Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-jcwnq Total loading time: 0.258 Render date: 2021-10-23T18:41:58.973Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust: A Situated Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Abstract

I adopt a situated approach to the question of what would constitute responsible trust and/or distrust in climate change science, and I identify some of the major challenges for laypersons in their attempts to know well by placing their trust in climate change experts. I examine evidence that white males, as a group of relative privilege, are more likely to distrust the institutions of climate change science than are other demographic groups, and use this example to consider specific challenges facing those who occupy positions of privilege and who seek to place their epistemic trust wisely. I argue that the insights of feminist standpoint theory and epistemologies of ignorance concerning the role of positionality in knowledge production and the need for critical reflexivity can be applied to cases of epistemic trust as well; in some contexts, such as climate change science, considerations of how those differently situated from oneself place their trust will be valuable contributions to responsible assignments of trust.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderegg, William R. L., et al. 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. PNAS 107 (27): 12107–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2011. Democracy, public policy, and lay assessments of scientific testimony. Episteme 8 (2): 144–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borick, Christopher, and Rabe, Barry. 2012. Fall 2011 national survey of American public opinion on climate change. Issues in Governance Studies 44 (February): 18.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 2006. Ecological thinking: The politics of epistemic location. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daukas, Nancy. 2011. Altogether now: A virtue‐theoretic approach to pluralism in feminist epistemology. In Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science: Power in knowledge, ed. Grasswick, Heidi. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Denton, Fatma. 2002. Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why does gender matter? Gender and Development 10 (2): 1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, Riley, and McCright, Aaron. 2008. A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment 50 (5): 2635.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley, and McCright, Aaron. 2011. Organized climate change denial. In The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, James, Slovic, Paul, and Mertz, C. K. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 14 (6): 1101–08.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Ravetz, Jerome R. 1993. Science for a post‐normal age. Futures 25 (7): 739–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasswick, Heidi. 2010. Scientific and lay communities: Earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing. Synthese 177 (3): 387409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grasswick, Heidi. 2011. Introduction: Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science in the twenty‐first century. In Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science: Power in knowledge, ed. Grasswick, Heidi. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2004. A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint theory's controversiality. Hypatia 19 (1): 192200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 88 (12): 693708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. and Reisinger, A.Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. Cosmopolitan knowledge: Climate science and global civic epistemology. In The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, ed. Dryzek, John S., Norgaard, Richard B. and Schlosberg, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jost, John T., Nosek, Brian A., and Gosling, Samuel D. 2008. Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (2): 126–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahan, Dan, et al. 2007. Culture and identity‐protective cognition: Explaining the white‐male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (3): 465505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalof, Linda, Dietz, Thomas, Guagnano, Gregory, and Stern, Paul C. 2002. Race, gender and environmentalism: The atypical values and beliefs of white men. Race, Gender and Class 9 (2): 112–30.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon. 2011. Public views of climate scientists and their impact on public thinking. (Sackler Colloquia: The Science of Science Communication). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T95hk631MQo (accessed September 15, 2012).Google Scholar
Malka, Ariel, Krosnick, Jon A., and Langer, Gary. 2009. The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis 29 (5): 633–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, Michael E. 2012. The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, Aaron. M. 2010. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment 32 (1): 6687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, Aaron M., and Dunlap, Riley E. 2011. Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change 21: 1163–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nature editors. 2010. Closing the climategate. Nature 468: 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306 (5702): 1686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Origgi, Gloria. 2012. Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology 26 (2): 221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2008. A deeper partisan divide over global warming. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center, May 8. http://www.people-press.org/2008/05/08/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming/ (accessed March 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Saloranta, Tuomo M. 2001. Post‐normal science and the global climate change issue. Climatic Change 50 (4): 395404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheman, Naomi. 2001. Epistemology resuscitated. In Engendering rationalities, ed. Tuana, Nancy and Morgen, Sandra. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk‐assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 19 (4): 689701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terry, Geraldine. 2009. No climate justice without gender justice: An overview of the issues. Gender and Development 17 (1): 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuana, Nancy, and Sullivan, Shannon. 2006. Introduction: Feminist epistemologies of ignorance. Hypatia 21 (3): 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2003. Why standpoint matters. In Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology, ed. Figueroa, Robert and Harding, Sandra. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. 2012. Americans' global warming beliefs and attitudes in March 2012. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Climate-Beliefs-March-2012/ (accessed March 1, 2013).Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust: A Situated Approach
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust: A Situated Approach
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust: A Situated Approach
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *