Chris has been posting his thoughts on framing, and while we share many ideas, it's time I provide my own perspective. You see, I'm often mistaken for my coblogger, and while I do understand a thing or two about storms and climate, we're not one in the same. So with that in mind... [deep breath], let's get down to making sense of framing science.
There is much I have to say on this topic, and could not possibly do so in a single post, so I would like to expand upon the premise written yesterday that has been discussed a good deal in the comments that followed:
6. Rather, you have to pare down these highly complex issues--or "frame" them--selectively highlighting just those aspects of the issue that will resonate with the core values of the particular audience (and there are different audiences, of course, and different frames will work for them).
Sort of. I've been reading that post's thread with interest and several readers have highlighted understandable reservations over this particular point. In my opinion however, it would be improved upon by including the significance of context. Incorporate that final caveat Chris, and I become more satisfied because experience has convinced me that framing science is necessary... sometimes.
Consider climate legislation in Congress. A staffer on the Hill is already short on time between meetings on appropriations, homeland security, energy, the latest crisis overseas, and prepping his boss for a statement on health care.
You're a scientist with 30 minutes to make your case on what excess carbon in the atmosphere does to our environment. You're armed with charts, figures, stats, and p-values, but what you don't know is you're the fifth Ph.D. visiting this office on the topic this week--and it's only Wednesday. And it happens you're also providing the fifth different explanation.
Joe staffer listens patiently. He smiles and nods pondering why scientists can't get their story straight or stick to a single point. His mind wanders to that movie in 2006 by the would-be president as he wonders why you'd expect him to be familiar with details of the carbon cycle on the detailed packet you provided. Cards are exchanged and you're thanked for the information. 'Would you like our intern to give you a tour of the Capitol?'
You see, when I worked in the Senate, I learned early on that in policy discussions, science suffers from a tremendous communication problem. There's a lot to framing well beyond policy, but I use this as an example of why it's so necessary to improve the way we convey what we do. Long term readers may remember I've described this before in a similar way as what I call The Lorax Phenomenon.
We're trained to 'speak science' and get lost in a world of complex figures and soft spoken symposia. Our message is undermined because we understate its significance. Policymakers are bombarded with all sorts of buzz words that don't convey the gravity of the situation. This isn't merely about CO2 emissions, we're experiencing a language crisis.
There is absolutely a time an place for framing science. As scientists, we must learn to communicate effectively in ways that resonate beyond academia to broader audiences. Translation: We need to repackage our delivery sometimes to reach beyond the ivory towers when we have a significant message.
Do I have all the answers for how to go about this? Certainly not. Further, it's extremely dependent on the context of a given situation. But I think it's necessary to recognize that there are times we should be working with folks in the marketing and business sectors collaboratively to understand the best means to convey what we do.
This is not only possible, it's long been employed on campaigns fighting heart disease, the tobacco industry, and on and on. By crossing into the social sciences and involving expert economists and anthropologists, we'll be better equipped to incorporate an interdisciplinary understanding of why people make decisions (from game theory to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons) into our traditional approach toward informing sound legislation.
In Congress, I regularly observed communication break down because many scientists were not well equipped to make a convincing and cogent argument. I do not advocate spin, but I do encourage a patient approach to conveying what we do in an honest way that loses no substance and engages nonscientists to be interested in our work. As Jane Goodall once said, 'Only if we understand can we care.' And only when we care, will we make decisions in policy that improve the state of science and our home terra.
- Log in to post comments
you are making sense. sometimes framing matters. context yes
During your time on the Capitol, you saw a lot of examples of poor communication by the scientists, getting staffers' eyes to glaze over.
But surely, you must have also seen examples of really good, successful framing of scientific issues as well. I think it would be good to give us an example of such successful communication: exactly what the issue was, how was it presented, and how it was received by the politicos (and perhaps how it translated into policy).
With such an example, we will have a better idea what we are talking about.
Great suggestion Coturnix. I will absolutely do that in an upcoming post.
Ok I think I second that and repost my message in the old post here:
As a scientist, politician and bloger living in Sweden I will add just a short comment on the matter.
First, Dawkins (and maybe PZ) I think is very important in the long run so as you say you're self this split on framing is really bad.
Secondly I must say that the view that science isn't politics and therefore there is no need for framing is naive. You would be amazed on how important it is to speak in different ways to even get parts of the population to listen. Going out once when you just finished a paper in the media and then sitting back and relaxing isn't going to work if you really want to get you're facts out there and listened to. Just saying the right thing just don't cut it in politics you are often reminded that it's more important to put time on delivering the message then delivering smart solutions and facts... just look at Obama... (whom I do like)
And thirdly I'm happy to say that neither global warming nor evolution needs much framing in Sweden... hope you will get there to in time. (I guess partly due to much fewer trusted TV-Channels)
How do you frame: Science says 2 + 2 = 4?
How do you frame: IDists say that 2 + 2 = 5?
IMO) the Evolution / ID fight is JUST as basic; there is ABSOLUTELY no "controversy" over this by actual real scientists.
How do you frame it when your opponent is either lying for Jesus, or stupid, or both?
Framingly Yours,
'Only if we understand can we care.'
What?
That is just a vacuous soundbite.
Can you think of an example of someone caring for a particular topic that they don't understand? How about the catholic church and stem cells? From their point of view its scientists that don't understand and as such don't care about the souls of those poor stem cells.
Why don't you try telling us that religion requires freedom and freedom requires religion - it makes as much logical sense.
Your statement that framing is not 'spin' sounds about as convincing as Jonathan Wells talking about transitional fossils.
So far you've convinced me that framing is a useful strategy for those working to convince US senators to vote for particular policies but completely pointless in other contexts - or more accurately completely obvious - do you really think that most scientists if asked to speak to the media or public will use the same exact words they would use in a work situation?
The whole idea of Nisbet style framing seems geared for the Fox TV crowd whom Nisbet seemingly regards as pliable morons with the attention span of a goldfish. Unfortunately the strategy apparently completely disintegrates when applied to anyone with an IQ superior to a root vegetable.
What's all this talk I hear about "farming science"?
Science belongs in the laboratory, not on a farm! Farms are for corn and oats and barley, chickens and cows and piglets. Let's keep agriculture and science separate. I certainly don't want to be eating chemicals and cooking over Bunsen burners, I...
what?
never mind.
'Only if we understand can we care.'
What?
That is just a vacuous soundbite.
I bet Al Gore knows a few things about this. He doesn't seem like a vacuous kind of guy to me.
Pandering to the audience's core values can be the wrong thing to do. Let's start with kindergarten. How would you frame the importance of naps to the kids' core values?
Core values are overrated. People who claim to have core values can usually be proved to be shameless hypocrites.
You'll get further helping people become what they ought to be than to enable them to remain as they are.
Sheril, You're a class act. This is a tremendously valuable post.
I am able to follow what you are writing, and understand it too. I agree with what Coturnix suggested; perhaps to give us a positive progression from beginning to some potential conclusion as an example.
It is funny to watch a discussion on communication go in circles, avoiding the main points.
Sheryl, Chris, you are not being attacked because people don't want to communicate effectively to the public. You are not being attacked because stuffy old scientists insist on talking to congressional staffers in the same language they use in seminars.
You are bing attacked because of some very specific things:
- Nisbet's assertion (which you appear to support) that proper science communication has to be in some way approved by him.
- Nisbet's attack at people who are doing a really good job of popularizing science and starting the discussion, coupled with his turning our victories into coups for the creationists.
- More then slightly dishonest attempts to move the frame of the discussion from the points above to the issue of whether PZ's language was too strong (and even more dishonest selective blindness to just how offensive Nisbet's diatribe was to PZ, or any other atheist scientist not willing to shut up and do things Nisbet's way).
Those are the proximal causes for the vitriol that has been directed at you over the past few days. Yes, it is that simple, and those are the points you have to deal with before moving on to deeper issues or concerns with framing.
Not that there aren't other points. For instance:
- Many of us take offense at the suggestion that we should "spin" our research. Science is about truth, not about semantic gymnastics. We leave that to IDiots.
- That being said, it makes total sense to express scientific information in a form that is interesting and clear to average person. This can be done, and many people do it on a daily basis. This, however, is worlds apart from "shut up about parts of your discourse, and pretend to be something else; twist your thoughts into an acceptable form to the YECs, otherwise you won't convince them".
And perhaps most of all:
- You are communication experts, who wish to help the rest of us communicate more effectively. Good, nice, thank you. However, please prove yourself first - show us that you know how to communicate yourself, before starting to teach others how to do it.
I will never take communication advice from Nisbet, because he has proven himself to be extremely incompetent at communicating his ideas. I will also have a hard time listening to you, Sheryl, after how well you communicated with an initially friendly audience here.
I'm still willing to give Chris the benefit of the doubt, because of his excellent books; but so far, he has shown that he can communicate effectively only sometimes, and hasn't shown that he's an expert of a caliber one calls upon for consultations. I'll keep an eye on him, and take all direct advice under serious consideration.
I hope this clarifies matters a bit. At the moment, you are not addressing the main three points, the ones that caused the argument in the first place. Instead, you are obfuscating them with long arguments on the nature of scientific communication, which is a completely different set of entities.
Re "You see, I'm often mistaken for my coblogger, and while I do understand a thing or two about storms and climate, we're not one in the same.": you might want to tinker with your syndication feeds (RSS, Atom). Your Atom feed, at least, doesn't populate the author field, so those of us who read you in a newsreader like Bloglines have no way to know who wrote what without clicking through to your site.
I understand most of what you're saying, but I still can't make sense of the distinction between framing and spin. To me, they sound like much the same thing, and each can used for good or bad purposes. Is the distinction that when I do it, it's framing, but when someone I disagree with does it, it's spin?
Dear Sheril
Coming from a European country, Iceland, where the public acceptance of evolution is the highest in the world (80% in 2006) and where science in general is viewed very favourably, it is quite difficult for me to really understand the uphill struggle science is facing in the US. I can't say whether "framing" will be the ultimate solution to your problems but the importance of contextualizing your message should not be underestimated. My personal experience is that scientist can have a hard time grasping the importance of "context", which is usually most clearly revealed when they tackle history of science.
After I finished my BS degree in biology I decided to do postgraduate work in history of science and the most difficult hurdle I had to overcome was to understand the importance of "context" and how social, religious and psychological factors can affect the work of scientists. As I had focused on science in high school and as an undergraduate it was extremely difficult for me to grasp this. With this I am not saying that scientists can not comprehend these issues. What I am saying however is that it does not necessarily come natural to scientists to think in this way. As an example I debated these issues for years with my brother, who has a PhD in physics, before he finally understood me.
Historians of science are always dealing with context as it is the only way to properly understand the work of past scientists. To give an example I recently published a paper in the Journal of the History of Biology (2002, 35(3): 443-470) about an Icelandic naturalist who in a matter of few years changed from being an important advocate of evolution to totally rejecting it. When I read the relevant papers my initial idea was that he might maybe have gone mad. But when I started to read this personal letters and documents it became clear that this transformation was at least partially driven by changes in his political and religious views.
Historians of science have clearly revealed that religious, social and psychological factors can affect how scientists view particular scientific theories. They have also clearly revealed that these factors have also played a part in previous scientific debates. What this entails is that there does not seem to be a one-to-one correspondence between nature and the human mind (naïve realism), which means that every observations seems to be filtered through our religious, social and psychological filters. With this in mind it should be quite obvious that these factors must also play a part in lay person's perception of a particular theory.
I don't know if this will help you in your "framing" debate but it seems to me that those who participate in this debate could learn a thing or two from historians of science.
I am still having problems understanding what framing _is_. Does anyone have a good reference which they can cite/to which they can link that explains framing?
My understanding is that "frame" is the context in which things (events, facts, statements, actions, data) are interpreted. However, I seem to be gleaning a much different meaning of "frame" from the ongoing debate on SB.
The problem goes something like this:
IDists hold up evidence that *can*, and naively, or "apparently", (like the face mars), does indicate that we are not here by accident.
Most but not all scientists in the relevant fields of biology and cosmology, (including every neodarwinian alive), will say that the apparent significance of the evidence is not a valid consideration, since we can imagine some scenario where there could be a natural explanation that removes the naively interpreted appearance.
IDist will ask... "Like, what?"
Scientist: "Like a multiverse".
IDist... Yeah, right.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825305.800.html
Leonard Susskind very clearly expressed rationale for these observations in his interview with New Scientist concerning his new book, The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design.
Amanda Gefter:
"If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?"
Leonard Susskind:
"I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics."
Apparently Lenny doesn't know the difference between guided evolution and intelligent design either, but at least he is gutsie' enough to admit that there really is a valid scientific interpretation of the evidence that indicates that we are not here by accident. Few will even honestly ask the obvious question about what good reason might exist for why the implied specialness might be true if you can't lose the rationale for "fine-tuning" in an infinite sea of possible universes?
Lenny said elsewhere that: 'The "appearance" of design is undeniable...'
The typical reaction to this is that scientists are utterly appalled by the false first-impression that they get that this means that the Earth and humans are somehow at the center of the universe, so they will automatically and without hesitation try to find ways to explain-away the implied significance of the life-phenomenon, rather than to take an honest look to see if there might be some good physical reason for it. It has also been my observation that this fear and wrongly perceived disgust for human arrogance may be one good reason why we haven't found a rational explanation for the small postive value of the cosmological constant.
And the IDist is perfectly jutstified to accuse them of being purely dogmatic and predispositioned in a non-scientific manner that is *designed* to win an argument.
I second Coturnix's suggestion, and add a second one: an actual example of bad communication. To me, it seems like talking about scientists in their tiny little worlds going on about stuff no-one cares about is a bit of a cliche. It just rings false, from my limited interaction with actual scientists.
Example of framing concept(?): Nicholson,C.(2007). Framing Science: Advances in theory and technology are fueling a new era in the science of persuasion
You make a good point:
"You're armed with charts, figures, stats, and p-values, but what you don't know is you're the fifth Ph.D. visiting this office on the topic this week--and it's only Wednesday. And it happens you're also providing the fifth different explanation."
-not to mention the five industry paid Ph.D.s who came through last week: all of them came from (or were at least funded by) different arms of the fossil fuel industry, but they all had FUD talking points that converged to the same palatable and easily understood version of the situation.
Getting all the (real) scientists together to find out what they agree on, coming up with 5 minute presentations that can be expanded for politicians who have longer attention spans, practicing in front of staffers or others who have insight into how the politician will respond - all could help get the point across.
This doesn't address, however, whether it's effective to highlight the bias shown by the industry supported scientists or ridicule their cherrypicking of data and incomplete models. I think a case could be made for a division of labor: some people passionately arguing the facts of climate science, some people jovially destroying the public credibility of industry hacks.
The most effective frame to my mind would be one that makes it clear to the politicians that it is politically advantageous to side with scientific truth; that would happen when the industry hacks and their message are perceived by both the pols' constituents and by many of their largest campaign donors as debased and craven.
I'm completely baffled that Coturnix had to state the obvious in one of the initial posts.
By way of example, if I want to learn a new laboratory technique, I look over someone's shoulder as they perform the newfangled thing and take notes (which is what most posters here seem to want in written form). Alternatively, I look to the methods section of a paper...not the abstract, which is essentially all you've given us.
To the Framers: Whenever possible, you show then tell: write about a specific example as a way of conveying an idea and then if need be extrapolate--walk us through in a stepwise process. It's a pretty fundamental progression taught in journalism.
Don Monroe,
"Is the distinction that when I do it, it's framing, but when someone I disagree with does it, it's spin?"
BINGO!
Also anyone you disagree with has to be portrayed as an "industry hack", "oil company shill", or "religious nut-job". If they can prove that they are not one of these then you just call them a quack, crank or "denialist".
According to the "framers" at no time should you ever address their actual data or theories, and you should NEVER engage in a debate. Just strut about proclaiming that you are on the side of "science" as if it was a magic Talisman that had been awarded to you be the great "Wizard of Science".
Remember the ends justify the means and if you have to violate every principle of scientific integrity to defend your view then it was all worth it. Remember we're trying to save the planet here.
One of the reservations I have about framing is that, at least as far as ID and Expelled are concerned, Science and Evolution are not the issues that the 'Creationists' are really trying to affect. Science and Evolution are merely proxies for 'materialism'.
If you frame around Science and Evolution, you are already missing the target. You need to frame against Theocracy or Supernaturalism, with science being used in a subordinate role.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider if atheists are better prepared for the debate.
Sheril, the example you provide of convincing a Congressional staffer is about persuasion, and not about communication in general. There are plenty of good examples of science communication that involve simplifying complex information, but that don't involve some sort of thematic "framing" -- I'd offer programs like NPR's Nova and Science Friday, the CBC's Quirks and Quarks, and of course, Cosmos, as all good examples of shows that communicate science in a clear and understandable fashion for a lay audience, but don't "spin" it. There are plenty of science magazines that do so as well (including the host magazine of SciBlogs) -- these are publications intended not for scientists, but for lay audiences, and most do a great job of taking complex issues and providing the salient aspects. And, lest we forget, practicing academic scientists communicate about science in a simplified manner to audiences all the time -- it's called "teaching".
Matt, Chris, and you seem primarily interested in persuasion, in getting political and societal change to happen on some science-related issues. That's a laudable goal. But I think it is vital that you make clear what you are doing is persuasion, and not just communication.
Sheril,
It is a daunting task to explain science to people who are used to sound bites. Framing is appropriate, but it is subject to sniping by the folks who want to discredit your efforts. Don't let them get you down!
If they could read maybe you could direct them to the writings of Carl Popper, Hans Reichenbach, or P.B. Medawar. Otherwise let their comments act like water off a ducks back.
Cal
Sigmund: "Can you think of an example of someone caring for a particular topic that they don't understand? How about the catholic church and stem cells?"
Fair point, but I think the gist of "Only if we understand can we care" is that if someone doesn't even understand something enough to even misunderstand it, that is, if a topic is confusing and "all Greek" to someone, then he/she is going to tune it out.
This has been said before, but I think that it is important enough to restate: Framing depends upon the audience that you are addressing. Since Nisbet and Myers are trying to address different audiences, their frames will, of necessity, be different. I think that "Framing Matters" is a largely uncontroversial statement. I also think that the fact that most scientists are not terribly competent in framing/communicating/persuading is also fairly self-evident. However, telling them that is not terribly helpful. Telling them that they should leave the communicating to professional communicators is even less helpful. Give us some positive examples of communication instead.
I can relate to all of this, Sheril, but I see it as largely irrelevant to the issue. The issue has become "Should Dawkins and PZ (and other voices of disbelief in religion) shut up, on the basis that there message is cutting across Matt Nisbet's PR strategy?"
You know the resounding answer to that question from the ScienceBlogs community.
I've been commenting about this at length, and I keep seeing the point not being addressed. I'll say it again: Dawkins and PZ have a message of their own, which they actually frame very well. However, it is not their mission to make science palatable to existing demographics with existing values and religious beliefs. It is their mission to try to change people's beliefs - a long-term project that involves, among other things, creating an environment in which other voices of disbelief can get a hearing, building community among non-believers, making atheism seem more cool, getting at least some believers to become more sceptical about religion, getting the uncommitted to be that little bit less deferential to religion, etc.
It seems to me that Dawkins and Myers are doing a good job at a large and difficult task. I can also see how their work cuts to some extent across what Nisbet is trying to do.
But the lesson is not that Dawkins and Myers should shut up. It's that Nisbet has to work in a world that contains people like Dawkins and Myers. So far, he still doesn't seem to "get" it, and until you and Chris specifically address this I'm not sure whether you do or not. The only thing I've seen so far that is comforting is an acknowledgment by Chris that Nisbet made a mistake in pretty explicitly telling Dawkins and Myers to shut up the other day. He's been saying this implicitly for about a year now. That's the problem.
If Nisbet had said, from the start, with a degree of humility, "I realise some of you have more fundamental objectives, not all of them entirely consistent with mine, but I can at least help you to communicate the importance science to various (American)demographics to the extent that that's what you're interested in doing", I doubt that anyone would have been upset.
Instead, he has appeared narrow-minded and arrogant, unwilling to concede that anyone else's objectives are legitimate ones for them to pursue, and ultimately willing to tell others to stop doing what they're doing to allow him to pursue his own objectives and strategy unhindered.
This was breathtaking. PZ replied in the way that was appropriate. Once someone explicitly tells you to shut up, they can expect a very terse and hostile response.
I want to second the irrelevance objection. Your post is a good argument for "keep the science audience appropriate," which PZ, Dawkins, et. al. already do well. It isn't an argument for "drop the science," which seems to be the Mooney-Nisbet position, though as someone said when Chris's 8 points were posted, they seem "slippery, for lack of a better way of putting it."
"What's all this talk I hear about "farming science"?
Science belongs in the laboratory, not on a farm! Farms are for corn and oats and barley, chickens and cows and piglets. Let's keep agriculture and science separate. I certainly don't want to be eating chemicals and cooking over Bunsen burners, I...
what?
never mind.
Posted by: Emily Litella"
Emily,
I have to protest about what have said here. Very credible people I have known regard farmers as the original ecologists. Simple science has been practiced on farms for millenia. It moved in to the laboratory recently. You can't dismiss farmers as ignorant fools so readily without getting your opinions dismissed as being uninformed.
Cal
Cal - Let's not romanticize farming. On your view, it seems the original ecologists made their mark on the world by tilling the soil. And what a mark they made! Can you name any other human activity that is more destructive (in absolute terms) of natural habitats?
Okay... You've made plentiful observations about what works, communications-wise, when you're tryna present science to an overworked, overscheduled Congresscritter's flunky. Wonderful. Therefore, since there is One True Communications Strategy, what works for presenting science to said flunky will of course work for everybody -- and since PZ and Dawkins are most definitely not using that One True Communications Strategy, obviously PZ and Dawkins ought to shut the hell up. Therefore, Nisbet was clearly right to tell PZ and Dawkins to shut the hell up, and anybody who disagrees with Nisbet is wrong, or a big poopyhead, or they just don't get it, or some-bloody-thing or other.
Have I left anything out?
No, I think you pretty much nailed it.
If Dr. Kirschenbaum and Mr.Mooney read over the comments on the threads involving the issue of framing and also read some of the other science blogs and comments therein, they will be led to 1 conclusion. The problem is their association with Prof. Matt Nisbet. It is virtually unanimous that Prof. Nisbet has no credibility with other science bloggers. I have yet to see anybody outside of Dr. Kirschenbaum and Mr. Mooney who defends him. Prof. Nisbet may be an expert in communications but he has totally failed to communicate his ideas on framing to other science bloggers in an coherent manner.
Therefore, it is my suggestion that the time has come to throw Prof. Nisbet under the bus, as it is the consensus that he has nothing to offer. I know it's tough but sometimes one has to bite the bullet and do what has to be done.
Russell Blackford's comments above cut to the heart of the conflict here, and I would very much like to see a response to it from Sheril. Does Sheril understand that those are the issues that got everyone upset?
Sheril wrote:
I find this confusing. If framing is about explaining things in ways that are understandable, relevant, and interesting to your target audience (a strategy that I think everyone would agree with), why is it only necessary sometimes? Have I misunderstood what the term "framing" means?
"Cal - Let's not romanticize farming. On your view, it seems the original ecologists made their mark on the world by tilling the soil. And what a mark they made! Can you name any other human activity that is more destructive (in absolute terms) of natural habitats?"
Posted by: bob koepp
Farming has evolved into a very destructive and energy intensive enterprise. Don't forget that we all need to eat. Where does food come from? A lot of people think it comes from the grocery store.
My family farm has been selected many times as a conservation farm by government agencies.
Mining, logging, activities in fresh and salt water also deserve concern. I agree that farming has been a terrible effect on natural environments. Some farmers do it smart and others act like there is no tomorrow.
Cal
Man, either someone is very dense or I'm very old, and I suspect the latter...
It seems that framing science means building trust for scientists, without necessarily building trust for science. Openness is by no means essential for framing. On the contrary, it can be a liability, as Nisbet has expicitly stated.
Do N+M+S still wonder why so many scientists think framing stinks?
Persuasion vs. education (communicating) there is nothing that say that persuasion could not be education or communicating in a good way. What I think some of you miss is that to at all reach certain groups in society you will have to talk to them in their language... and to get in to the channels you will some times need to frame the message.
In the specific example of climate change, I think the problem is not scientific. There ARE scientific problems with climate change--conflicting models, data analysis techniques, etc--but the Climate Change Problem is a purely political one: Are the costs of addressing climate change worse than the risk of disruption to world economy, widespread death, ensuing political instability, blah blah blah.
For me, the answer is obvious regardless of whether the "chance of climate disaster" on our current course is 10% or 90%. The future of civilization is not something to play the odds on. The scientific details HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Likewise evolution. There is no science to talk about. The question is do school boards have the right to impose religious agendas on school curriculae. Obviously not, but the argument is a constitutional one, not a scientific one.
So, if framing just means we should talk about policy instead of science... well, then it's not a concept at all. Above I gave climate change a "cost/benefit frame" and evolution a "constitutional frame"--the science is irrelevant in both cases.
Framing wonks seem to just be saying that scientists should discuss policy/political/social aspects of their work. Most scientists will not be good at this, but some are. Some don't want to, some just want to point out that Creationism is stupid because it's wrong. The problem with wonks is that they often think politics creates reality, and everyone should care about playing that game.
I guess what I'm getting at is why pick on scientists for being shitty at playing politics? Why would they want to? We shouldn't be banning religion from biology class because Richard Dawkins says so, we should do it because it's unconstitutional.
miko said
"We shouldn't be banning religion from biology class because Richard Dawkins says so, we should do it because it's unconstitutional."
Its only unconstitutional in the USA. In many other places, such as Dawkins home country, there are no constitutional issues that would prevent it.
We shouldn't teach religion in biology classes for the simple reason that it isn't science.
Dawkins is quite within his rights to continually point this out, whether or not doing so causes problems in the US.
Sheril, thank you for a reasonable post with a nice illustrative story.
Now - when are you going to get around to actually answering the recent substantive criticisms? Because this post doesn't do that, or even start to do that.
Thanks
Lee
PS - I find it amazing that it had to be suggested that you provide examples. It makes me wonder whether you've actually been reading for comprehension lately or just skimming.
DiscoveredJoys said:
This is exactly correct. The game of significance denial does nothing to remove the implied significance of the "appearance of design" that creationists adhere to, and they are not unjustified to laugh straight in the face of anyone who thinks that the unproven or unprovable theoretical speculations that scientists offer up as "plausible", are more plausible than exactly what it looks like, and they never will.
The unfounded leap of faith occurs when creationists assume that the evidence can infer a supernatural entity, which it cannot, and it also cannot *realistically* infer a natural intelligent designer, (like aliens), without a lot harder proof than evidence that can mean that we are not here by accident.
But the purely reactionary game of significance denial does nothing to remove the "appearance of design" that creationists adhere to, and it does not convince the "wobbly-middle" that neodarwinians are any more correct or less fanatical than fundamentalists are, because they're not.
You can frame against supernaturalism, but to be fair, you also have to frame against the equally absurd reactionary tendency to assume that materialism is *necessarily* purely meaningless, because this has not by any means been established beyond any reasonable doubt by science, and it most certainly is not what is indicated by the "appearance" that the evidence often includes, regardless of what neodarwinians would like to believe/rationalize, and regardless of the fact that 99% of scientists refuse to even look at it seriously from this perspective. Yet they wonder why we don't have a complete theory of anything relevant to this subject that would put an end to the debate, once and for all, which I, personally, find to be flaming framing ironic... ;)
Lance takes my difficulty in distinguishing framing from spin as reason to reject them both.
Actually, I feel that both are perfectly normal and necessary, to a degree. Take Sheril's example of a scientist visiting a congressional staffer. If the scientist is studying cell-cycle control in yeast, she might be perfectly justified in motivating it as an example of how biological systems regulate important functions. I would hope and expect, though, that she would make the connection to cancer, a major human disease where that regulation goes amiss. At a scientific conference, she might emphasize other implications of the work.
Whether you call that "framing," "spin," "context," or just understanding your audience, it's a natural part of good communication. In my view, the principle is so profound as to be trivial. The real issues here are in the details: what gets emphasized, how much, and for what purpose?
This whole conversation is going way off the deep end into "inside baseball" territory.
Why does such a simple concept require so much navel gazing? None of the principal bloggers seems to genuinely think the issue is nonexistent or unimportant overall, they just split on the importance to accord it on specific subjects or circumstances. A casual review of the posts (and the overwhelming majority of comments) on their blogs makes this clear.
Move along, people. Nothing to see here anymore.
Sheril,
as someone who has also dealt with Congress on a regular basis, I agree the multiple messages are confusing. But that's an issue of coordination of properly framed messages, not framing per se.