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?