An interesting (and influential, at least in my case) paper on this topic is
Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation by Daniel Bedford, a professor at Weber State University, Utah.
«
Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation.»
You might argue that e.g. global - warming deniers are not ignorant, as they are typically well aware of the body of scientific knowledge that they choose to actively disbelieve, so they are not a proper subject of
agnotology as I understand it.
Not exact matches
He identifies this kind of argument
as part of the Neoliberal toolkit and notes the new word introduced to ease discussion of this new form of public «debate» — «
agnotology» [which I understand to mean a deliberate multiplication of contrasting viewpoints intended to confuse and delay meaningful response].
An observation on the discussion on
agnotology:
as I read the arguments of TonyG, for example, the implication of his argument about what we know and need to know about climate change before we do anything seems to be that unless we have totally complete and utterly accurate knowledge of some matter relevant to an issue, say the reality of climate change, we should do nothing.
Leaving aside the class / cultural analysis implicit in the term «bogan», which I think is wrong, the argument is the same
as I made in my post on
agnotology,
as his characterization of Rudd
as a technocrat, not really at ease with the kind of politics that includes demands for authenticity and so on.
If you're claiming that uncertainty means we can not know whether we're affecting the climate and temps can just
as well go down
as up, the fit with
agnotology is clear.