DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation Final UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE, RESPONSIBILITY AND THE RISE OF PSEUDOSCIENCE: CONTEXTUALLY SENSITIVE DUTIES TO PRACTICE SCIENTIFIC LITERACY A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in PHILOSOPHY by Abraham J. Joyal June 2020 The Dissertation of Abraham J. Joyal is approved: _____________________________ Professor Daniel Guevara, chair _____________________________ Professor Abraham Stone _____________________________ Professor Jonathan Ellis ___________________________ Quentin Williams Acting Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Table Of Contents List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………iv Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………....v Chapter One: That Pseudoscience Follows From Bad Epistemic Luck and Epistemic Injustice………………………………………………………………………………………………....1 Chapter Two: The Critical Engagement Required to Overcome Epistemic Obstacles……….37 Chapter Three: The Myriad Forms of Epistemic Luck……………………………………………56 Chapter Four: Our Reflective and Preparatory Responsibilities………………………………...73 Chapter Five: Medina, Epistemic Friction and The Social Connection Model Revisited.…….91 Chapter Six: Fricker’s Virtue Epistemological Account Revisited……………..………………110 Chapter Seven: Skeptical Concerns……………………………………………………………...119 Conclusion: A New Pro-Science Media…………………………………………………………..134 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………140 iii List of Figures Chainsawsuit Webcomic…………………………………………………………………………….47 Epistemological Figure……………………………………………………………………………....82 iv Abstract Epistemic Injustice, Responsibility and the Rise of Pseudoscience: Contextually Sensitive Duties to Practice Scientific Literacy By Abraham J. Joyal This dissertation explores the responsibilities of different individuals to agree with the scientific consensus of their time and place. It seeks to provide a normative response to the growth of pseudoscientific movements such as the anti-vaccination movement or climate change denialism. That said, this dissertation takes all scientific beliefs held by non-scientists to be based on some amount of luck. The level of luck different non-experts experience meanwhile, is evidence of certain epistemic injustices, as they've been described by the likes of José Medina and Miranda Fricker. I argue that these epistemic injustices can occur as a result of the non-expert being privileged or as a result of the non-expert being oppressed. But if both privilege and oppression can lead one to believe in pseudoscience, should privileged and oppressed people be held to the same standard of responsibility? Certain theorists have naively and tacitly approved of both being held to the same standards of culpability, particularly those who comment on the so-called “epistemic condition for moral responsibility”. I assert that a twofold conception of responsibility can explain this state of affairs, taking people to be culpable for what I call their “preparatory responsibilities” according to how privileged or oppressed they are, while taking people to be culpable for what I call their “deliberative responsibilities” according to whatever epistemic obstacles they face, regardless of whether these obstacles follow from privilege or oppression. I then reapply this twofold conception of responsibility to certain theorists of epistemic injustice, particularly Medina and Fricker, drawing on the former to flesh out my view of preparatory responsibilities and drawing on the latter to explore my view of deliberative responsibilities. I then consider whether these responsibilities can be judged for other people or whether they can only be judged v introspectively, and answer arguments for moral skepticism made on these basis’. Finally, I make recommendations for reforming pro-science media on the basis of my normative picture. vi Chapter One: That Pseudoscience Follows from Bad Epistemic Luck and Testimonial Injustice Introduction Pseudoscientific beliefs, which I’ll define shortly, are popular and very real harms result from the prevalence of these beliefs. Between 40% and 47% of Americans don’t believe in evolution1 , 49 senators voted against an amendment stating climate change is real and is human caused in 20152 , and 84% of the American Association for the Advancement of the Sciences were polled as believing that poor scientific literacy is a major issue for the scientific enterprise3 . Somewhere around 250 million children are Vitamin A deficient, with between 250 thousand and 500 thousand of them resultantly going blind annually4 . Meanwhile, Greenpeace still protests access to vitamin A rich golden rice5 , which was developed with an eye to combating vitamin A deficiency 6 . The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has claimed that vaccines cause autism7 --a thoroughly debunked claim8 . Proponents of homeopathy bring in over 9 million likes on facebook9 , while children of practitioners have died10 and a popular “cure” for autism consists of having children consume bleach11 . 1 Newport, “In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins.” 2 Tang, “Here Are All the Senators Who Do and Don’t Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change.” 3 Funk and Goo, “A Look at What the Public Knows and Does Not Know About Science.” 4 World Health Organization, “Micronutrient deficiencies.” 5 Greenpeace, “Greenpeace and Golden Rice.” 6 Tang et al, “Golden rice is an effective source of vitamin A.” 1776-1783 7 Trump, “Healthy Young Child...” 8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Science Summary: CDC Studies on Thimiserol in Vaccines.” 9 Facebook, “David Avacado Wolfe.” 10 Adach, “Alberta parents whose toddler died of meningitis were told to visit doctor, trial hears.” 11 Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution.” 1 This chapter endeavours to make the following claims concerning pseudoscience and my interest12 in it: 1) “Pseudoscience” as I plan to use it throughout this dissertation, is defined by four criteria. 2) Pseudoscientific beliefs are all at least partially caused by the believer’s level of epistemic luck, according to Wayne D. Riggs’ control oriented definition. This definition takes us to be lucky for beliefs if we hold them as a result of factors that are outside of our control and which we have not exploited13 . 3) At least some cases of pseudoscientific belief result from epistemic luck in a manner that is tied up in oppressive power structures, and constitute what both José Medina and Miranda Fricker refer to as “epistemic injustice”14 15 . 4) Pseudoscience, as a special case of epistemic injustice, raises an ethical problem that has gone unnoticed by theorists concerned with the epistemic condition for moral responsibility. Once I have shown all of this to be the case, I will say a little bit about why finding a solution to this problem is necessary to the improvement of pro-science media and the fight against pseudoscience. I fear that when pro-science media lays blame on those who believe pseudoscience, it unreflectively holds those who could not have believed otherwise responsible16 for their belief. If this is true, then those believers are in fact 12 This interest is broadly philosophical, due both to the fact that it invokes conceptual tools from both ethics and epistemology, and because pseudoscience provokes the question of how individuals come to hold beliefs. While I do not feel the need to reference a particular meta-philosophical view to argue that this question is worth the concern of philosophers, I do think it is worthwhile to point out that philosophy has asked how the subject influences what they think themselves to know since the Allegory of the Cave. 13 Riggs, “Luck, Knowledge and Control”, 204-221. 14 Fricker, Epistemic Injustice, 1. 15 Medina, The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations, 3. 16 As this project endeavors to develop a potentially new theory of responsibility, it would be foolish to try to give a sufficient definition at this early stage, but at the very least I would like 2 victims of pseudoscience. I further fear that this victim blaming has been both immoral and counterproductive in the fight against pseudoscience. What Do I Mean By “Pseudoscience”? Pseudoscientific beliefs are beliefs that meet all four of the following criteria: 1) The belief is about a scientific thesis. 2) The belief is held by a lay person--meaning someone who is not a scientist working in that field. 3) The belief is thought to be scientifically correct--meaning that if the scientific methodology were properly carried out, the believer thinks that their belief would turn out to be true. 4) The belief runs contrary to the scientific consensus or lack thereof. Each of these criteria deserve some commentary. Regarding the first, that the belief is about a scientific thesis or topic, there is a certain temptation that I want to avoid. I do not here bother to demarcate what is or isn’t a scientific belief, as to do so precisely is a massive philosophical task. For my concerns, a “scientific thesis” is an empirical proposition that can be confirmed or denied via the methodology of scientists. The point of this criteria is to exclude beliefs that are not scientific--faith in religion, even though it could not be confirmed to be true by scientists, isn’t a scientific topic. The second criteria is that the belief is held by a lay person, which would be any person who isn’t a scientist
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy
    Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy Kevin C. Elliott Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University Introduction The philosophy of science has much to contribute to the formulation of public policy. Contemporary policy making draws heavily on scientific information, whether it be about the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments, the pros and cons of different economic policies, the severity of environmental problems, or the best strategies for alleviating inequality and other social problems. When science becomes relevant to public policy, however, it often becomes highly politicized, and figures on opposing sides of the political spectrum draw on opposing bodies of scientific information to support their preferred conclusions.1 One has only to look at contemporary debates over climate change, vaccines, and genetically modified foods to see how these debates over science can complicate policy making.2 When science becomes embroiled in policy debates, questions arise about who to trust and how to evaluate the quality of the available scientific evidence. For example, historians have identified a number of cases where special interest groups sought to influence policy by amplifying highly questionable scientific claims about public-health and environmental issues like tobacco smoking, climate change, and industrial pollution.3 Determining how best to respond to these efforts is a very important question that cuts across multiple
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Siege: Guidelines for Struggle in Science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 [email protected]
    Breaking the siege: guidelines for struggle in science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 http://www.bmartin.cc/ [email protected] When scientists come under attack, it is predictable that the attackers will use methods to minimise public outrage over the attack, including covering up the action, devaluing the target, reinterpreting what is happening, using official processes to give an appearance of justice, and intimidating people involved. To be effective in countering attacks, it is valuable to challenge each of these methods, namely by exposing actions, validating targets, interpreting actions as unfair, mobilising support and not relying on official channels, and standing up to intimidation. On a wider scale, science is constantly under siege from vested interests, especially governments and corporations wanting to use scientists and their findings to serve their agendas at the expense of the public interest. To challenge this system of institutionalised bias, the same sorts of methods can be used. ABSTRACT Key words: science; dissent; methods of attack; methods of resistance; vested interests Scientists and science under siege In 1969, Clyde Manwell was appointed to the second chair environmental issues?” (Wilson and Barnes 1995) — and of zoology at the University of Adelaide. By present-day less than one in five said no. Numerous environmental terminology he was an environmentalist, but at the time scientists have come under attack because of their this term was little known and taking an environmental research or speaking out about it (Kuehn 2004). On stand was uncommon for a scientist. Many senior figures some topics, such as nuclear power and fluoridation, it in government, business and universities saw such stands can be very risky for scientists to take a view contrary as highly threatening.
    [Show full text]
  • The Controversy Over Climate Change in the Public Sphere
    THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT The scientific consensus on climate change is not recognized by the public. This is due to many related factors, including the Bush administration’s science policy, the reporting of the controversy by the media, the public’s understanding of science as dissent, and the differing standards of argumentation in science and the public sphere. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was produced in part as a response to the acceptance of climate dissent by the Bush administration and achieved a rupture of the public sphere by bringing the technical issue forward for public deliberation. The rupture has been sustained by dissenters through the use of argument strategies designed to foster controversy at the expense of deliberation. This makes it incumbent upon rhetorical scholars to theorize the closure of controversy and policymakers to recognize that science will not always have the answers. INDEX WORDS: Al Gore, Argument fields, Argumentation, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate change, Climategate, Controversy, Public sphere, Technical sphere THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN B.A., The University of Wyoming, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 William Mosley-Jensen All Rights Reserved THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Thomas Lessl Roger Stahl Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that made this project possible through their unwavering support and love.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissent and Heresy in Medicine: Models, Methods, and Strategies Brian Martin*
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Social Science & Medicine 58 (2004) 713–725 Dissent and heresy in medicine: models, methods, and strategies Brian Martin* Science, Technology and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia Abstract Understandingthe dynamics of dissent and heresy in medicine can be aided by the use of suitable frameworks. The dynamics of the search for truth vary considerably dependingon whether the search is competitive or cooperative and on whether truth is assumed to be unitary or plural. Insights about dissent and heresy in medicine can be gained by making comparisons to politics and religion. To explain adherence to either orthodoxy or a challenging view, partisans use a standard set of explanations; social scientists use these plus others, especially symmetrical analyses. There is a wide array of methods by which orthodoxy maintains its domination and marginalises challengers. Finally, challengers can adopt various strategies in order to gain a hearing. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dissent; Heresy; Orthodoxy; Medical knowledge; Medical research; Strategies Introduction challenges to it, there is a tremendous variation in ideas, support, visibility and outcome. The conventional view is that the human immunode- What is the best term for referringto a challengeto ficiency virus, HIV, is responsible for AIDS. But for orthodoxy? Wolpe (1994) offers an illuminating many years, a few scientists have espoused the incom- typology of internal challenges. One type of challenge patible view that HIV is harmless and is not responsible is to ‘‘knowledge products’’ such as disease for AIDS (Duesberg, 1996; Maggiore, 1999). The issue prognoses that question current knowledge—namely, came to world attention in 2001 when South African what are considered to be facts—while operating President Thabo Mbeki invited a number of the so- within conventional assumptions about scientific meth- called HIV/AIDS dissidents to join an advisory panel.
    [Show full text]
  • Shortcomings in the Doctrines of Culpability, Mitigation, and Excuse
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 7-13-2021 Individualizing Criminal Law’s Justice Judgments: Shortcomings in the Doctrines of Culpability, Mitigation, and Excuse Paul H. Robinson University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Lindsay Holcomb University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Repository Citation Robinson, Paul H. and Holcomb, Lindsay, "Individualizing Criminal Law’s Justice Judgments: Shortcomings in the Doctrines of Culpability, Mitigation, and Excuse" (2021). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2520. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2520 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 7 2 21 INDIVIDUALIZING CRIMINAL LAW’S JUSTICE JUDGMENTS: SHORTCOMINGS IN THE DOCTRINES OF CULPABILITY, MITIGATION, AND EXCUSE Paul H. Robinson* and Lindsay Holcomb** Abstract In judging an offender’s culpability, mitigation, or excuse, there seems to be general agreement that it is appropriate for the criminal law to take into account such things as the offender’s youthfulness or her significantly low IQ. There is even support for taking account of their distorted perceptions and reasoning induced by traumatic experiences, as in battered spouse syndrome.
    [Show full text]
  • Rasgas, Petronet Sign LNG Supply Deal for India
    BUSINESS | Page 1 SPORT | Page 1 Sheikh Salman manifesto aims to rise INDEX DOW JONES QE NYMEX QATAR 2, 20 COMMENT 18, 19 ARAB WORLD 3, 4 BUSINESS 1-8 FIFA from Qatar budget ‘focusing’ 17,488.96 10,429.36 37.12 INTERNATIONAL 5-16 CLASSIFIED 5 -114.91 -06.61 +1.42 ISLAM 17 SPORT 1-8 on sustainable growth ‘ashes’ -0.65% -0.06% +0.52% Latest Figures published in QATAR since 1978 FRIDAY Vol. XXXVI No. 9954 January 1, 2016 Rabia I 21, 1437 AH GULF TIMES www. gulf-times.com 2 Riyals Hopes on the horizon Blaze engulfs GULF TIMES WISHES ITS Dubai hotel READERS A HAPPY NEW YEAR near world’s In brief tallest tower Reuters QATAR | Offi cial Dubai Emir exchanges ire engulfed a 63-storey sky- New Year greetings scraper in downtown Dubai near HH the Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Fthe world’s tallest building last Hamad al-Thani exchanged cables of night, but the block was successfully congratulations with Their Majesties evacuated and there were only light and Highnesses the leaders of injuries, the emirate’s police chief friendly countries on the occasion said. of the New Year, wishing them the Tongues of fl ame shot skywards best of health and happiness and The sun sets on 2015 as people enjoy a pleasant winter evening in Doha’s Aspire Park yesterday. An eventful year for Qatar from one side of the luxury Address their peoples further progress and and the rest of the world has gone down in history. The New Year, 2016, brings with it many hopes and challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists Dissent List
    A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated April 2020. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen* Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W.
    [Show full text]
  • Sbchinn 1.Pdf
    The Prevalence and Effects of Scientific Agreement and Disagreement in Media by Sedona Chinn A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Communication) in The University of Michigan 2020 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor P. Sol Hart, Chair Professor Stuart Soroka Professor Nicholas Valentino Professor Jan Van den Bulck Sedona Chinn [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6135-6743 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my grandma, Pamela Boult. Thank you for your unending confidence in my every ambition and unconditional love. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the support of the Dow Sustainability Fellows Program, which provided much appreciated spaces for creative research and interdisciplinary connections. In particular, I would like to thank the 2017 cohort of doctoral fellows for their support, feedback, and friendship. I would also like to thank the Department of Communication and Media, the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social Research, and Rackham Graduate School for supporting this work. I truly appreciate the guidance and support of excellent advisors throughout this endeavor. Thanks to my advisors, Sol Hart and Stuart Soroka, for all of their long hours of teaching, critique, and encouragement. Know that your mentorship has shaped both how I think and has served as a model for how I Would like to act going forward in my professional life. Thanks to Nick Valentino and Jan Van den Bulck for your invaluable comments, insistence that I simplify experimental designs, and for your confidence in my Work. I truly appreciate all the ways in which your support and guidance have both improved the work presented here and my thinking as a researcher.
    [Show full text]
  • Oreskes Testimony 29April2015
    Excerpt from Chapter 4 of Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway, 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. (New York: Bloomsbury Press.), reproduced with permission. Constructing a Counter-narrative It took time to work out the complex science of ozone depletion, but scientists, with support from the U.S. government and international scientific organizations, did it. Regulations were put in place based on science, and adjusted in response to advances in it. But running in parallel to this were persistent efforts to challenge the science. Industry representatives and other skeptics doubted that ozone depletion was real, or argued that if it was real, it was inconsequential, or caused by volcanoes. During the early 1980s, anti-environmentalism had taken root in a network of conservative and libertarian “think tanks” in Washington. These think tanks—which included the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and, of course, the Marshall Institute, variously promoted business interests and “free market” economic policies, the rollback of environmental, health, safety, and labor protections. They were supported by donations from businessmen, corporations, and conservative foundations.i One aspect of the effort to cast doubt on ozone depletion was the construction of a counter-narrative that depicted ozone depletion as natural variation that was being cynically exploited by a corrupt, self-interested, and extremist scientific community to get more money for their research. One of the first people to make this argument was a man who had been a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1980s, and whom we have already met: S.
    [Show full text]
  • Yorba Times: Special Edition on Safety Noah Asher Golden Chapman University, [email protected]
    Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Yorba-Chapman Writing Partnership Anthology of College of Educational Studies Journalistic Writing Spring 2016 Yorba Times: Special Edition on Safety Noah Asher Golden Chapman University, [email protected] Facundo Acevedo Yorba Academy for the Arts Jesse Alonzo Yorba Academy for the Arts Henessy Arana Yorba Academy for the Arts Leslie Arriaga Yorba Academy for the Arts Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/yorba-chapman See nePxat pratge of for the addiBtionilinal gauualthor,s Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Higher Education and Teaching Commons, Journalism Studies Commons, Junior High, Intermediate, Middle School Education and Teaching Commons, Nonfiction Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other Communication Commons, Other Education Commons, Other Rhetoric and Composition Commons, Publishing Commons, Reading and Language Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons, and the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Golden, N.A, et al. (2016). Yorba Times: Special edition on safety. Yorba-Chapman Writing Partnership Anthology of Journalistic Writing. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/yorba-chapman/1 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Educational Studies at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of SES in Sentencing Severity
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Student Theses John Jay College of Criminal Justice Summer 10-19-2018 ‘Affluent’ Justice: The Role of SES in Sentencing vSe erity Sonia Pappachan CUNY John Jay College, [email protected] How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_etds/86 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Running head: AFFLUENCE AND SENTENCING 1 ‘Affluent’ Justice: The Role of SES in Sentencing Severity Sonia Pappachan John Jay College of Criminal Justice - C.U.NY. AFFLUENCE AND SENTENCING 2 Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Importance of Just Sentencing 5 Poor in the Justice System 6 Wealth in the Justice System 8 Research in Biases 9 Study Overview 10 Method 11 Research Design 11 Participants 11 Procedure 12 Materials 13 Data Collection and Analysis 15 Results 15 Preliminary Analysis 15 Manipulation Effectiveness 16 Test of Hypothesis 16 Effect of Defendant's Status 16 Effect of Victim’s Status 17 Interaction of Defendant and Victim Status 17 Race of the Participant on Sentencing 17 Gender of Participants and Status on Sentencing 17 Discussion 18 Limitations and Future Research 22 References 23 Appendix A 30 Appendix B 32 Appendix C 34 Appendix D 36 AFFLUENCE AND SENTENCING 3 Abstract Imprisonment is the harshest punishment the law can give a defendant; it has considerable consequences on the incarcerated, during and after.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide
    SUSTAINABILITY.UMICH.EDU/MJS Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide Jessica M. Santos School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 & Climate Central, Princeton, NJ Irina Feygina Climate Central, Princeton, NJ Volume 5, Issue 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mjs.12333712.0005.102 abstract Climate change is an increasingly politicized issue in the United States, with many members of the American public, especially those who identify as politically con- servative, skeptical about this dangerous phenomenon. A host of social and psy- chological processes have been investigated in an attempt to understand skepticism and resistance to responding to the threat of climate change, including motivated reasoning, system justification theory, social dominance orientation, belief in a just world, the cultural cognition thesis, and solution aversion. In this article, we review recent research into these processes and their implications for understanding the political divide in responding to climate change. We also highlight efforts to test communications interventions aimed at ameliorating these processes underlying climate change skepticism, including framing and scientific consensus. This litera- ture review may be informative for climate change focused communicators, poli- cymakers, practitioners, and academics who directly or indirectly interact with the 5 Michigan Journal of Sustainability, sustainability.umich.edu/mjs public, or who design communication campaigns, policy, initiatives, or programs for the public. Introduction Climate change is a pressing challenge, with the potential to cause dramatic sea level rise, a higher frequency of extreme weather events, worldwide temperature increases, and climatic instability (IPCC 2013). These changes may disrupt societal functioning through increasing global migration, conflict, and disease, while en- dangering worldwide food systems (Burrows and Kinney 2016; FAO 2008; Haines et al.
    [Show full text]