Episode 114, 'Changing Minds' with Robin McKenna (Part II - Further Analysis and Discussion)

The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane

Education, Philosophy, Society & Culture, Courses

4.8 • 612 Ratings

🗓️ 15 January 2023

⏱️ 38 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

'630 million threatened by rising seas!'; 'Study blames climate change for 37% of worldwide heat deaths!'; 'Fossil fuels must stay underground!'

Despite the headlines and 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human activity is one of the major causes of climate change, just seven in ten Americans believe that climate change is real and only six in ten consider human activity to be a leading cause. As a survey of beliefs, these statistics are concerning. The bigger problem, however, is that they aren't held in a vacuum, but are formed within and contribute to the functioning of democratic societies.

If we want a genuinely democratic state, how can we establish public policies – informed by our very best science – if a sizable minority of people reject the science? What can be done, descriptively and ethically, to change the minds of those who hold (what experts might consider) unreasonable beliefs?

According to Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, these questions demonstrate the role and importance of contemporary epistemology. Drawing from the latest empirical research on how we form beliefs and how and why we change our minds, McKenna argues that we can improve our epistemic situations by creating environments in which we are more likely to form beliefs that align with the science.

To bring about a better world, people must recognise that their beliefs aren't formed in an ideal and impartial state. To protect democracy and the natural world, says McKenna, we must combat misinformation and political bias through ethical and effective marketing.

Contents

Part I. Communicating Science

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion

Links

Robin McKenna (website).

Robin McKenna, Persuasion and Intellectual Autonomy (chapter).

Robin McKenna, Persuasion and Epistemic Paternalism (paper).

This episode is produced in partnership with the Philosophy and the Future project at the University of Liverpool. For more information about philosophy at Liverpool, head over to www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan
0:07.2	Scicast
0:08.2	Part 2, further analyses and discussion.
0:26.6	So in our previous instalment, we discussed the question of how we can have democratic,
0:31.6	responsible policies in reference to issues such as climate change, and how we can change
0:36.6	people's minds without infringing upon
0:38.7	their intellectual autonomy. Robin, you gave us three examples of how we might achieve this,
0:43.6	fitting the frame, pre-bunking, mastering the messenger, and we concluded our discussion by discussing
0:49.3	intellectual autonomy. So that's where we want to pick up the conversation in this installment.
0:53.7	So I wonder,
0:55.2	do you think it's possible to be self-reliantly autonomous? In other words, is it possible for our
1:01.4	decision-making never to be infringed upon? And if so, is this something we should be
1:06.3	aspiring towards anyway? So it might be the case we can never be these ideal thinkers,
1:10.5	but should we always be aspiring towards this ideal state? might be the case we can never be these ideal thinkers, but should we
1:10.9	always be aspiring towards this ideal state? To answer the possibility question, I guess in a
1:16.4	metaphysical sense it's possible, but physically it's not possible for a human being, I would
1:21.3	say, because as a child, for example, you are subjected to influences that you have no control over.
1:33.3	As a two-year-old, you can't just get up and decide to go and live in a cave and be the master of your own destiny. Well, perhaps you could, but two-year-olds in general don't tend to do that.
1:36.3	It would probably be very bad if they did.
1:38.3	So I wouldn't say that in any interesting sense of the word possible, it is possible.
1:41.3	So the more interesting question is, is this the sort of
1:45.6	impossible to achieve ideal that one should strive to attain anyway? Or is it the sort of impossible
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, and Rose de Castellane and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.