Gonzaga University Repository
Not a member yet
2718 research outputs found
Sort by
How to Fight Fake News About Climate Change
Get PDFThere’s overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is happening and humans are the cause. However, there’s also a mountain of misinformation designed to confuse the public about climate change. How do we respond to the firehose of falsehoods? One way to effectively neutralize the influence of misinformation is inoculation. This takes the idea of vaccination and applies it to knowledge—we can build immunity to misinformation by exposing people to a weakened form of misinformation. In other words, expose the misleading techniques used in misinformation. Not only does this approach neutralize the influence of science denial, it can turn misinformation into an educational opportunity and improve critical thinking. Dr. John Cook will outline his psychological and critical thinking research into countering misinformation and demonstrate with visual examples.
John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. His research focus is understanding and countering misinformation about climate change, with an emphasis on using critical thinking to build resilience. He founded Skeptical Science and authored the book Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change, combining climate science, critical thinking, and cartoons to explain and counter climate misinformation. He also co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts and Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand
Spokane Candidates Climate Change Forum 2021
Get PDFSpokane Candidates Climate Change Forum logo What do local candidates for office think about climate change? How will it affect your vote in November? To aid citizens in their democratic deliberations, Gonzaga’s Center for Climate, Society, and the Environment is proud to host the Spokane Candidates Climate Change Forum on the first Wednesday each October
The Rights of Nature: Saving the Planet or Harmful to Humanity?
Get PDFThe Gonzaga University Center for Climate, Society, and the Environment presents, a moderated debate with Thomas Linzey and Wesley J. Smith on The Rights of Nature: Saving the Planet or Harmful to Humanity? hosted by Brian G. Henning, Director of the Gonzaga Center for Climate, Society, and the Environment, Professor of Philosophy and Environmental Studies.
Proponents of the rights of nature argue that the environmental regulatory system – which treats nature as merely property to be owned – has failed to protect nature and our own life support systems, and that a radical change in the law is needed which re-positions humanity in the role of a guardian or trustee of the best interests of those natural systems.
Opponents of this approach see recognizing the rights of nature as inappropriate and ultimately demeaning to the special dignity of the human person – undermining a rights-based system of law which makes humans exceptional.
The leading proponent and opponent will come together to debate this important issue.
Thomas Linzey is an attorney and senior legal counsel for the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights (CDER). He is widely recognized as the founder of the contemporary “community rights” and “rights of nature” movements, which have resulted in the adoption of several hundred municipal laws across the United States. Linzey’s work has been featured in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, and the Nation magazine, and he was named, in 2007, as one of Forbes’ magazines’ “Top Ten Revolutionaries.” In 2018, Linzey was named by American Environmental Leaders as one of the top 400 environmentalists of the last 200 years. He is the author of several books, and has been featured in Leonardo DiCaprio and Tree Media’s films 11th Hour and We the People 2.0.
Wesley J. Smith is an attorney, and serves as Chair and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Since 1985, he has published thousands of articles, columns, and opinion pieces on issues pertaining to the moral importance of human life, addressing the entire spectrum of bioethical issues relating to conscience, patient protection, eugenics, suicide, transhumanism, medical ethics, and law and policy. His writing has appeared in Newsweek, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Forbes, among others, and he has appeared on more than a thousand television and radio talk/interview programs, including ABC Nightline, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, CNN Anderson Cooper 360, CNN World Report. He has testified as an expert witness in front of federal and state legislative committees, and is an international lecturer and public speaker
Efficacy as Safety: Dominant Cultural Assumptions and the Assessment of Contraceptive Risk
Get PDFTo reduce rates of unintended pregnancy, medical and public health associations endorse a contraceptive counseling model that ranks birth control methods by failure rate. This tiered model outlines all forms of birth control but recommends long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) to eliminate user error and increase continuation. Our critical discourse analysis of gynecology textbooks and medical recommendations examines how gendered and neoliberal ideas influence risk assessments underlying the tiered contraceptive counseling model. Specifically, we explore how embodied, lifestyle, and medical risks are constructed to prioritize contraceptive failure over adverse side effects and reproductive autonomy. We find that the tiered model\u27s focus on contraceptive failure is justified by a discourse that speciously conflates distinct characteristics of pharmaceuticals: efficacy (ability to produce intended effect) and safety (lack of unintended adverse outcomes). Efficacy discourse, which filters all logic through the lens of intended effect, magnifies lifestyle and embodied risks over medical risks by constructing two biased risk assessments. The first risk assessment defines ovulation, menstruation, and pregnancy as hazardous (i.e., embodied risk); the second insinuates that cisgender women who do not engage in contraceptive self-management are burdensome to society (i.e., lifestyle risk). Combined, these assessments downplay side effects (i.e., medical risks), suggesting that LARC and other pharma-contraceptives are worth the risk to protect cisgender women from their fertile bodies and to guard society against unintended pregnancy. Through this process, ranking birth control methods by failure rates rather than by side effects or reproductive autonomy becomes logical as efficacy is equated with safety for cisgender women and society. Our analysis reveals how technoscientific solutions are promoted to address social problems, and how informed contraceptive choice is diminished when pharma-contraceptives are framed as the most logical option without cogent descriptions of their associated risks
Word, Lemma, and Part of Speech (Newspaper)
No full textCorpus of Historical American English in word, lemma, part of speech format.
Zip folder contains 16 .txt files of historical linguistic data from newspaper sources, from 1860 to 2010.
Texts are separated by a line with ## and the textID
Turning up the Heat: Taking Your Library’s Open Access Journal Publishing Services to the Next Level
Get PDFEditorial Introduction
Get PDFFor the past fifteen years I have written almost exclusively about American warfare in some capacity. As a Communication Studies scholar, my interest in war stems from its exemplary failure. War is communication through force; it is a last resort. As I continue to think, write, and reflect on the subject, I recognize that at the heart of my fascination with war is its inducement. How do we arrive at a warlike mind? On top of that, knowing what we know about war’s horror and trauma, why do we keep doing it? I’m not sure I will ever arrive at a satisfying answer to the latter question but speaking with colleagues in the field of hate studies is helping me understand the first. A historical survey of the zeitgeists surrounding America’s most prominent wars highlights the conspicuous role of hatred. Hate is a response to a perceived threat and is linked to feelings of fear and a loss of control. Thus, war might be conceived of as an international expression of hate
Kenneth S. Stern’s, \u3ci\u3eThe Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate\u3c/i\u3e [2020 Toronto and Buffalo: The New Jewish Press/University of Toronto Press. $29.95]
Get PDFThe Conflict Over the Conflict is an important contribution to the overall literature regarding the (seeming) turmoil on many of our college and university campuses—but not all, including my own where controversial issues surface rarely if at all—vis-à-vis the Israel/Palestine conflict, free speech and controversial speakers, and the like. Stern brings to the discussion not only his lawyerly training and his skill set, but, as of late, his directorship of the academic Bard College Center for the Study of Hate and thus combining both with a singular focus. Even more importantly, perhaps, his firm commitment to the campus as the locale for both the “free and open marketplace of ideas” and the true responsibility to teach properly young and growing minds capable of learning and discerning truth from falsehood and distortion shine forth with crystal clarity
