Kalle reflects on Kjell Vowles PhD dissertation on Climate Change Deniers in Sweden
Vowles has studied the driving forces behind a distorted worldview. The dissertation does not go into more detail about what natural science is all about in its search for worldviews that are as close to reality as possible, and how how the research methods are developed to free our minds as much as possible from superstition and bias.
Nor does he delve into how superstition tries to use pseudoscience to get its messages across. But he touches upon a typical aspect of pseudoscience, “cherry-picking”, i.e. picking out what suits one’s own perception while neglecting what speaks against it.
More in detail: Vowles studies media platforms to get at the various driving forces of superstition. Which leads to a common denominator for these currents, which Vowles calls “reactionary Petro-nostalgia,” i.e., looking in the rearview mirror and dreaming back to bygone fossil-fueled times. Which in turn unites these media platforms around a right-wing populism with an outdated masculinity. When one instead uses science in a search for worldviews that are ever closer to reality, and then realizes the value of systematic thinking, i.e. scientific methodology, it is sometimes difficult to know how best to respond to superstition, e.g. amongst “climate deniers”. Many people have experience of how it usually goes when you have conversations with the deniers and base your arguments on facts. Tensions and contradictions are increasing. Then it may be worth not just dismissing superstition as “stolid” or demonizing it. What ARE the driving forces that make otherwise intelligent and functional people choose to train themselves in stupid and unsustainable approaches? Knowledge of such driving forces is the prerequisite for not only “winning” debates but reaching a more diplomatic approach.
Below please find a link to the thesis, and its abstract, for those who may be interested in reading more. Many in our network have been “horrified” by Climate deniers. The dissertation attempts to find more constructive answers to how things in this matter may go so wrong. Fuelling Denial: The climate change reactionary movement and Swedish far-right media
Conclusion: The FSSD Global perspective is in this case, as usual, to attempt tackling Vowles’ presented dilemma at another and higher systemic level. The question must then be asked, whether arguing with science deniers about science may even be called for? I have recently written an FSSD Reflection about an absolute dependency on science to (i) help us see what our sense cannot, systemic (global) symptoms of flawed societal designs as well as to (ii) develop reliable methods to correct flawed designs upstream in cause-symptoms chains including self-benefits of doing so. From that angle, the possible damage caused by science deniers should probably not be overestimated. The FSSD Global is there for individual organizations to make smarter and more financially rewarding decisions, from upfront. In line with this, why not keep focusing on doing the right things, get stronger also financially from this, and let the Funnel do the rest? After all, that kind of speechless “arguing” proves itself, faster and faster in the Funnel and more and more mercilessly also to the deniers. And the innovations from more and more followers thinking alike are rewarding to science deniers as well. They too enjoy telephones, flights, IT, medical treatment, and so on, from previous scientific breakthroughs in previous dominating “funnels”. Why would that suddenly end?
