![]() ![]() Instead, they’re reasoning in the manner of a defence lawyer who clutches for post hoc rationalisations to defend an initial gut instinct. When this happens – as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt memorably put it – they aren’t reasoning in the careful manner of a judge who impartially weighs up all the evidence. Because the facts of climate science are in conflict with people’s existing beliefs and values, they reason around the facts. Climate change denial involves glimpsing the horrible reality, but defending oneself against it.Ĭontemporary social psychologists tend to talk about this in terms of “ motivated reasoning”. This fleeting comprehension is what distinguishes denial from ignorance, misunderstanding or sheer disbelief. Sigmund described this negation of reality as an active mental process, as “a way of taking cognisance of what is repressed”. Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna were the great chroniclers of denial. Either way, climate change becomes such an “ inconvenient truth” that, instead of living with and acting upon our worries, we suppress the truth instead.įive climate change science misconceptions – debunked Or it could be that we fear society’s response to climate change, the disruption created by the transition to a low-emissions economy. It could be that the idea of climate change is a threat to our worldview. Instead of making us want to arrest the climate crisis, it makes us resist the very thought of it, because the facts of anthropogenic global heating clash with our personal projects. ![]() It involves building bridges between the science of climate change and peoples’ various causes, commitments and convictions.ĭenial happens when climate science rubs us up the wrong way. But being concerned about climate change involves connecting these facts to values. As I’ve argued elsewhere, acknowledging climate change involves accepting certain facts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |