Homework:

Discovering biases and fallacies in societal discussions

– a climate change case study –

Noticing logic fallacies and biases, and improving reasoning, will improve the discussions on important
societal topics. To practice this, you will do an assignment 1 in preparation of your workgroup. We will use
climate change as a case study, to provide you an important and often discussed topic.

Climate change has been a fraught topic in the media and society. This is partly by design, there have been
well-documented efforts to confuse the public about climate change through funding opaque think-tanks
and commentators. 2 However, climate change is a very complex topic. Although science has established
many of its impacts and mechanisms beyond doubt, there are lots of uncertainties surrounding the rate of
change. There are also many debates among researchers and the public about what is needed to address
the problem. Unsurprisingly, many researchers have traced the influence of powerful vested interests in
public discourse. The most prominent example of which is Merchants of Doubt a book and film of the same
name. The result of these misinformation campaigns has been to foment conflict within society about how
to address climate change and whether it even exists in the first place (climate scientists have been trying
to work in a ‘post-fact’ world long before ‘fake news’).

The science of climate change is one thing, but adding to this complexity is that the way society addresses it
(or doesn’t) intersects with many other values about the role of the state, freedom of the individual, our
responsibilities to others and nature etc. In short: it’s complicated.

Climate change is also difficult to discuss. It can be scientifically difficult in the first place, especially when
you are not specialized in the topic (e.g. when you do not have a PhD in one of the sciences studying the
climate, which we expect to be the case in most Psychology students). But what is difficult to everyone,
including the climate scientists themselves, are the biases and (sometimes false) arguments that are raised
surrounding the discussion. Climate change discussions can be covered in implicit biases, reasoning fallacies
and bad argumentation, just like any other current topic dividing society. Discussing climate change can
therefore be existentially overwhelming. It can be important to just start noticing biases and
argumentation fallacies in conversations to make the discussion less overwhelming. To practice this, follow
the assignment below in preparation of the next workgroup session.

1
Assignment designed and adjusted for Psychology And Science in collaboration with Thijs Bosker and Paul Behrens, Leiden University, Institute of
Environmental Sciences (CML)
2
[Link]
Assignment: Talking with one another
In preparation of your next workgroup session you will talk to a family member or friend (outside of your
study contacts) about climate change. We want you to discuss concerns, hopes and philosophy on climate
change. And we want you to notice anything in the discussion that comes from either you or your
discussion partner, that is related to any of the reasoning aspects you have learned throughout this course.
Any argumentation that is particularly strong, but also anything that seems to be sign of a possible bias or
reasoning fallacy. Use the literature of this course and the lectures about e.g. logic, biases, argumentation
(fallacies) to guide yourself in finding biases and logic/argumentation fallacies. We all have our reasoning
fallacies, and they are easier to spot in opinions different than yours. So, for this exercise it may be
beneficial (but not necessary) to find a discussion partner who does not completely share your beliefs
about climate change.

If your discussion partner explicitly approves it, you can record the conversation (also record the
approval), so you can listen back later to analyse the argumentation/reasoning structure and try to
discover biases or fallacies, if there are any.

NOTE: To make sure the conversation is productive, it is important to go in with a non-judgmental, open,
and listening attitude. This means you need to choose someone who is amenable to this conversation. The
aim of this exercise is not to ‘convince’ or ‘convert’ to your way of thinking (i.e. you believe nuclear power
is the best solution and they don’t etc.).

The activity
First, read this: [Link]
holidays/

Research shows that it is easier to start these conversations by talking about what individuals are doing
about climate change and to focus on stories about climate change (rather than IPCC reports). Good
starting questions are:

• “Are you concerned about climate change and does it make you want to take action?”,
• “When did you first become aware of your concerns about climate change?
• “When do you think you personally might experience the impacts of climate change in years from
now? Have you already experienced these impacts? And how?”
o If people are not concerned about the future, you can ask “why not”? Do they think that
(young) people should be concerned even if they aren't?

If they are concerned, then you could move on to what they feel they can do about it and the emotions
surrounding these actions. You can ask some general questions but try to keep the conversation as
personal as possible. Useful questions include:

• “What changes have you made in your life?”

• “What would you like to do but can’t at the moment?” (things like electric vehicles etc).
• “How did these changes to your life make you feel?”
• “Do you feel like you should do anything else?”
o If they feel an obligation to act differently, maybe ask them where this is stemming from.
You could ask “how do you get reminded that you behave differently?” or “do you discuss
effects of climate change with your family and friends?”
• “Who or what influences your approach to climate change the most?”
• “What would you not do? And why not?”
o For this, have specific examples ready to go from class. Things like plant-based diets,
cycling, cutting down on flying, solar panels, supporting local initiatives.
If they are not concerned at all, this is the moment to further ask why not, and what arguments they might
have. Maybe they do not believe the climate changes at all, or maybe they do believe the climate changes,
and that the biggest cause is by humans, but they are unconcerned for other reasons (e.g. they are
planning to move to Mars next year, so will not experience the consequences on earth anyways).

Then you can move onto what they would like to see in terms of systems change. For example, questions
like:
• “What is your opinion on the big fossil fuel companies in oil, coal, gas?”
• “Would you accept slower, or zero economic growth if the environment was protected in the long
term?”

You could finish up by asking about how climate change makes them feel. This is just one example way in
which the conversation can go. Every conversation will be different, and the conversation does not need to
be long; it is fine if it lasts just 10-15 minutes or so. Of course, it is possible to continue for longer, just be
aware that people can find it difficult to talk about climate change, so be cognizant of how tired they seem
and do not harangue them.

Again, remember that, as Robin Webster mentions in the article above, this is not an exercise in ‘winning or
losing’ it is a conversation, and often it is better to hold back and build a dialog than jump in with your
thoughts. On the other hand, if you do have the tendency to jump in with your thought, become aware of
that, and try to discover what this tendency comes from, and which arguments you would then have. Are
they really all valid arguments?

The deliverable
We want you to write a short analytical summary (ca. 350-500 words) of the conversation, to discuss during
the workgroup session of week 4. Please use the following template, fill it in using subheadings that
indicate the three different sections (summary/analysis/reflection).

Summary

• Describe who you are talking to, and the circumstances of the conversation. But keep it anonymous.
• When did they think climate change would impact them? In years from now.

Analysis
• Did you spot any difference in the intentions and actions of your interview partner regarding climate
change?
• What arguments have been used by your interview partner? Were they valid?
• Did you notice any of the biases or reasoning fallacies you learned about during this course? If so,
which ones? Provide an example from the conversation.
• Did they use “discourses of delay” or other interesting ways to frame climate change?

Personal Reflection
• How did the discussion differ from your expectations?
• Did you notice any biases or reasoning fallacies within your own argumentation during the
conversation? Any differences after listening back to the recorded discussion?
• What was the most important thing you learnt during the conversation? Did you learn anything
additional after more careful analysis of the argumentation structure?
• How did the conversation make you feel after it ended.
 Example Reflection
Summary
I spoke to a male friend of mine (19) who is currently studying in Germany. We know each other from high
school. Our Zoom call lasted forty minutes. Last year, he lived in Togo for six months. He pointed out that
climate change was very visible in the change of rain seasons and that climate change has affected him
already for a couple of years.

Analysis
Generally, he is aware of the impacts of rapid climate change. However, some appeals to change seemed
futile to him. He assumes that we think about climate change only if we have the time and money to do so.
This resembled an ‘appeal to social justice’. He believes more people are concerned, as climate change is
increasingly discussed in the news. This could be an argument that resembles a mistaken ‘appeal to
popularity’. Another possible argumentation fallacy I once noticed was the ‘perfectionist fallacy’, where he
claimed that the steps an individual or even the government of the Netherlands takes are too small of an
impact to solve this worldwide problem. I also thought to notice a confirmation bias in the conversation,
where he clearly reacted to statements I gave that would match his beliefs surrounding climate change,
whereas opposing statements were largely ignored.

Reflection
I was happy to realize how he got more open about the topic throughout our call. Most importantly, I was
surprised that he felt committed to fight social injustices but did not link this to climate change. During the
conversation I was convinced that I was bias- and fallacy free, and that I was very neutral and open to my
discussion partner. But after listening back to the recording, I did notice that I used an appeal to common
belief a few times, by saying that climate change cannot be ignored, as everyone is talking about it and
things it is a problem. I think I use this more often during discussions about climate change and similar
topics, but I now learned this is not entirely valid, unless I can refer to a specific scientific consensus, so I
guess I learned to use that argument less. I really enjoyed the conversation, and especially the analysis of it
afterwards; it was good practicing argumentation while being aware of possible biases and fallacies that
might creep in either with me or my discussion partner. I might try this more often; practice makes perfect.