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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
“Without knowledge” in Greek would be agnostos, so agnostology would be a more accurate term which is related etymologically to gnosis and agnostic. Here, however, the term “agnotology” will be used to be consistent with Proctor and Schiebinger (2008).
Indeed, almost every discussion of agnotology and the intent to deceive refers to the 1969 tobacco company memo declaring “Doubt is our product”.
We are not arguing here that the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ does not exist; rather, the Earth's surface is indeed warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. What Wood’s example suggests is that a greenhouse on the Earth’s surface warms not because light gets in more easily than heat gets out but because the processes of latent and sensible heat exchange are removed as possible pathways for energy transmission with the outside atmosphere. In the atmosphere, latent and sensible heat fluxes are much more efficient in transmitting heat from the surface to the atmosphere than electromagnetic radiation which is why the greenhouse warms.
Bedford, D. (2010). Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation. Journal of Geography, 109, 159–165.
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.
Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92–96. (Reprinted in Science, 148, 754–749).
Essex, C. (1991). What do climate models tell us about global warming? Pure and Applied Geophysics, 135, 125–133.
Jones, M. D. H., & Henderson-Sellers, A. (1990). History of the greenhouse effect. Progress in Physical Geography, 14(1), 1–18.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lackey, R. T. (2013). Normative science. Terra, Oregon State University, http://oregonstate.edu/terra/2013/01/normative-science. Accessed on 1 March 2013.
Lindzen, R. S. (2007). Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937–950.
McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
NOVA (1988). Do Scientists Cheat? 15th Season, Public Broadcasting System, originally aired October 25, 1988, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/15.html.
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.
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.
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.
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. (2008). Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Romer, R. H. (2001). Heat is not a noun. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 107–109.
Saloranta, T. M. (2001). Post-normal science and the global climate change issue. Climatic Change, 50, 395–404.
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.
Stove, D. (1991). What is wrong with our thoughts? The plato cult and other philosophical follies, chapter 7. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Weiss, K. M. (2012). Agnotology: How can we handle what we don’t know in a knowing way? Evolutionary Anthropology, 21, 96–100.
Wood, R. W. (1909). Note on the theory of the greenhouse. Philosophical Magazine, 17, 319–320.
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful and useful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Legates, D.R., Soon, W. & Briggs, W.M. Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology. Sci & Educ 22, 2007–2017 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9588-3
- Global Warming
- Critical Thinking
- Scientific Method
- Controversial Topic
- Climate Science