Search results

Prior research has attributed the socio-economic disparity in COVID-19 infections to differences in degrees of exposure or economic resources. This study proposes beliefs about COVID-19 as a potential additional explanation. We conducted a nationally representative US survey with six measures of COVID-19 beliefs. Socio-economic status was measured through educational level. Compared with less-educated respondents, highly educated respondents treat COVID-19 more seriously, including believing in (1) face mask use, (2) asymptomatic transmission, (3) media non-exaggeration, (4) the necessity of stay-at-home orders, (5) a likelihood of themselves being infected with COVID-19 and (6) no protection of God against COVID-19. The educational gradient in COVID-19 beliefs was largely explained by differential levels of belief in science across education. Our findings suggest that encouraging public trust in science can potentially reduce the educational gradient in COVID-19 infections in the USA.

This study uses a media dependency theory approach for investigating the effect of exposure to media science information on people's beliefs about science and technology. The results of a commonality analysis of social locator, public affairs media use, and exposure to media science information indicate that feeling competent about handling scientific information and being enthusiastic about scientific and technological advances are most strongly related to exposure to media science information, while beliefs about specific science and technology issues (disarmament, the need to maintain scientific and technical superiority for national security reasons) depend more on social location and public affairs media exposure.

Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradox is an innovative two-part volume that enriches our understanding about paradox; both deepening the theory and offering greater insight to address the grand challenges we face in the world today. Authors demonstrate how paradox theory benefits from interdisciplinary theorizing by reaching out to disciplines beyond organizational theory and exploring best practice in undertaking such research. The 13 chapters in this double volume draw from four disciplinary realms: beliefs, physicality, expression, and social structure. Unique commentaries from thought leaders expand and assess the focal pieces of each volume. Part A: Learning from Belief and Science, explores the realms of beliefs - from Ubuntu, Ying-Yang, Christian and Islamic philosophies - and physicality - from quantum mechanics, technology, to ecology - with reflective commentaries from Jean M. Bartunek and Mary Frohlich, and Andrew Van de Ven.

Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradoxis an innovative two-part volume that enriches our understanding about paradox; both deepening the theory and offering greater insight to address grand challenges we face in the world today. Part A: Learning from Belief and Science explores the realms of beliefs and physicality.

Title page -- Imprint -- Table of contents -- About the author -- Preface -- Introduction -- 1. Our very strange situation -- 2. Design -- 3. Values -- 4. Morality -- 5. Religious experience -- 6. Necessary being -- 7. Order -- 8. Intelligibility -- Conclusion -- Notes

Indigenous people around the world have been particularly vocal about climate change as a challenge to their cosmovision—or traditional worldview—resulting in demands for protection of the earth as part of their core beliefs. Is this because indigenous people are the most vulnerable, and feel the impact of climate change more directly? Or is it because of the centrality of the earth to their traditional beliefs? Using survey evidence from Ecuador, we examine how indigenous cosmovision, science, and vulnerability influence the belief that climate change exists. On the basis of one-on-one interviews with indigenous leaders in Ecuador, we argue that both traditional beliefs and Western science inform citizen views of climate change. We discuss the implications of these findings, arguing that rather than competing with science, the Kichwa-based cosmovision complements Western scientific efforts to combat climate change. We also find that proximity to oil extraction is an important determinant of belief in climate change in Ecuador, suggesting that conceptualizations of vulnerability should be tailored to the particular experiences of individuals.

The issue of knowing what it means for a group to have collective beliefs is being discussed more and more in contemporary philosophy of the social sciences and philosophy of mind. Margaret Gilbert's reconsideration of Durkheim's viewpoint in the framework of the plural subject's account is one of the most famous. This has implications in the history and the sociology of science—as well asin the history and sociology of philosophy—although Gilbert only outlined them in the former fields and said nothing about the latter. Symmetrically but independently, a historian of science, Mara Beller, has recently challenged Kuhn's conception of the role of consensus in sciences in a brilliant analysis by carefully studying the history of Copenhagen School of Quantum Mechanics. Not only does she show the role of disagreement and controversies (doubting whether there was any collective belief characteristic in this group of physicists), but she even shakes up the very idea of individual beliefs. Each scientist (Heisenberg, Bohr, etc.) could be seen as divided into several selves. This paper contends that these two conceptions open important new horizons in several domains, especially if they are linked together. The paper assesses this claim in the light of empirical examples like the Vienna Circle, Copenhagen School, and, eventually, Cartesian philosophy.