A few bloggers have registered their reaction to last week's PRI radio segment that questions the wisdom of calling climate change and evolution opponents "deniers." Most notably Orac, Mike the Mad Biologist, and Mark Hofnagle argue that their preferred brand of name calling remains the best communication strategy.
But Orac, Mad Mike, and Mark overlook that the key audience in these rhetorical fisticuffs is not the small group of so-called "denialists" but rather the wider spectator public who may otherwise be ambivalent about a complex, seemingly remote issue such as climate change.
As I explain in a recent interview with Big Think, snarling, finger-in-the-eye responses to opponents in these debates risks alienating middle-ground publics, or at a minimum keeps the debate locked in a conflict frame, missing the opportunity to more persuasively connect the issue to commonly shared values.
This same theme has been picked up by several commenters at this blog. For example, Jeremy writes:
This may sound cliched but that detract from its truth in my opinion. Using words that puts each side of a debate into neat little categories might be fun, like in a zoo. "Ooh. Look at that little denialist in his little box." But it doesn't help bridge gaps. When I manage to get through to people who believe in pseudoscience or the paranormal, it's not by emphasizing how we differ but what we have in common. I'll agree it's hard with the most far out extremists and maybe nothing can bring those people back, but when you're talking to your old-fashioned dad who think that climate change isn't happening, it's not constructive to call him a denialist. Trust me on that one.
Besley also articulates this point:
I wonder if those of you (which seems to be many you) who insist on terms like "denier" are clear on who you are talking to when you use the term. The person you are calling names certainly doesn't care; indeed, you're just as likely to give them material with which to paint science as absolutist and uncaring.The real audience we need to think about is those people who are observing the debate from the sideline who may use a range of heuristics or schema (and not necessarily full arguments) to decide whom they support. If your side gets pegged as ideologues, I would expect your odds of support dimninsh substantially.
The point is to use the opportunities created by public forums to speak PAST the ideologues towards the people with whom you truly want to communicate; the people who have not yet staked a position.
Ignore the bait. Think about your audience. Craft a message that appeals to the broad middle. Or, of course, you could just yell at each other.
So instead of engaging in the same self-defeating name calling, what is an alternative strategy?
Two video segments from the Big Think interview explain the basics of the research and the arguments I have published in recent articles and book chapters. The first segment is on communication and framing generally. The second segment on climate change specifically.
These topics and more will be the focus of my talk next Thursday at the New York Academy of Sciences. The event is free to the public. Already more than a 100 attendees have signed up. It should prove an interesting discussion with reception to follow.
Environment
Life Science
Comments
That's a huge straw man argument. I never argued that name calling is the "best communication strategy." Neither did any of the other bloggers whom you cited. Really, if you're going to respond, please at least do us the solid of responding to what we actually argued, rather than your caricature of it where any use of terms that might be the least bit confrontational suddenly become "juvenile name calling."
I argued that you have utterly failed to convince me that your way is better. Worse, I started out more favorable to your viewpoint than hostile. Indeed, I defended you guys at the beginning. But as I saw what your idea of "framing" seemed to mean when put into actual practice, sorry to say, I became less and less impressed with it and you.
You want to do us a favor? You don't like the term "denier"? Then tell us a better term to use to describe cranks of the sort that use fallacious and deceptive arguments and are not amenable to science and reason. Tell us why it's better, what evidence supports your contention.
I challenge you.
Posted by: Orac | November 26, 2008 7:51 PM
In fact, here are a couple of excerpts from my post that demonstrate quite clearly that your characterization of my argument that "name calling is the best strategy" is a blatant strawman argument (and not even a very good or clever straw man argument at that):
And:
As I said, I'm very disappointed. You've engaged in a blatant logical fallacy, the straw man argument. Ditto your lumping Mark Hoofnagle's and Mike the Mad Biologist's response. Why don't you try addressing the actual arguments we made, rather than your straw man caricature of them?
Posted by: Orac | November 26, 2008 8:04 PM
Interesting set of points and counterpoints here. As an environmentalist, I frequently work on issues where it's tempting to stand tall and shout strongly-worded oaths about opponents being somehow deficient. My opponents are either arguing against "the facts" or fighting to preserve anachronistic jobs that despoil resources. Etc.
It often feels good to shout and call names, but it doesn't look good to persuadable onlookers.
There are approaches to persuasion that can work, and they never involve name-calling of opponents and trying to ridicule the opposition.
So, in a situation like this debate over the term "denier" or it's variations, you have to ask yourself:
Do I want to shout epithets and feel really righteous and powerful? Or do I want to drop the name-calling and work to persuade and create change?
It's tempting to go with the shouting and the rush of FEELING powerful, but real power lies in persuasion and change.
There's one more interesting point about the posessors of climate change facts that get so angry when others deny the facts about climate change. They want to attack climate change deniers, and in so doing they deny the facts about how to persuade undecided audiences.
Why are the deniers of climate change facts bad, while the deniers of persuasion facts are righteously correct?
Posted by: Mark Powell | November 27, 2008 12:01 AM
It's best to avoid name calling of course. You get more sane people to agree with you if you can show your viewpoint is the more sane, logical view.
However, denialism is real and it exists, and there are actual denialists out there. There is a sane and logical way to demonstrate what denialism is and who qualifies as a denialist without reducing your argument to name-calling (and therefore appearing to be weak).
It is like this: you don't want to call other people racists of you want to have a productive discussion with them. However, racism is real and their are certain characteristics and activities which define people who engage in them as racists.
You have to be realistic about that. The people who are following the arguments and are smart enough to think for themselves will see you have a valid point, and a logical way of proving your point.
You can do all this with out resorting to mud-slinging.
For example: "Mr X has been found with a closet full off nude child photos and several respected psychologists have testified about the damage to specific children's lives that he has been involved with. Moreover, the children themselves testify about being terrified of Mr X."
Have you called Mr X a pedophile directly? No. Have you shown that pedophilia is real, has certain defining features, and that they apply in the case of Mr. X? Yes. The reader can pretty quickly figure out what labels apply without you needing to resort to name-calling.
All done, valid point made, logical and backed up with checkable facts.
Most of the time, if you stick to valid rational arguments and keep a cool head, your opponent will eventually either lose his composure or start sticking his foot in his mouth. The observers will see this very clearly.
There is also an appropriate time to call a spade exactly what it is. After you have set the frame, made your valid argument, and covered the objections, you can say "Mr X is a pedophile (or denialist, or racist, etc)," and be right and be standing on solid ground. This also will not be lost on the discerning observer.
But coming out of the gate slinging mud will, of course, get you nowhere.
Posted by: yogi-one | November 27, 2008 6:47 AM
Orac,
No one is constructing a straw man. I pointed readers to your reactions to the interview and linked to the pages long postings. Readers can judge those responses and then move on to the rest of my post.
I personally don't have the motivation or the time to engage in an endless blog debate about these issues. I've linked my main post to a forthcoming 30 page book chapter that explains in detail my alternative strategy. I've also linked to video interviews and on my side bar there are links to other audio interviews and articles. I'm also giving a number of public talks this spring in New York, DC, and other cities where readers can turn out to listen, discuss, and debate.
It's Thanksgiving weekend. Monday I get back to the office with teaching to wrap up and various research projects to finish. I think we've articulated our positions and discussed our differences. Time to move on!
--Matt
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | November 27, 2008 8:47 AM
Personally I do not see a problem calling me a "Denier" for the simple fact I call cimate change alarmists, "Complete morons,devoid of any sort of common sense or logic, as well as totally incapable of using real science to reach their idiotic myths."
Posted by: Jeff | January 8, 2009 2:09 AM