liable to cognitive bias. Yet, we also have a strong and stu...
Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and persistently—about facts on which expert scientist...
There is a correlation between positions taken on some scientific questions and political leaning. O...
Recent work in psychology on ‘cultural cognition’ suggests that our cultural background drives our a...
Generally, it is assumed that a primary source of contention surrounding science is political and, t...
Arguments about the possibility that cognitive variables may play a causal role in human behavior ar...
Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scien...
People disagree about the empirical dimensions of various public policy issues. It\u27s not surprisi...
Many of us hold false beliefs about matters that are relevant to public policy such as climate chang...
The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play import...
Our ability for scientific reasoning is a byproduct of cognitive faculties that evolved in response ...
Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is pol...
In this paper, I begin by establishing the premise that the human brain evolved to be efficient at t...
The current project was designed to examine how cognitive style, cultural worldview, and conspiracy ...
Under embargo until: 2022-05-19Phillips and colleagues claim that the representation of knowledge is...
We know that we are fallible creatures, liable to cognitive bias. Yet, we also have a strong and stu...
Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and persistently—about facts on which expert scientist...
There is a correlation between positions taken on some scientific questions and political leaning. O...
Recent work in psychology on ‘cultural cognition’ suggests that our cultural background drives our a...
Generally, it is assumed that a primary source of contention surrounding science is political and, t...
Arguments about the possibility that cognitive variables may play a causal role in human behavior ar...
Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scien...
People disagree about the empirical dimensions of various public policy issues. It\u27s not surprisi...
Many of us hold false beliefs about matters that are relevant to public policy such as climate chang...
The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play import...
Our ability for scientific reasoning is a byproduct of cognitive faculties that evolved in response ...
Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is pol...
In this paper, I begin by establishing the premise that the human brain evolved to be efficient at t...
The current project was designed to examine how cognitive style, cultural worldview, and conspiracy ...
Under embargo until: 2022-05-19Phillips and colleagues claim that the representation of knowledge is...
We know that we are fallible creatures, liable to cognitive bias. Yet, we also have a strong and stu...
Why do members of the public disagree—sharply and persistently—about facts on which expert scientist...