Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Modern liberal theorists such as Rawls argue that individuals with diverse religious commitments only need to agree on political issues in order to construct a pluralistic society. However, historically, not all liberal theorists conceived of pluralism and religious toleration in strictly civil terms. While theorists and popular opinion have portrayed Voltaire as a champion of individual liberty in order to signify his commitment to a pluralistic society where religious diversity is valued, Voltaire’s writings complicate our conventional understandings of religious toleration by taking seriously the substantive religious commitments of individuals for the purpose of constructing a stable political community. Moreover, while Voltaire is nominally committed to toleration, the way that he conceives of the kinds of individuals that society ought to consist does not resemble a theory on toleration at all. If toleration is about how individuals with substantive religious disagreements get along in society, then Voltaire’s society of individuals who subscribe to more or less a basic form of theism does not demand toleration. After all, in the absence of substantive disagreement, toleration is an empty term.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Over the last decade there has been a significant evolution of American public opinion regarding global warming. During this time period residents of the United States have indicated increased awareness of the issue, growing belief that the climate is changing and higher levels of concern regarding the impact that this phenomenon will have on the planet. While most Americans indicate a belief in the reality of global warming, little is known about the reasons why they believe this phenomenon is occurring. For example, has this increased public acceptance of climate change been caused by exposure to scientific evidence which demonstrates changes to the earth’s climate, or has the change in public belief in global warming resulted more from the personal observations and experiences of individuals? And while a majority of Americans do acknowledge belief in anthropogenic induced global warming, what factors have led millions of United States residents to express disbelief in this well publicized matter?
In this paper we seek to shed insight into the determinants of individual belief in global warming through a multi-faceted survey research design in which Americans provided detailed information regarding the effect of various factors on their views regarding climate change. Interviews with over 2100 respondents, including oversamples in four diverse states, provide evidence that American attitudes towards climate change are being shaped as much by their personal experiences as from scientific and physical evidence. The survey findings also indicate that partisan affiliation, rather than other individual level characteristics, forms the dominant lens through which this issue of climate change is viewed by citizens of the United States.

Publication Type: Symposium Paper
Abstract: The present study explores the idea that alibi evidence is often perceived as an ‘excuse’ rather than as information supporting the innocence of an accused. It was hypothesized that participants would assign more negative ratings when provided with exculpatory evidence labeled as an ‘alibi’ or an ‘excuse’ compared to the same evidence described in the form of a ‘statement’. Participants read case summaries that included both incriminating eyewitness and exculpatory alibi evidence and completed questionnaires evaluating their perceptions of the honesty and credibility of witnesses providing this information, as well as guilt of the suspect in the case. Results will be discussed in the context of wrongful conviction cases.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Television news is an individual’s main source for knowledge about politics. It is predispositions, especially ideology, that influence what news channel one watches and ultimately what news channel one believes. This paper focuses on the difference in believability of two popular news channels: FOX and CNN. I hypothesize that ideology influences news channel believability, namely that conservatives will believe FOX and liberals will believe CNN. The results of the regression analysis are presented and discussed. Findings show that ideology is a significant factor in how much one believes the two news channels.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Why do particular people situated in particular contexts believe in the veracity of a particular understanding of the world? This paper develops a model of believing in which beliefs are understood as fundamentally social processes which can, however, at the margins escape social control. I will discuss how beliefs emerge, are maintained and disintegrate in fields of validation at the intersection of three validating forces which are constituted and orchestrated by epistemic ideologies and practices. These forces are: recognitions as effects of communications with others in networks of authority; corroborating experiences which relate events to beliefs; and finally the resonances that new or reevaluated beliefs engender with older beliefs. By thus moving processes of validation to the center of the stage, I am attempting to overcome limitations set by models which see beliefs as objects "in" minds on the one extreme and beliefs as slippages between texts on the other. I will illustrate the workings of a field of validation by following how one man became to be not only a convinced socialist, but also a secret police officer who firmly believed that any kind of oppositional activity would undermine the stability of socialism.