Comments on: Scientists Talking to the Public http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:34:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Scott http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27333 Scott Mon, 21 May 2007 10:27:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27333 I found a good idea for communicating science to the adult public. <a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/316495_ontap21.html" rel="nofollow">add beer</a> I found a good idea for communicating science to the adult public.
add beer

]]> By: Dark Energy Fundamentalism: Simon White Lays the Smackdown | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27345 Dark Energy Fundamentalism: Simon White Lays the Smackdown | Cosmic Variance Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:30:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27345 [...] I kind of agree, actually. More specifically, this is one of those cases where I disagree with all of the background philosophizing, but am sympathetic to the ultimate conclusions. (In contrast to the framing discussion, where I’m sympathetic to the philosophizing but disagree when it comes down to specific recommendations.) Dark energy is extremely interesting, and any little bit of info we can get about it is useful; on the other hand, there is a fairly narrow set of things that we can do to get info about it, and concentrating on doing those things to the detriment of the rest of astronomy would be a bad thing. Happily, astronomy is one of those nice fields in which it’s hard to learn about one thing without learning about something else; in particular, as the dark energy task force has recognized, the actual things that can be usefully observed in an attempt to get at dark energy will inevitably teach us many interesting things about galaxies, clusters, and large-scale structure. [...] […] I kind of agree, actually. More specifically, this is one of those cases where I disagree with all of the background philosophizing, but am sympathetic to the ultimate conclusions. (In contrast to the framing discussion, where I’m sympathetic to the philosophizing but disagree when it comes down to specific recommendations.) Dark energy is extremely interesting, and any little bit of info we can get about it is useful; on the other hand, there is a fairly narrow set of things that we can do to get info about it, and concentrating on doing those things to the detriment of the rest of astronomy would be a bad thing. Happily, astronomy is one of those nice fields in which it’s hard to learn about one thing without learning about something else; in particular, as the dark energy task force has recognized, the actual things that can be usefully observed in an attempt to get at dark energy will inevitably teach us many interesting things about galaxies, clusters, and large-scale structure. […]

]]> By: Are we being framed? « Skeptigator http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27321 Are we being framed? « Skeptigator Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:01:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27321 [...] The issue was kicked off by a recent article (gated) by Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet in Science magazine. Here is a smattering of the posts that have taken place, Framing Science - A Dialog of the Deaf, Framing Science or Dumbing it down, Framing Science sparks a seismic blog debate (some cool comments here), What if the right role for science is to shatter the frame?, Scientists Armed With Frames, Scientists talking to the public, A Tale of Three Interviews (from Real Climate, puts the topic of framing in the context of some recent media interviews on global climate change), Framing and the Invisible College, Fear of the frame (perhaps the longest but does a great job of discussing the pros and cons and has some great comments). [...] […] The issue was kicked off by a recent article (gated) by Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet in Science magazine. Here is a smattering of the posts that have taken place, Framing Science - A Dialog of the Deaf, Framing Science or Dumbing it down, Framing Science sparks a seismic blog debate (some cool comments here), What if the right role for science is to shatter the frame?, Scientists Armed With Frames, Scientists talking to the public, A Tale of Three Interviews (from Real Climate, puts the topic of framing in the context of some recent media interviews on global climate change), Framing and the Invisible College, Fear of the frame (perhaps the longest but does a great job of discussing the pros and cons and has some great comments). […]

]]> By: Eric http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27329 Eric Mon, 16 Apr 2007 02:10:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27329 The proponents of "framing" have some interesting points to make, but this is the third time in recent years they've come around making these claims. The first was George Lakoff with "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1931498717/ref=s9_asin_title_1-hf_favarsnfggenpx_2267_p/002-6085700-1272007?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=04G4JMCE9NP0DEPWV32X&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240701&pf_rd_i=507846" rel="nofollow">Don't Think of an Elephant</a>" in 2004. Then came Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shallenberger with "<a href="http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf" rel="nofollow">Death of Environmentalism</a>." The playbook for these guys was: * Make a big stir by accusing some portion of the "the establishment" of screwing up their communications * Promise to solve the problem, if only some funders will cough up big bucks for research. Use copious buzzwords to describe the research you intend to conduct. * Disappear without making any actual specific recommendations for what the target of their critique could do better. Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet have followed the first two steps of this playbook to the letter. Let's hope they break the pattern and actually put forward some useful suggestions on how the scientific community can do a better job. If not, start the clock ticking on their 15 minutes. Eric http://waterwordsthatwork.com The proponents of “framing” have some interesting points to make, but this is the third time in recent years they’ve come around making these claims. The first was George Lakoff with “Don’t Think of an Elephant” in 2004. Then came Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shallenberger with “Death of Environmentalism.” The playbook for these guys was:

* Make a big stir by accusing some portion of the “the establishment” of screwing up their communications

* Promise to solve the problem, if only some funders will cough up big bucks for research. Use copious buzzwords to describe the research you intend to conduct.

* Disappear without making any actual specific recommendations for what the target of their critique could do better.

Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet have followed the first two steps of this playbook to the letter. Let’s hope they break the pattern and actually put forward some useful suggestions on how the scientific community can do a better job.

If not, start the clock ticking on their 15 minutes.

Eric
http://waterwordsthatwork.com

]]> By: Greg Laden http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27340 Greg Laden Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:40:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27340 I don't agree with several of your points. For instance, the core of the "global warming" issue is the role of anthropogeneic release of CO2 as a cause of warming. This is not seriously disputed. With respect to evolution, your point is correct but the discordance between religious views and scientific views, as you suggest (we are in agreement here, I think) a problem for the religious leaders, institutions, individuals, etc. to deal with. The stem cell issue is obviously tricker. Personally, I think that the concept that a stem cell is a person, or that discarded embryos are protected, is absurd. Across the globe this varies considerably across cultures. The fact that the degree to which there is public and political weight behind the idea that a jar of cells is protected by the US constitution is an outcome of the widespread evangelical fundamentalism in the US, and the degree to which this issue is important is roughly correlated to this effect, at least according to a stem cell guy I just heard on PBS a moment ago... So while evangelical fundamentalism may be some kind of a "right" it is also a huge social and political problem. I don’t agree with several of your points. For instance, the core of the “global warming” issue is the role of anthropogeneic release of CO2 as a cause of warming. This is not seriously disputed.

With respect to evolution, your point is correct but the discordance between religious views and scientific views, as you suggest (we are in agreement here, I think) a problem for the religious leaders, institutions, individuals, etc. to deal with.

The stem cell issue is obviously tricker. Personally, I think that the concept that a stem cell is a person, or that discarded embryos are protected, is absurd. Across the globe this varies considerably across cultures. The fact that the degree to which there is public and political weight behind the idea that a jar of cells is protected by the US constitution is an outcome of the widespread evangelical fundamentalism in the US, and the degree to which this issue is important is roughly correlated to this effect, at least according to a stem cell guy I just heard on PBS a moment ago…

So while evangelical fundamentalism may be some kind of a “right” it is also a huge social and political problem.

]]> By: The Framosphere at Greg Laden http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27341 The Framosphere at Greg Laden Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:17:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27341 [...] Scientists Talking to the Public [...] […] Scientists Talking to the Public […]

]]> By: Clarke http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27331 Clarke Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:45:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27331 Welcome to post-rational science! Stem cell research is not solely a scientific issue. It is the moral issue that is being debated. Scientists have no more of a claim on the morality of medical research than any other member of society. The evolution/creationism debate is also not one of science, but one of philosophy. There is no science of 'creationism' because it is not falsifiable. It should not be taught in science class, but scientists have no more insight than the next guy on philosophy. The climate change debate is one of science and is still very much debated in scientific circles. While there is little argument that the world is warmer today than 200 years ago, CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas and that it is increasing, nearly everything else about the science is being contested by qualified scientists. The IPCC reports are not all-encompassing summations of the science, but targeted 'cherry-picks' in which equally valid interpretations of the data are discarded for interpretations that fit the preconceived assumptions of those driving the process. Inconvenient data that is contrary to the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of global climate change is simply ignored in the process. The fact that Nisbet and Mooney have already 'framed' the science of global climate change in a less than factual way, indicates the true nature and purpose of their argument. The purpose is to forward an agenda through deception. As a scientist, it is important to be able to communicate what we know and do not know about the world around us. This can be done with energy, skill and enthusiasm! But it is the opposite of all that science stands for to persuade people through emotional rhetoric, as Nisbet and Mooney are practicing and encouraging. If that is your goal, become a lawyer, because sooner or later you will lose all credibility as a scientist. Welcome to post-rational science!

Stem cell research is not solely a scientific issue. It is the moral issue that is being debated. Scientists have no more of a claim on the morality of medical research than any other member of society.

The evolution/creationism debate is also not one of science, but one of philosophy. There is no science of ‘creationism’ because it is not falsifiable. It should not be taught in science class, but scientists have no more insight than the next guy on philosophy.

The climate change debate is one of science and is still very much debated in scientific circles. While there is little argument that the world is warmer today than 200 years ago, CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas and that it is increasing, nearly everything else about the science is being contested by qualified scientists.

The IPCC reports are not all-encompassing summations of the science, but targeted ‘cherry-picks’ in which equally valid interpretations of the data are discarded for interpretations that fit the preconceived assumptions of those driving the process. Inconvenient data that is contrary to the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of global climate change is simply ignored in the process.

The fact that Nisbet and Mooney have already ‘framed’ the science of global climate change in a less than factual way, indicates the true nature and purpose of their argument. The purpose is to forward an agenda through deception.

As a scientist, it is important to be able to communicate what we know and do not know about the world around us. This can be done with energy, skill and enthusiasm! But it is the opposite of all that science stands for to persuade people through emotional rhetoric, as Nisbet and Mooney are practicing and encouraging.

If that is your goal, become a lawyer, because sooner or later you will lose all credibility as a scientist.

]]> By: Greg Laden http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27322 Greg Laden Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:42:50 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27322 I agree with most of your yes/no bulleted points, but I'd like to add a couple of nuances. First, the way Nesbit and Mooney and people in social psychology and related fields use "framing" is really the same idea as "spinning" ... making something sound better to a particular audience. But the idea originally comes from an idea in anthropology (called Frame Analysis) that has more to do with how people find common meaning in communication. See: http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=669 On communication: There are contexts in which scientists do communicate with their colleagues in the same way (or at least an overlapping way) that they would communicate with the public. This presumes that there are a lot of different "publics" ... audiences .... ranging in background and sophistication. In many fields, scientists have to communicate to fellow scientists who are not in their own field, sometimes in interdisciplinary work, sometimes in grant proposal writing. I have maintained that scientists as a whole should not be assumed to be poor communicators. (see:http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=398) The really big issue is probably the downsizing you point out. The paper you point out does not have the data to support that assertion. Nisbet and Mooney also make this assertion and I don't think they have any data either (I don't remember). But as more and more people believe this someone is going to have to go find out if it is true and, if it is, why it is happening. Nice post! I agree with most of your yes/no bulleted points, but I’d like to add a couple of nuances.

First, the way Nesbit and Mooney and people in social psychology and related fields use “framing” is really the same idea as “spinning” … making something sound better to a particular audience. But the idea originally comes from an idea in anthropology (called Frame Analysis) that has more to do with how people find common meaning in communication. See:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=669

On communication: There are contexts in which scientists do communicate with their colleagues in the same way (or at least an overlapping way) that they would communicate with the public. This presumes that there are a lot of different “publics” … audiences …. ranging in background and sophistication. In many fields, scientists have to communicate to fellow scientists who are not in their own field, sometimes in interdisciplinary work, sometimes in grant proposal writing.

I have maintained that scientists as a whole should not be assumed to be poor communicators.

(see:http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=398)

The really big issue is probably the downsizing you point out. The paper you point out does not have the data to support that assertion. Nisbet and Mooney also make this assertion and I don’t think they have any data either (I don’t remember). But as more and more people believe this someone is going to have to go find out if it is true and, if it is, why it is happening.

Nice post!

]]> By: Science After Sunclipse http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27339 Science After Sunclipse Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:02:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27339 <strong>I Was Framed!</strong> Not too long ago, the way the outside world tells time, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney published a paper in Science on the topic of “Framing.” Well, ’tweren’t really a paper — truth be told, it was more like an Op-Ed wi... I Was Framed!

Not too long ago, the way the outside world tells time, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney published a paper in Science on the topic of “Framing.” Well, ’tweren’t really a paper — truth be told, it was more like an Op-Ed wi…

]]> By: Clark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27330 Clark Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:45:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/09/scientists-talking-to-the-public/#comment-27330 I agree completely with you. While one can always point to the scientists who do a poor job communicating, realistically the problem isn't the scientists it is the journalists and perhaps teachers. But journalists probably are the worst. <i>All</i> aspects of journalism in the US at this stage are bad. Poor international coverage. Poor science coverage. More emphasis on sensationalism than content. The idea of "balance" being finding someone who agrees and someone who disagrees. I agree completely with you. While one can always point to the scientists who do a poor job communicating, realistically the problem isn’t the scientists it is the journalists and perhaps teachers. But journalists probably are the worst. All aspects of journalism in the US at this stage are bad. Poor international coverage. Poor science coverage. More emphasis on sensationalism than content. The idea of “balance” being finding someone who agrees and someone who disagrees.

]]>