Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 2007–2017 | Cite as

Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology

  • David R. Legates
  • Willie Soon
  • William M. Briggs
Article

Abstract

Agnotology has been defined in a variety of ways including “the study of ignorance and its cultural production” and “the study of how and why ignorance or misunderstanding exists.” More recently, however, it has been posited that agnotology should be used in the teaching of climate change science. But rather than use agnotology to enhance an understanding of the complicated nature of the complex Earth’s climate, the particular aim is to dispel alternative viewpoints to the so-called consensus science. One-sided presentations of controversial topics have little place in the classroom as they serve only to stifle debate and do not further knowledge and enhance critical thinking. Students must understand not just what is known and why it is known to be true but also what remains unknown and where the limitations on scientific understanding lie. Fact recitation coupled with demonizing any position or person who disagrees with a singularly-derived conclusion has no place in education. Instead, all sides must be covered in highly debatable and important topics such as climate change, because authoritarian science never will have all the answers to such complex problems.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful and useful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

References

  1. Bedford, D. (2010). Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation. Journal of Geography, 109, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betz, G. (2009). Under determination, model-ensembles and surprises: On the epistemology of scenario-analysis in climatology. Journal of the General Philosophy of Science, 40, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92–96. (Reprinted in Science, 148, 754–749).Google Scholar
  4. Essex, C. (1991). What do climate models tell us about global warming? Pure and Applied Geophysics, 135, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jones, M. D. H., & Henderson-Sellers, A. (1990). History of the greenhouse effect. Progress in Physical Geography, 14(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lackey, R. T. (2013). Normative science. Terra, Oregon State University, http://oregonstate.edu/terra/2013/01/normative-science. Accessed on 1 March 2013.
  8. Lindzen, R. S. (2007). Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. NOVA (1988). Do Scientists Cheat? 15th Season, Public Broadcasting System, originally aired October 25, 1988, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/15.html.
  11. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2008). Challenging knowledge: How climate science became a victim of the cold war. In R. N. Proctor & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance (pp. 55–89). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Pielke, R, Sr, et al. (2009). Climate change: The need to consider human forcing besides greenhouse gases. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 90, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Proctor, R. N. (2008). Agnotology: A missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study). In R. N. Proctor & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance (pp. 1–33). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (2008). Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Romer, R. H. (2001). Heat is not a noun. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saloranta, T. M. (2001). Post-normal science and the global climate change issue. Climatic Change, 50, 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schiebinger, L. (2005). Agnotology and exotic abortifacients: The cultural production of ignorance in the eighteenth-century Atlantic world. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 149(3), 316–343.Google Scholar
  18. Stove, D. (1991). What is wrong with our thoughts? The plato cult and other philosophical follies, chapter 7. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Weiss, K. M. (2012). Agnotology: How can we handle what we don’t know in a knowing way? Evolutionary Anthropology, 21, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wood, R. W. (1909). Note on the theory of the greenhouse. Philosophical Magazine, 17, 319–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Legates
    • 1
  • Willie Soon
    • 2
  • William M. Briggs
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations