Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Preliminary Evidence from Climate Science, Climate Policy, Astrophysics, and Public Opinion

TL;DR

This study explores how experts and non-experts perceive disagreement in climate science and astrophysics, revealing differences in beliefs about the causes and significance of disagreements in these fields.

Contribution

It provides preliminary evidence on expert and public perceptions of disagreement, highlighting differences between climate scientists and astrophysicists regarding the nature and acknowledgment of scientific disputes.

Findings

Climate experts see less disagreement than non-experts.

Astrophysicists are more open to multiple interpretations and disagreement.

Discipline-specific perceptions influence views on scientific controversy.

Abstract

We report the results of an exploratory study that examines the judgments of climate scientists, climate policy experts, astrophysicists, and non-experts (N = 3,367) about the factors that contribute to the creation and persistence of disagreement within climate science and astrophysics. We found that, as compared to educated non-experts, climate experts believe that there is less disagreement within climate science about climate change and that methodological factors and personal or institutional biases play less significant roles in generating existing disagreements than is commonly reported or assumed. We also found that, commensurate with the greater inherent uncertainty and data lacunae in their field, astrophysicists working on cosmic rays were generally more willing to acknowledge expert disagreement, more open to the idea that a set of data can have multiple valid interpretations, and generally less quick to dismiss someone articulating a non-standard view as non-expert, than climate scientists.