This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
AU
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Australia version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Digital Subscriptions > Skeptical Inquirer > September October 2016 > The Science Literacy Paradox

The Science Literacy Paradox

Why Really Smart People Are Often the Most Biased in Their Opinions

Matthew Nisbet is associate professor of communication at Northeastern University and a Committee for Skeptical Inquiry scientific consultant. From 1997 to 1999, he was public relations director for CSI.

When presented with contradictory evidence about a politically contentious issue, it’s easy to fall into the trap of reacting emotionally and negatively to that information rather than responding with an open mind. We may not only discount or dismiss such evidence, we are also likely to quickly call into question the credibility of the source. “Motivated reasoning,” defined as the “systematic biasing of judgments in favor of one’s immediately accessible beliefs and feelings,” write political psychologists Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2013), is “. . . built into the basic architecture of information processing mechanisms of the brain” (p. 24).

But here is the surprising paradox: studies show that in politically contentious science debates, it is the best educated and most scientifically literate who are the most prone to motivated reasoning. Researchers differ slightly in their explanations for this paradox, but studies suggest that strong partisans with higher science literacy and education levels tend to be more adept at recognizing and seeking out congenial arguments, are more attuned to what others like them think about the matter, are more likely to react to these cues in ideologically consistent ways, and tend to be more personally skilled at offering arguments to support and reinforce their preexisting positions (Haidt 2012; Kahan 2015).

READ MORE
Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - September October 2016
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - September October 2016
$4.49
Or 449 points
Annual Digital Subscription
Only $ 4.33 per issue
SAVE
4%
$25.99
Or 2599 points

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

40th Anniversary Celebration ISSUES IN SCIENCE & SKEPTICISM BILL NYE NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS and more!