Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
I hadn't really made up my mind about the whole framing issue, up until now. I have been somewhat skeptical of the idea as related by some of its practitioners, mainly because I felt that they did not properly understand the religious landscape they were trying to operate in. The despicable hit piece on PZ over at Framing Science pretty much decides it for me. I think the piece is a perfect example of the anti-rationalism and obfuscation that has largely propelled the Republican war on science. The post owes much to the Willie Horton ads in the juxtaposition of a scruffy looking PZ with the nattily dressed DJ Grothe. A vile, despicable trick if you ask me.
But this is a perfect example of the strategy that framing embraces. Truth is irrelevant as long as you can swindle folks into accepting what ever nonsense you fling their way. From Mooney's The Republican War on Science:
Political actors should never place unreasonable gag orders on what scientists in government can say or with whom they can communicate.
*snip*
Finally, one of the most disturbing phenomena discussed in this book involves attacks on individual scientists aimed at discrediting their work.
Yet this is exactly what Nisbet is trying to do. Granted he is not the government, but he is still trying to gag PZ and this latest post is certainly attempt to discredit him.
Again from Mooney's book:
One of the most common attempts to skew science occurs when politicians handpick experts whose views coincide with what they want to hear, even when the vast majority of scientists believe something else. Rather than cherry-picking specific scientific findings, these science abusers cherry-pick expertise itself.
Right on cue we have Nisbet quoting, approvingly, from an article in the National Catholic Register. Hardly an unbiased source, and one which reinforces Nisbet's preconceptions about PZ. An article that quotes Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. Now Donohue may not be Fred Phelps, but he does not represent the mainstream of Catholicism in America - just a powerful fringe. Which is a problem. Nisbet seems more concerned with not pissing of the powerful than he is with some sort of rational analysis of the perceived problem.
In Nisbet's post, we get a miniature version of the republican war on science, in effect we get Karl Rove's strategy manual applied to science communication. What is true or not true is decided, not by rational analysis, but by who can come up with the most vile slander and who can confuse the most people. In short, framing is diametrically opposed to everything science stands for and in the future I would not be surprised to see a post on Nisbet's blog proclaiming PZ to be the anti-christ.
Update 1: In reading over the above post I would like to clarify a couple of points. Nisbet argues that we need to appeal to moderate religionists and build a coalition with them, yet in his approval of Donahue and the National Catholic Register he is embracing the extreme right of the Catholic church. This is a contradiction and needs explanation. I can think of a three, perhaps there are others.
1) Nisbet is clueless about who the moderates in the Catholic church are. If so, it doesn't say much about his competence to carry off his strategy.
2) Nisbet has cherry-picked Donahue and the National Catholic Register because the post isn't about communicating science, it's about flinging sleaze at whoever disagrees with him. So really, it's not "Framing Science" but framing scientists.
3) For Nisbet 'Framing Science" consists of pandering to, and not antagonizing, the politically powerful and communicating science is about communicating whatever bits of science powers that be deem acceptable. Kind of like the way Fox reports the news.
None of which reflect highly on Nisbet. The tactics Nisbet is embracing are the same tactics the Republicans have been using to screw over scientists and scientific programs since the time of Reagan at least. Truth be told if I had a choice between framing as advocated by Nisbet or having creationism taught in every school in the country, I'd go with the later as I have no wish to crawl into the sewer with Nisbet.
Comments
I can hear PZ's reaction to that picture of him now, "I looked good that day."
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 8, 2008 9:22 PM
PZ looks like a cuddly teddy bear to me.
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | August 8, 2008 10:18 PM
I have to agree that Matt's latest post was quite dismaying -- and does nothing to further his cause. For some reason, he's opted to make PZ a "poster child" for framing the whole "science and religion debate," and that's just too bad. It prolongs a pointless conflict that should have died down long ago.
But it's not the concept of framing that's at fault here. There is much that can be said in favor of certain aspects of "framing." Most of us "frame" things, we just don't call it that. And now even fewer people will.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | August 8, 2008 10:27 PM
In the event that my comment over there on Nisbet's post is not approved in moderation, I'll mirror it here:
Nisbet should visit my local school district where the fundamentalists have been trying to jam creationism into the public schools and who are running political interference for a science teacher who for years has been operating what amounts to a fundamentalist Christian private school embedded in the public school system. Without benefit of appearances by PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, the "atheist" epithet is tossed around as an insult, stuffed in the face not only of the few genuine atheists here but also of the moderate Christians who oppose the fundamentalists' efforts.
Nisbet lives in an academic fantasy world. He apparently believes that this is some sort of rational discussion with people who are susceptible to reason, and that calm discourse with fundamentalist loons is an effective strategy. Well, come on down here, bunky, and reason rationally with the Christian Dominionists who are infecting my school district.
I note with interest and not a little disdain that Nisbet was pusillanimous enough to post this on the day when, as was publicly announced on Pharyngula, PZ left the country for a trip to the Galapagos and will have spotty web access. That's just plain chickenshit, Nisbet.
I also call attention to Afarensis' remarks on Nisbet's post. His invocation of the "Willy Horton" tactic is exactly on point here. If what Nisbet has posted above is an appropriate application of "framing" then I want nothing to do with it.
Richard B. Hoppe, Ph.D.
Posted by: RBH | August 8, 2008 10:32 PM
What is true or not true is decided, not by rational analysis, but by who can come up with the most vile slander and who can confuse the most people.
Which is why I dropped in a snide aside about "Matthew C. Nisbet, the Vince Li of the Scienceblogs bus" in a Pharyngula thread about Li's alleged mayhem aboard a Manitoba Greyhound. Not, of course, to equate a second-rate verbal hatchet job with decapitation and cannibalism, but to illustrate how "framing" techniques can be so easily and abusively misused.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 8, 2008 11:43 PM
My opinion of that photo: it's a bad photo that makes me look even homelier than usual, but it's a picture of me laughing and holding a toy panda. I'm not angry, I'm not slapping small children, I'm not even stabbing any crackers -- so what exactly is Nisbet's point? That the face of atheism should be pretty and have good hair?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 9, 2008 9:24 AM
Plus, Nisbet captions that photo "the dominant image of atheism", when that picture hadn't been seen anywhere else (or little enough not to be noticeable). Most all of the pictures of PZ I've seen look quite nice, including the ones published with articles about him, and maybe one with the scarlet A t-shirt. So, how is that one that he scrounged around in the dumpster for the dominant image?
Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2008 9:39 AM
When you need to start out by explaining that the existing, widely used definition of a term is not what you mean when you use it, you're admitting your use of the term is confusing. For this reason, 'framing' is a very bad word for what they are trying to describe.
Posted by: llewelly | August 9, 2008 10:11 AM
Jennifer,
I assume by that you mean the way we interact with others depends on what we are trying to achieve, and the nature of relationship with those we are communicating with. A scientist would not write a scientific paper for submission to a peer-reviewed journal and an article for a popular science magazine using the same approach and one who did would be considered a poor communicator. That does not mean that the message to be got across in the magazine should be "dumbed down", just a recognition that your target audience have different background, and whilst others in your field will understand technical terms and the background to your paper, you cannot assume the audience for the magazine article will.
That kind of "framing" is not controversial, and I am not aware of anyone who would object to it. However I do not think that is what Nisbet and Mooney mean when they refer to framing. The distinct impression I get is that they think it is the message that should be changed, and not just the way that message is communicated. For example, in the relationship between science and religion, there are some scientists who clearly have no problem with being religious and being a scientists. There are others for whom science played a large role in their rejecting religion and becoming atheists. Nisbet and Mooney think that mentioning the later group when discussing science and religion is unhelpful. I would argue that not to do so would be dishonest. An honest approach would say that scientists do not agree on whether science and religion are compatible.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 9, 2008 12:23 PM
Excuse me???? The National Catholic Register is, in fact, a moderate voice of Catholics((whatever "moderate" means)! Sure, they take "Catholic" positions on things --- some things --- but they also are not some sort of Vatican clones. And they are actually opposed to much of what Bill Donohue and his Catholic League or whatever its, actually stand for and do. PZ Myers, I think, is entitled to his opinions, and he often does a valulable service in pointing out much of what the anti-science crowd does. Unfortunately, I think people like Myers are also doing a disservice to those of us who are fighting the antiscience crowd; their loudmouthed "atheism"(I think it's more of an "all-religion-is-bad-ism", myself), just reinforces the negative stereotypes a lot of us carry around about atheists in general. And, unfortunately, Nisbet's column is right. Whether some of us like it or not, the kind of people who are behind the National Catholic Register and other "moderate" religious believers are actuallly likely to be on the side of good science. And yes, they can work with atheists, too.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | August 9, 2008 1:26 PM
Can any Catholic voice be considered moderate ?
I know not all Catholics go along with the teachings of their Church, but any organisation that actively campaigns against allowing women to have abortions, or gays to marry, and opposes the use of contraception including condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is not moderate. As those Catholics that oppose such positions implicitly offer their support for them by remaining members of the Catholic Church.
If Nisbet thinks common purpose can be found with those who espose such views, good luck to him. For me the Catholic Church stands for what I am against, and is not a potential ally.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 9, 2008 1:51 PM
As for a definition of framing, whenever you ask the specialists like Nisbet, they focus on how it's more than just thinking through a good pitch for an audience. It's collecting empirical focus group and survey data and doing real research to develop and refine messages to best work for the indended audiences. I can't think of anyone who really disagrees with this concept.
Unfortunately, in practice, Nisbet's rants have nothing to do with this type of research and everything about pretending there's data behind his edicts. The fact that he refuses to accept most comments that disagree with him, even if they are respectful makes we wonder how he runs focus groups and analyzes data. While Chris Mooney says some things I disagree with, he tries to learn and to keep a real discussion alive.
After Nisbet's posts on how great his blog traffic and blog influence is, I completely gave up on reading him, since I don't want to contribute to such ego feeding.
Posted by: bsci | August 9, 2008 2:15 PM
I can't disagree with Anne G more.
What she calls 'moderate' is the practice of sweeping under the carpet issues of child abuse, fascism, etc.
Posted by: eddie | August 9, 2008 2:21 PM
llewelly:
Yep. I've been saying that since this whole business began, but I rapidly lost any hope that the Great Hair crowd would listen.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 9, 2008 3:18 PM
ROFL PZM=Willie Horton. Brilliant.
Posted by: greg laden | August 9, 2008 3:36 PM
One can be a Catholic and a moderate, just as one can be a Republican and a scientist. It's just that the Catholic church as an institution stands for conservative social positions, as does the Republican party as an institution. Similarly, the Democratic party as an institution stands for liberal social positions, but one can be a Democrat while still being a conservative -- many people here in the South do this all the time, to my astonishment. But science and the scientific method mean not taking a stand ahead of time. They mean examining all the data and testing the hypothesis, not selecting the data that one likes and tossing the rest out the window, or burying it in the back yard, or telling people that it doesn't really exist, etc., etc. So, framing is, in essence, opposed to scientific inquiry, whether it is done by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Muslims, Republicans or Democrats. Framing is simply not scientific because it is biased -- one starts with one's conclusion and finds data to support it.
Posted by: DianaGainer | August 9, 2008 4:41 PM
PZ Myers:
Well, naturally.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 9, 2008 6:45 PM
*bats eyelashes*
Posted by: ERV | August 9, 2008 6:50 PM
bsci: The fact that he refuses to accept most comments that disagree with him, even if they are respectful...
I did a quick tally of the (current) last 15 comments on Nisbet's thread in question: 13 in disagreement with Nisbet, 1 supporting, 1 neutral (I think).
Whatever filter he's using, it's not a "my way or highway" model.
In any case, the strange habit of holding up everything submitted for many hours at a stretch, even after deliberately provoking a teapot tempest, seems calculated to stifle discussion on his blog, or at least clearly has that effect. Quite odd, for a "communications specialist".
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 9, 2008 8:35 PM
Pierce,
Like I said, I've completely given up on reading his blog and didn't even go over to the post in question. I'm sick of giving him traffic and having him use those traffic numbers to claim that he's influential.
Of my personal posts, I've had about a 50% rate of getting posts through his personal filter and, while critical and sometimes to the point, I was always on topic and courteous. My comment on this thread was much harsher than anything I ever commented on his blog. He often wouldn't let anything through for days and then post only a select few comments. Perhaps he loosened up on this post, but he's already lost me.
Posted by: bsci | August 9, 2008 9:41 PM
Erv - care to enlighten us?
Greg - well kind of, he also stands for Dukakis...I know its a kind of muddled analogy, but it fits.
Anne - on the article mentioned they embraced, hook line, sinker what Donahue had to say. In no way can that article be considered an unbiased or even moderate examination of the issue. Over and above that, Nisbet's tactics were reprehensible and a perfect example of the kind of focus group, spindoctor, smear campaign crap that a lot of us have been fighting for years because of its negative impact on science. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing Mooney eloquently condemned in his first book. Over and above that, nowhere in the first amendment does it say that the only freedom of speech that one has is speech that does not offend. The best way to communicate science is to tell the butt ugly, honest truth, and not to play slick PR tricks to try and trick people in to believing your way.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 9, 2008 9:51 PM
bsci -
We're in basic agreement that something is rotten in Nisbetland - for me, the last straw was the spectacularly dumb denunciation of Myers for relating how he was expelled from Expelled.
I just wanted to indicate that, arbitrary and frustrating as his filtering is, your point that "he refuses to accept most comments that disagree with him" seemed off-target. If (ha!) Nisbet should deign to respond to us carping low-lifers, let's make him work to build a critique.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 9, 2008 11:30 PM
I tried posting the following at Nisbet's blog:
------------------
------------------
I doubt this'll be approved for inclusion at that bastion of "shining wits"(sensu Rev. Spooner )
Posted by: deadman_932 | August 10, 2008 12:01 AM
I continue to be astounded at the fact that we still even respond to Nisbet's thoughts at all. Nisbet has said nothing new in regards to his position and he has shed no light on the subject itself. The post was inherently worthless. Nisbet is only helped by our attention as he actually has no influence other than that which we, the atheists he attacks, give him.
In great irony, the only time his critique of "attacking it only helps it" rings true, is when it applies to him.
Posted by: Michael X | August 10, 2008 6:07 AM
Oh I just posted a question along the line of 'What makes you think those young ladies in the Camp Inquiry pic dont fully support PZ/Dawkins/milituntathiezm?'
I think its pretty damn gross that he manipulated the pic of those girls to make it seem like they support his freakish 'views' when he has no idea who they are. Oh, but theyre not 'lonely old men' so they cant possibly be militunt athiestz. *rolleyes*
Posted by: ERV | August 10, 2008 10:51 AM
That is quite a good point...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 10, 2008 11:06 AM
I thought the young ladies pictured receiving good framz all looked like they wanted to be somewhere else.
Posted by: steve_h | August 10, 2008 11:21 AM
Michael X:
By this point, the man is basically "phoning it in". Oh, look, he called PZ the "Don Imus of atheism". Again? Yawn. (I think it was Kirshenbaum who equated PZ with Rush Limbaugh, but the Don Imus line has been trotted out before, too.) It's like he's playing Spin-Doctor Mad Libs.
Yep, I thought so too. DJ Grothe: HAREM FAIL.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Framing is whatever impression people get from whatever you write or say; it's not something you turn on or off or that you have any choice in whether or not it happens. Why this is apparently incredibly hard for people to understand I don't know, but framing can be used with or without thinking about using it (because it happens whether you try to use it or not) or with thinking. But what's funny about it -- and I love the funniness of life -- is that typically whenever you see a science blogger complaining about framing the same blogger uses it -- in the post they're complaining with -- in the worst way possible, the way they are complaining about. A little hypocritical, something I don't like seeing from you, or Sandwalk, or PZ, all of whom do this. Your title, for instance, is classic GOP-style framing, the most dishonest kind.
Posted by: QrazyQat | August 10, 2008 3:32 PM
Matt's post is, pure and simple, engaging in the politics of personal destruction that is no different from the Willie Horton adds. No GOP-style framing is needed to point that out.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 10, 2008 4:57 PM
Nisbet fails to make sense on many levels.
As for the contrasting photos: PZ looks like an approachable man with a sense of humour, caught in a moment of untidy, after-the-event exhaustion. Grothe looks like he was photoshopped into the picture. Who dresses like that in a 'camp' setting?
Posted by: Bee | August 11, 2008 9:46 AM
Matt Nisbet is a poopy-head. Beyond that, I don't know what you-all are talking about because I don't read his blog.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | August 11, 2008 11:27 AM
So... criticizing someone is the same as censorship? Yes it is an attempt to discredit PZ, but I could write up a post trying to discredit anyone. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
What Nisbet said, albeit rather ineloquently, was that people should stop feeding the cultural trolls with ammunition. That's pretty much it.
As for comparing his choice of quotation to the deliberate reference stacking we see with denialists, that's just, well- stupid. He's using it to verify, factually, the subjective interpretation of PZ's actions by right wing Catholics and he follows it up with the idea that their word choice has a locutionary force that may allow the negative perception to spread rapidly.
To make it out that he somehow is painting Donahue et al as moderate peaceful Catholics is to completely (and almost deliberately) miss the point he was trying to make.
As far as I can tell, his little post has been widely interpreted on SB as follows:
"Blahblahblah. PZ's wrong about something. Blahblahblah. PZ is EVIL. EEEEEEVIIIL!"
Nisbet sees himself as someone interested in changing minds. Maybe he's good at it, maybe he isn't. PZ's motivations are nowhere near to that, or if they are I fail to see it. Of course they're bound to butt heads.
Posted by: The Chemist | August 11, 2008 6:47 PM
"Framing" is a skill that competent lawyers, writers and ad/PR people do every day. I guess that qualifies it as an academic field of some sort, but it simply ought not garner this level of attention. Nisbet cloaks this one facet of ordinary communication skills in a magisterial way, but several of his recent posts have descended to a petty pattern where "good framing" means making arguments the way Nisbet approves, and "bad framing" a way he disapproves.
I've been waiting for a while now for the punchline to Nisbet's blog: "Aha! All this time my webpage actually has been a ruse; a clever study into the how online communities fragment along fault lines between peer group leaders". Alas, apparently not.
Time to move along, people. Pleas do not feed the trolls.
Posted by: Jim G | August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
Although I agree with all of what afarensis said in this post, I feel it would be a fine place to point out that another meaning of "frame" as a verb is probably just as common. The choosing of a frame's shape and colour will dramatically affect the perception of the image inside it. While it's unfortunate that there is also the "unfairly demonize" meaning of frame, it's hardly the only common usage. So I do think it's fair to say that Matt's seeming incompetence makes his message confusing, but not entirely fair to say that framing is a bad term because the wrong meaning is more common.
Which makes me wonder if perhaps he's doing some kind of performance art comedy, much like what Sacha Baron Cohen did as Borat and what Ann Coulter seems to have been doing for years.
Posted by: pough | August 13, 2008 1:25 PM
The thought that he might be engaging in some sort of Dembskiian street theater occurred to me as well. Can't make up my mind on that one though...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | August 13, 2008 2:51 PM
Why can't we just tell the science like it is? I thought that's why all us scientist/educator people are pushing for more science literacy not more spin-doctoring of science so it makes who ever doesn't understand it happy and more willing fund studies of why birds spend so much time caring for their eggs.
Posted by: Sean Walker | August 13, 2008 7:33 PM