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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    “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).

  2. 2.

    Indeed, almost every discussion of agnotology and the intent to deceive refers to the 1969 tobacco company memo declaring “Doubt is our product”.

  3. 3.

    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.

  4. 4.

    http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html.

References

  1. Bedford, D. (2010). Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation. Journal of Geography, 109, 159–165.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jones, M. D. H., & Henderson-Sellers, A. (1990). History of the greenhouse effect. Progress in Physical Geography, 14(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saloranta, T. M. (2001). Post-normal science and the global climate change issue. Climatic Change, 50, 395–404.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wood, R. W. (1909). Note on the theory of the greenhouse. Philosophical Magazine, 17, 319–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. Legates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Global Warming
  • Critical Thinking
  • Scientific Method
  • Controversial Topic
  • Climate Science