Not very well, claims a study recently published in Nature. The principle claim is that "laypeople interpret IPCC statements as conveying probabilities closer to 50% than intended by the IPCC authors." In other words, if the IPCC uses a term to convey that a hypothesis is 90% likely, people intepret it to mean that the hypothesis is significantly less than 90% likely. And mutatis mutandis if the hypothesis is highly unlikely: people intepret the phrase to mean something closer to 50% then the authors of the report intend.
recent posts
- Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 2): Hegel under Erasure
- Protecting Data: Regulation, Contract, or Privacy
- Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 1): Have you had your Stalin today?
- Algorithmic Right to an Explanation (or not) and the non-ideal US Legal System
- New paper: “Erasing Agonism: How Algorithmic Governance goes further than Leviathan”
New APPS 
Leave a comment