How is it that, in an age of virtually unlimited access to information, pseudoscience runs rampant? Wherever you look, you can find comments from climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and flat-Earthers; but how/why do these ridiculous beliefs gain a following? While a full analysis of this topic is outside the realm of this post, I want to discuss two factors (there are certainly many more) that may contribute to this growing group of science deniers.

Factor 1: Scientific literacy.

Carl Sagan stated:

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

Without sounding like an alarmist, I think we are reaching the point where our problem may literally blow up in our faces. At this critical moment in human history, we should be begging, subsidizing, and empowering scientists to save us. However, we don’t seem to have any scientists in positions of power or in high government offices- why not? In my opinion, it’s because:

A) having scientists in these positions would almost certainly engender changes in laws and in the allocation of government money, which would result in decreased profits for big oil- and there’s no way that lobbyists and corporate backers will allow that to happen.

B) even if we had scientists in positions of power, we’ve created a society of scientifically illiterate citizens who are not part of the same verbal community as those scientists. Those with the answers and those who need the answers don’t speak the same language. How do we fix this? We must create a society that values the scientific process, embraces facts over opinion, and values data over subjective measures. This will take some time and, unfortunately, time is not a commodity we have when it comes to fighting climate change.

Factor 2: How we talk about climate change.

Rolider and Axelrod (2005) discussed the frustration that behavior analysts endure when our empirically validated and highly effective interventions are met with hostility by those in other fields. They note that the rejection of ABA by the general public may be related to the terminology that we use and that “terms such as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, extinction, and punishment may have inhibited popular acceptance of behavioral philosophy and application.” In their study, Rolider and Axelrod compared how two groups self-reported their (a) level of understanding and (b) acceptance of described behavioral interventions. The first group was made up of behavior analysts and the second group was made up of individuals with no background in behavior analysis. In describing the interventions, the researchers used three different communication styles: 1) technical, 2) conversational, and 3) conversational with a description of the intended outcomes. The results of this study showed that the general public understood and accepted the interventions when those interventions were described using conversational language and included a description of the intended outcomes. When technical language was used, the general public found the interventions to be “less understandable and less compassionate.” The researchers theorized that technical language was aversive to those with no formal training in ABA, and this resulted in a lack of acceptance and understanding.

So how can this help us in the realm of sustainability? Could it be that climate change deniers are simply turned off by the technical jargon used by the scientific community? The average person does not understand the technical impact of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases on temperature or the consequences of a decrease in the pH level of seawater. However, most rational people will understand the dangers of a world too hot to grow crops, oceans too acidic to harbor life, and water levels too high to live within miles of the current shoreline. I think it is essential that we identify the most potent way to talk about climate change- limit the jargon and focus on what humans will experience. We must identify the most effective way to utilize rule governed behavior and to connect delayed environmental outcomes to current behaviors without becoming aversive. We also need to consider the role of political affiliation and identify ways to remove politics from this discussion. Consider how derived relations may have shaped the beliefs of climate change deniers. It’s well known that liberals tend to believe in climate change. Also, over the past two years, liberals have been labeled as liars and accused of spreading “fake news”. Without even teaching this new, transitivity-induced relation, “climate change” and “fake news” may now be part of the same equivalence class. One of the more important challenges that behavior analysts must solve is how to avoid any political relationship from emerging between the science of climate change and the validity of the threat. Using that information to shape the language used in our policies and the way we communicate with neutral parties and climate change deniers will allow us to gather support from more people.

Who’s up for the challenge?

Brian Jadro, MA, LABA, BCBA