Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Originalarbeit

Modi der Verständlichkeit und die Magie des Unverständlichen

Published Online:July 03, 2017https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000366

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. In diesem Aufsatz entwickeln wir einen hypothetischen Klassifizierungsansatz, in dessen Rahmen wir verschiedene Formen des Verständnisses eines Wissenschaftsbereichs herausarbeiten und deren Bedeutung für die Risikowahrnehmung darstellen. Empirisch kann zunehmendes Verständnis sowohl zur Akzeptanz von Risiken aber auch zu Polarisierung und starker Ablehnung führen; hingegen ist Unverständnis oftmals mit kritikloser Akzeptanz verbunden, ein Phänomen, das wir als Magie des Unverständlichen bezeichnen. Wir schlagen eine Taxonomie verschiedener Modi und Entwicklungspfade von wissenschaftlichem (Un–)Verständnis vor: Aus einer Zone der (a) Ignoranz und Indifferenz führt ein Pfad zu (b) Vertrautheit und Akzeptanz, ein zweiter zu (c) Fragilität und Polarisierung, und ein dritter zur (d) Magie der Unverständlichkeit. Wir beschreiben Charakteristika von Risikobereichen, die beeinflussen, in welche Richtung sich der öffentliche Diskurs entwickelt und diskutieren Implikationen für die Wissenschaftskommunikation.


Modes of Understanding and the Magic of the Incomprehensible

Abstract. We propose a hypothetical classification of different types of public understanding of science and discuss how these types relate to risk perception. Empirically, an increasing understanding of science may lead to acceptance of risks as well as to polarization and strong rejection; on the other hand, a lack of understanding is often associated with uncritical acceptance, a phenomenon that we call the magic of incomprehensibility. We propose a taxonomy of different modes and paths of scientific (in–)comprehension: From a zone of (a) ignorance and indifference, one path leads to (b) familiarity and acceptance, a second path to (c) fragility and polarization, and a third path to (d) the magic of incomprehensibility. We describe the characteristics of risk domains that affect which path is taken in public discourse, and we discuss implications for science communication.

Literatur

  • Bassarak, C., Pfister, H.-R. & Böhm, G. (2017). Dispute and morality in the perception of societal risks: extending the psychometric model. Journal of Risk Research, 20, 299 – 325. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Böhm, G. & Pfister, H.-R. (2005). Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 461 – 479. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Böhm, G. & Pfister, H.-R. (2008). Antinomies of environmental risk perception: Cognitive structure and evaluation. In M. CasimirEd., Culture and the changing environment. Uncertainty, cognition, and risk management in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 61 – 78). Oxford: Berghahn. Google Scholar

  • Bromme, R. & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49 (2), 59 – 69. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J. & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183 – 202. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Clarke, A. C. (1973). Profiles of the future. An enquiry into the limits of the possible (rev. 2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar

  • Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger. An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. New York: Routledge. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Ericson, R. V. & Doyle, A. (Eds.). (2003). Risk and morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar

  • Eriksson, K. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment & Decision Making, 7, 746 – 749. Google Scholar

  • Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R. & Davidson, D. J. (2008). Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt Sociological Inquiry, 78 (1), 2 – 38. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Guber, D. L. (2013). A cooling climate for change? Party polarization and the politics of global warming. American Behavioral Scientist, 57 (1), 93 – 115. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (1), 65 – 72. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Johnson, B. B. & Slovic, P. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 261 – 279. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H. & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14 (2), 147 – 174. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732 – 735. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Karpowicz-Lazreg, C. & Mullet, E. (1993). Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253 – 258. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Kienhues, D. & Bromme, R. (2015). Science and the Public: Das Verständnis fragiler und konfligierender Evidenz. Projekte, Forschungsthemen und Ergebnisse aus dem DFG Schwerpunktprogramm 1409 (2009 – 2015). Münster: Universität Münster. http://wissenschaftundoeffentlichkeit.de/broschuere-2/ Google Scholar

  • Knobe, J. (2010). Person as scientist, person as moralist. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 315 – 365. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Knutsen, K. P., Kvam, S., Langemeyer, P., Parianou, A. & Solfjeld, K. (2012). Narrative des Risikos. Münster: Waxmann. Google Scholar

  • Mazur, A. (1981). Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 31 (2), 106 – 115. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Nisbet, M. & Markowitz, E. M. (2014). Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PloS One, 9 (2), e88473. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N. & Koehler, D. J. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549 – 563. Google Scholar

  • Pfister, H.-R., Böhm, G. & Jungermann, H. (2000). The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: Knowledge and evaluations. New Genetics and Society, 19, 295 – 316. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Pfister, H.-R. & Böhm, G. (2001). Decision making in the context of environmental risks. In C. M. AllwoodM. SelartEds., Decision making: Social and creative dimensions (pp. 89 – 111). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar

  • Pfister, H.-R. & Böhm, G. (2005). Risikowahrnehmung. In D. FreyL. von RosenstielC. Graf HoyosHrsg., Wirtschaftspsychologie (S. 310 – 315). Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Google Scholar

  • Pfister, H.-R. & Böhm, G. (2012). Emotion und Moral bei der Risikowahrnehmung. Spektrum der Wissenschaft SPEZIAL, 1/12, 66 – 73. Google Scholar

  • Renn, O. & Zwick, M. M. (1997). Risiko- und Technikakzeptanz. Berlin: Springer. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361 – 387. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A. & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231 – 243. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D. & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49 (2), 123 – 138. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280 – 285. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Slovic, P. (Ed.). (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan. Google Scholar

  • Sokal, A. D. & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: Picador USA. Google Scholar

  • Song, H. & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky. Psychological Science, 20 (2), 135 – 138. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Sperber, D. (2010). The Guru effect. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 583 – 592. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Zajonc, R.B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224 – 228. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00154 Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Zwick, M. M. (1999). Gentechnik im Verständnis der Öffentlichkeit – Intimus oder Mysterium?. In J. HampelO. RennHrsg., Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit, (S. 98 – 132). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. Google Scholar

  • Zwick, M.M. & Ruddat, M. (2002). Euphorie und nagende Ungewißheit: Wie akzeptabel ist der Mobilfunk? Gaia, 11 (2), 150 – 152. Google Scholar