science

The Irish Times commented on a recent craze among social science bloggers:

When a viral craze spreads across the internet, it usually features cute cats or embarrassingly bad singing, or a combination of the two.

Last month, however, a new idea caught the imagination of a certain corner of the web, and it was as far from feline karaoke as is possible to imagine. Tyler Cowen, the intimidatingly erudite US economist whose blog Marginal Revolution has become massively influential in recent years, started it all when he replied to a reader’s suggestion to list the 10 books that most influenced his view of the world.

This quickly caught on:

Within days, dozens of America’s top blogging economists, political scientists, sociologists and pundits were busy composing lists of the books that influenced their thinking, and the conversation spread and spread.

As an exercise, this was all quite instructive for readers, but it also served as a kind of intellectual arms race, with each blogger establishing their credentials via their chosen books. The competitive element was unmistakable, or in economics’ parlance, there was a lot of signalling going on. Many of the lists were almost comically esoteric, as if to prove the individualism behind the intellectual journey.

One particular sociologist attracted some attention:

One of the most animated conversations followed the list created by Kieran Healy, an Irish sociologist at Duke University who is a member of the academic supergroup blog Crooked Timber. “Everyone else is doing it, at least for ‘American/ white/ politics/ economics/ mostly libertarian type guys’ values of ‘everyone’,” he wrote, and his terrifically diverse list, which features works by Clive James, Pierre Bourdieu and game theorist Thomas Schelling, as well as books on biomechanics, the collective dietary habits of ravens and power dynamics in medieval German society, led to a long and engaging discussion about what it is to be shaped and influenced by books.

Check out Healy’s list here.

Late last week Nature.com’s Nature Reports ran a front-page story about sociologists studying climate change and why our discipline has come to study this unique social problem somewhat slowly.

Nature Reports draws upon the work of several sociologists…

“Climate change is the ultimate collective-action problem,” says Steven Brechin, a sociologist at Syracuse University in New York. “How do you get people to agree in the short term to solutions for a long-term problem?” The answer, like the problem, has to be wide-ranging and global, says Jeffrey Broadbent of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who also studies how societies affect their environments. “Its only solution lies in a level of global cooperation that humanity has never seen before.”

More on Broadbent’s work:

Broadbent is just starting to investigate what factors contribute to this kind of cooperation at the national level. He has recently begun a project, called Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks, that aims to find out how information about climate change enters a particular country’s network of interested parties and what happens to it once it’s found its way to organizations and governments.

Broadbent is now one of a band of sociologists that has begun to turn the discipline’s tools towards climate change. In May last year, over 30 sociologists met at the US National Science Foundation’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss what sociology is already contributing to climate change research and what questions sociologists need to be answering next. “Purely technological ‘fixes'”, concluded the meeting report, “will not be sufficient to mitigate or successfully adapt to climate change^.”

In the context of our discipline…

Environmental sociology, which has its roots in the 1970s environmental movement, fits most naturally into a climate change research remit. But despite the field’s endurance, environmental sociologists are rather isolated from the discipline’s mainstream, featuring sparsely at the bigger conferences and publishing in different journals.

The American Sociological Review, for example, has published “literally a handful” of papers on environmental studies in the last three decades, says Thomas Dietz, director of the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Michigan State University in East Lansing. According to Dietz, who works at the boundary of environmental science, sociology and human ecology, “Sociology in the US sees environment as not unimportant — but not core.”

That traditional core of sociology has instead been “tied into just looking at people”, says Broadbent, with its focus purely on the interactions going on between people, societies or nations. “What we’ve had very often is the idea that nature is somehow a stable, unchanging background concept,” says Constance Lever-Tracy, a sociologist studying migration at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. Lever-Tracy was compelled by these issues to write an article for the journal Current Sociology last year drawing attention to the fact that her clan have had surprisingly little to say about climate change². “Sociology tries to say something about everything, but to my surprise I found almost nothing,” she says.

Read more.

The New York Times ran an article yesterday about the ‘vocal minority’ of individuals who believe that man landing on the moon was all a hoax. All of this as many Americans celebrate the anniversary of that historic event…

The Times reports:

Forty years after men first touched the lifeless dirt of the Moon — and they did. Really. Honest. — polling consistently suggests that some 6 percent of Americans believe the landings were faked and could not have happened. The series of landings, one of the greatest gambles of the human race, was an elaborate hoax developed to raise national pride, many among them insist.

They examine photos from the missions for signs of studio fakery, and claim to be able to tell that the American flag was waving in what was supposed to be the vacuum of space. They overstate the health risks of traveling through the radiation belts that girdle our planet; they understate the technological prowess of the American space program; and they cry murder behind every death in the program, linking them to an overall conspiracy.

And while there is no credible evidence to support such views, and the sheer unlikelihood of being able to pull off such an immense plot and keep it secret for four decades staggers the imagination, the deniers continue to amass accusations to this day.

And what does a sociologist have to say about this?

Ted Goertzel, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University who has studied conspiracy theorists, said “there’s a similar kind of logic behind all of these groups, I think.” For the most part, he explained, “They don’t undertake to prove that their view is true” so much as to “find flaws in what the other side is saying.” And so, he said, argument is a matter of accumulation instead of persuasion. “They feel if they’ve got more facts than the other side, that proves they’re right.”

A law professor weighs in as well…

Mark Fenster, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law who has written extensively on conspiracy theories, said he sees similarities between people who argue that the Moon landings never happened and those who insist that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the government and that President Obama’s birth certificate is fake: at the core, he said, is a polarization so profound that people end up with an unshakable belief that those in power “simply can’t be trusted.”

The emergence of the Internet as a communications medium, he noted, makes it possible for once-scattered believers to find one another. “It allows the theory to continue to exist, to continue to be available — it’s not just some old dusty books on the half-price shelf.”

Read more.

EurekAlert posted a press release this morning about a new study out of Brandeis University based on a content analysis of a prayer book housed in a Baltimore hospital. The study lends important insight into the details of individual prayers – an important subject of study given that 90% of Americans pray and more than half do so once a day or more. The release suggests that prayers can be large, such as good health, employment, and enduring relationships or small, including such assistance as finding parking spaces or missing objects.

The study found that prayer writers seek general strength, support, and blessing from their prayers, rather than explicit solutions to life’s difficult situations, and, more often than not, frame their prayers broadly enough to allow multiple outcomes to be interpreted as evidence of their prayers being answered.

Sociologist Wendy Cadge, the lead author, worked with others to conduct an analysis of 683 individuals prayers written between 1999 and 2005. The researchers found that “prayers fell into one of three categories: about 28 percent of the prayers were requests of God, while 28 percent were prayers to both thank and petition God, while another 22 percent of the prayers thanked God.”

“If researchers studying religion and health take seriously even the possibility that prayer may influence health, they need to learn more about what people pray for, how they pray, and what they hope will result from their prayers,” says Cadge. “The information in this study serves as general background and informs the mechanisms through which religion may influence health.”

Read more.

USA Today reports this morning about fears surrounding the Large Hadron Collider, a $6 billion experiment in particle physics, which was launched in early October with phenomenal proton-smashing results. The collider made it through nine days of operations before shutting down due to technical difficulties. USA Today writes, “The collider — a 16.6-mile underground race track that will smash protons together in an attempt to re-create conditions from the beginnings of the universe — is the most recent example of a scientific experiment that taps into the public’s deep reserve of doomsday fears.”

Only a sociologist can sort this out…

There is something in the human psyche that makes us view some innovations or research with great suspicion, fearing that careless scientists will blow us all to kingdom come, says sociologist Robert Bartholomew, author of the 2001 book Little Green Men, Meowing Nuns and Head-Hunting Panics: A Study of Mass Psychogenic Illness and Social Delusion. “People see what they expect to see in a search for certainty, especially during times of crisis, as they attempt to confirm their worst fears and greatest hopes.”

Lack of understanding, “combined with anxiety, has been responsible for scares of all sorts over the centuries,” he notes, ranging from witchcraft trials to UFO sightings. Scares often arise from such anxieties as war jitters, including the phantom zeppelin sightings that convulsed Great Britain before World War I.

After describing a number of different ‘scientific nightmares’ from the last century, sociologist Robert Bartholomew claims that the Large Hadron Collider has joined the ranks…

“I believe this is a social delusion with legs,” Bartholomew says. After all, the actual collisions of protons at the lab won’t start again until spring, when he believes fears will resurface that the colliding protons will create black holes in the same way that imploding stars do in space.

“In the case of the ‘Collider Calamity,’ believers are likely to redouble their efforts to stop the experiments, and their numbers are likely to grow in the short term,” Bartholomew says. “Most ‘believers’ seem to think Armageddon will happen when the experiments become more sophisticated.”

Read the full story.