Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Video thumbnail (Frame 0) Video thumbnail (Frame 75) Video thumbnail (Frame 167) Video thumbnail (Frame 264) Video thumbnail (Frame 355) Video thumbnail (Frame 490) Video thumbnail (Frame 589) Video thumbnail (Frame 791) Video thumbnail (Frame 923) Video thumbnail (Frame 1061) Video thumbnail (Frame 1210) Video thumbnail (Frame 1294) Video thumbnail (Frame 1493) Video thumbnail (Frame 1610) Video thumbnail (Frame 1703) Video thumbnail (Frame 1829) Video thumbnail (Frame 1933) Video thumbnail (Frame 2385) Video thumbnail (Frame 2602) Video thumbnail (Frame 2733) Video thumbnail (Frame 2962) Video thumbnail (Frame 3074) Video thumbnail (Frame 3210) Video thumbnail (Frame 3274) Video thumbnail (Frame 3354) Video thumbnail (Frame 3456) Video thumbnail (Frame 3567) Video thumbnail (Frame 3714) Video thumbnail (Frame 3837) Video thumbnail (Frame 4067) Video thumbnail (Frame 4303) Video thumbnail (Frame 4386) Video thumbnail (Frame 4497) Video thumbnail (Frame 4586) Video thumbnail (Frame 4728)
Video in TIB AV-Portal: Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Formal Metadata

Title
Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors
Title of Series
Author
License
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
2018
Language
English

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Abstract
Misinformation can have significant societal consequences. For example, misinformation about climate change has confused the public and stalled support for mitigation policies. When people lack the expertise and skill to evaluate the science behind a claim, they typically rely on heuristics such as substituting judgment about something complex (i.e. climate science) with judgment about something simple (i.e. the character of people who speak about climate science) and are therefore vulnerable to misleading information. Inoculation theory offers one approach to effectively neutralize the influence of misinformation. Typically, inoculations convey resistance by providing people with information that counters misinformation. In contrast, we propose inoculating against misinformation by explaining the fallacious reasoning within misleading denialist claims. We offer a strategy based on critical thinking methods to analyse and detect poor reasoning within denialist claims. This strategy includes detailing argument structure, determining the truth of the premises, and checking for validity, hidden premises, or ambiguous language. Focusing on argument structure also facilitates the identification of reasoning fallacies by locating them in the reasoning process. Because this reason-based form of inoculation is based on general critical thinking methods, it offers the distinct advantage of being accessible to those who lack expertise in climate science. We applied this approach to 42 common denialist claims and find that they all demonstrate fallacious reasoning and fail to refute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. This comprehensive deconstruction and refutation of the most common denialist claims about climate change is designed to act as a resource for communicators and educators who teach climate science and/or critical thinking.

Related Material

Video is accompanying material for the following resource
Video Climate Mint-made errors
Climate change
Analog signal Effects unit
FACTS (newspaper)
Cartridge (firearms) Video
Climate
Climate
Climate change Cartridge (firearms)
Gentleman
Cartridge (firearms) Single (music)
Digital electronics Aleph
Climate change
Paper Spare part Energy level
Effects unit
is in your point out on climate change by the
PLO change naturally the pastor was having must be natural Start Interop but actually
that I can use this information are going
to the john Cook by research have stopped misinformation value not doing a very good
job vacancies is everywhere but what can you do
about all the analog effect user is just a little bit effect news and those with explanation what we cannot hear people
against misinformation by explaining the techniques used to distort the facts of the problem in other
words explained for reasoning that I and telling here filter we have
developed a strategy based on critical thinking methods to analyze the longest lines case
that you can explain it to us if you insist
the 1st at analyzing client is to break up the argument into a study assumptions or promises this conclusion for example young and you just
mentioned has to do with the first one is the climate has
changed naturally in the past the 2nd 1 is that the
climate is changing conclusions is account climate
change is natural what's wrong with that the
fondant we 1st check if the argument is logically valid does the conclusion follows from the premises in this case the answer is not the argument commits the fallacy of known cyclic just because the climate change that with in the past doesn't mean it's changing actually and that's it is
getting started if arguments invalid often because there's a hidden assumptions in this case by hitting the premise if something was the course in the past
it can't be accorded man having this premise makes
the argument logically valid sorry now the
conclusion must be true also fast the next thing we have to do is check the premises are true in
this case the 3rd premise is false it commits the single cost fallacy ignoring
there can be multiple factors that cause 1
so now we're done would although it's worth
pointing out the advantage of using critical thinking to debug misinformation the computers
talking it's died well I'll I'm in the
Alps a simple way to expose bad logic
is to apply parallel argument introduced a ridiculously argument really use the
past climate change judgment is just like arguing that because people died of cancer in the past cigarettes count the cause of any cancer nail we took this critical thinking
approach and part of the most common myths that content everything that had real influence and we use them all in this paper published in Environmental Research levels if I take your
paper will you leave us alone about
about this article on these effects vaccination actually that commits the fellow
see also now chart that it
Feedback