Stephan Lewandowsky, a "cognitive scientist" at the University of Western Australia, has attacked people with an "individualist" worldview, whom, he claims, have a tendancy to reject science.
Writing for the ABC, Lewandowsky also said "The historical evidence is overwhelming that some of that opposition (to science) has been organised by vested interests", using global warming as an example.
He says "The death toll from inaction on climate change, currently estimated by the World Health Organisation to be at 150,000 annually, is incomparably greater. Sadly, this is set to rise further in light of the organised manufacture of doubt by vested interests and their enablers in the media."
He claims however, that vested interests are only "part of the story". He goes on to explain that a person's "worldview" is another factor in the so-called opposition to sicentific consensus.
He goes on to say:
"Worldviews come in many shades and forms, but one prominent distinction — popularised by Professor Dan Kahan at Yale University - is between people whose worldview is "hierarchical-individualistic" and those whose worldview is "egalitarian-communitarian". "
"Hierarchical-individualistic people (HI from here on) believe rights, duties, goods, and offices should be distributed differentially and on the basis of people's own decisions without collective interference or assistance.
Egalitarian-communitarian (EC) people, by contrast, believe rights and goods should be distributed more equally and society should bear partial responsibility for securing the con
ditions of individual flourishing."
...
Perhaps not surprisingly, HI individuals are more likely to resist acceptance of climate science than EC individuals.
Why?
Because implicit in the message we get from climate science is the need to alter the way we currently do business. The spectre of regulation looms large, and so does the (imaginary) World Government or other interventions — such as multilateral agreements — that are anathema to the notion that individuals, not governments or societies, determine their own fate.
Lewandowsky also attacks those with concerns about the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which has been implicated cases of severe illness and death in both Australia and the United States.
He says
"Lest one think it is only climate change that elicits such emotion and seemingly irrational behaviour, similar effects arise with issues such as mandatory HPV vaccinations.
Although at first glance one might think protecting young women from cervical cancer is a worthwhile goal, HPV vaccinations have turned into an emotive and highly politicised issue.
Why? Because mandatory vaccinations give control to the state over parental decisions.
