The Intersection

You make a number of underlying assumptions with which I disagree, including that there are not already people doing great work explaining science to the public - including PZ, Dawkins, and others.

I also disagree with the premise that information has to be dumbed down. What is important is finding a way to get people interested and to understand that the information matters. I have been teaching evolution and climate change in ENGLISH composition classes for the past few years, mostly to a "bible banger" student population. What they appreciate is being provided information and ideas that had been denied them. We don't dumb it down - we read Pigliucci's Denying Evolution in some classes, for instance - and students, even struggling freshman writers, don't want it dumbed down. What they want is to be given a chance to learn and think, something my generally poor and poorly educated student population has not had much encouragement to do.

Which leads me to what I wanted to say when I checked in just now. I am probably one of the few Humanities Ph.D.s and teachers who read scienceblogs. As a result, I can probably provide a bit of insight into people with Nisbet's background (I cannot say anything certain about him individually since I don't know him or his academic work).

There are two points to make. First, in the Humanities (which is what Communications is, calling it Social Science notwithstanding), argument, not facts, is privileged. In other words, academic success is based upon publishing sophisticated arguments that rile up discussion; issues of being right or wrong, having practical applications, or other common-sensical expectations are not required or even all that desirable in many quarters (remember the Sokol hoax!). Indeed, a legacy of the post-structuralist '80s and '90s is the assertion that there is no such thing as "facts" or "reality." Nisbet, whether he liked such thinking or not, would had to have been exposed to both the privileging of argument and the disparagement of practical, factual applications.

Second, even in really strong academic work in the humanities, real world elements are not particularly valued. What actually works or not in the classroom tends to get less attention than theory divorced of any interest in everyday meaning or benefit. (That's why so much bad literary analysis went on those years - the text, after all, didn't matter.) For researchers, what makes nice theoretical sense often overrides reality, and I'm quite sure that is true of Nisbet based on his inability to "frame" well or see where he goes wrong.

Thus, your here unstated premise is that Nisbet does important, good work. I would question that if by important good work you mean anything that should be applied to reality.

I think that is one of the big problems here. The scientists, science writers, and science buffs who make up most of the audience believe in a scientific method that is nowhere to be found within the Humanities. And remember I say that as a practicing member of a Humanities discipline who has been fighting *that* battle for some time.

Let me hasten to add that there is a great deal that the humanities can bring to this discussion (and I've tried that, in fact, responding to your invitation for people to write with non-traditional experiences, but neither you nor Sheril saw fit to write back) and that scientists who are aware of what I have mentioned above should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nowhere is more on the front lines of this communication of science issue than a freshman composition course. Finding ways to encourage more comp programs to do what mine does would be a great way to communicate.

Posted by: Craig B | April 1, 2008 11:05 AM

I have to agree with Cain, at least somewhat. I think a great deal of the antipathy that's been generated toward the entire framing concept has been the result of what seems (at least to me) to be Matt's insistence on linking his personal opposition to PZ and Dawkins with the concept of framing. It also seems to me that some of Matt's behavior (such as his loaded AAAS panel) has been a contributing factor.

Posted by: Mike Dunford | April 1, 2008 11:13 AM

I agree with most of your points here, but I don't see the connection with the PZ/Expelled incident. One of the primary take-away messages from your above points, as I see it, is that we need to reach out to these members of the public ("mushy middle") on their own turf, because they're not tuning in to scientific information sources. By that logic, that group is not visiting Pharyngula or any of the other ScienceBlogs sites and they are likely completely unaware of this dust-up, as big as it seems to those of us who have closely followed it. Why do scientists such as PZ and Richard Dawkins have to muzzle themselves on their own websites if the entire premise of framing is based on the idea that the group we're trying to reach aren't reading their websites anyway? Why can't scientists have this space where we can parse ideas and have free and open communication (an essential facet of the scientific method), then have a separate but connected group of people essentially "translating" the appropriate information and messages to the general public? This is how I've always viewed science framing. We can't muzzle the scientists and dumb-down cutting-edge research in order to communicate to the lowest common denominator - that would be devastating for science!

Posted by: Nicole | April 1, 2008 11:26 AM

I think I understand what you are advocating and I think it will work for specific issues. I also don't think it should be dismissed or derided, as many have been doing as of late. It is essential to consider our strategy when addressing the public, and you have starting an important conversation. However, I think that instead of focusing our efforts on convincing the public to see it our way on each specific issue, we should work on trying to change number three in your premises. I don't think getting people to accept scientific truths for the wrong reasons should be what we are aiming for. I understand that it is important to push some issues, like global warming, because it is an urgent problem. But for issues such as evolution, in which convincing the general public is not QUITE as urgent, we should aim to get them to accept it for the same reasons that the science community does: because all the evidence is there. I know this is not currently how most Americans decide what to believe, but that is what we should be trying to change. We shouldn't be telling people: "this scientific theory doesn't conflict with your belief system, so don't worry your pretty little heads about it and just take our word for it." Instead we should try to promote critical thought and rational inquiry, and hopefully people will be able to come to the right decisions on their own.

Maybe this is too idealistic...but personally I think that accepting a beautiful theory like evolution for the wrong reasons is just as bad as not accepting it all all. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you premises, and if I am, please correct me.

Posted by: Jackie | April 1, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't think there's anything hugely controversial in what you said so far. The big blowup was over something entirely different. Two things, as far as I can see:

1. Disagreement on agenda. Bloggers like PZ Myers have a different agenda than Matt Nisbet. It also happens that PZ dislikes the notion of framing and has said so. However, much of the problems started when these two got issues conflated (and as far as I can tell, we're still there). PZ wants to include religion in the discussion. Nisbet doesn't. This does not mean that the disagreement is about whether science needs to be communicated effectively.

2. Telling other people to shut up really, really, doesn't go across well. I don't expect that to change.

Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 1, 2008 11:44 AM

I sort of reject #5.

It speaks to the goals of an unspecified "you". You, Mooney, as a proselytizer for good science communication might want good control and framing of your presentation, while a crusty scientist like Gray or PZ might not care so much about the audience as what they believe in as the science. "You" being scienceblogs as a portal, might want to have sensational bloggers to increase page hits. And finally, "you", being some group of self-identified enlightened individuals, might not have a truly shared goal worth expressing.

What is the "you" that should do the communicating? And for those who are not included in that group, what should they do?

Posted by: dave X | April 1, 2008 11:52 AM

Chris,

Reading what PZ has had to say about framing it is clear that when it was first proposed he was not hostile to it, but wanted to know more about how it could be used.

Where framing ran into problems was not in the basic premise, after all that would seem to be pretty sensible, but in how you and Nisbett saw it being used. To give an example, Nisbett states that studying science need not mean one has to adopt an atheist world view, and he is right when he says that. However the evidence does suggest that studying science does increase the likelihood of a person modifying the religious views, either by becoming an atheist or rejecting the more fundamentalist aspects of religion.

For Dawkins, PZ and a good number of others a major, probably the major, influence on their becoming atheists was their increasing understanding of science as adolescents and young men. So when creationists claim that studying evolution can turn you into an atheist they are not totally wrong. They are not right in their reasoning of course, but the simple fact is that a fair number of people exposed to what science actually says, rather than what creationists say it says, will reject religious dogma that is in conflict with scientific understanding. Where the person's religious views end up will, I suspect, depend on where they started. The more fundamentalist the original position the more likely the person is to retain some religious belief, whereas those with moderate beliefs to begin with may end up rejecting religion altogether.

So we have the fact that studying science does tend to change religious views, but the way framing has been put forward one gets the impression that this fact should be hidden from the public at all costs.

Another issue that I see that causes people to have issues with framing is the tacit assumption it seems to have that the general public are unable to understand that people may have more than one message to get across. Dawkins, for example, has an message about atheism to get across but he also has a message about evolution to get across. Framing seems to reject the idea that people could read Dawkins on evolution and accept what he has to say whilst rejecting what he has to say about the existence of god. To offer an analogy, people can often see the sense in a particular policy being presented by a politician whilst rejecting most of what else that politician has to say.

So to sum up, I do not think it is the actual concept of framing that is the problem, but the way is has been suggested it be used that people have taken issue with. To offer another example, the NCSE (I think) recently published a book intended for the general public on evolution. In it they state that there is no conflict between science and religion. Now a good number of scientists accept that, but the statement is misleading because it ignores the fact that there are a good number of scientists who do think that there is a conflict between science and religion (or at least religion as normally understood. Where religion has ceased to suggest that divine intervention takes place then the conflict pretty much disappears). Some of those who support framing have welcomed this book, whilst those who oppose framing have pointed out that it is not giving a truthful explanation of the real situation.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 1, 2008 12:11 PM

I disagree with #6, the actual framing part, at least in many cases. It looks like disingenuous spin, particularly when done badly, and I think will result in scientists looking more and more like politicians (which would presumably be a bad thing, given how little people trust politicians).

I think honestly stating you position, calmly, respectfully, and consistently, while backing it up with as much evidence as you can, will be a better long-term strategy. As Jackie says above, I think this is the way forward for evolution.

Global warming, on the other hand is more urgent, and might benefit from a framing approach.

Overall, I think framing is okay for winning battles, but a dangerous strategy for winning a war, because it leads to and erosion of trust in science. It's borrowing on credibility, and should only be used in emergencies.

Posted by: John Conway | April 1, 2008 12:36 PM

I think number six is where your vision of framing falls down. As a writer and former organizer, I think the importance of understanding framing isn't to make the world to fit into people's frames but to recognize their frames and move them to a frame that fits better with the world. To stretch a metaphor, you need to know the frame is there in order break it and let people see the world outside of the painting. That's the only way create lasting change.

The concept is related to the Overton Window, where an idea transforms over time from irredeemably radical to conventional wisdom. This can happen two (at least) ways, through transformation or disruption. Transformative change is close to your vision of framing. It uses moral suasion and other arguments from within the listeners frame and leads them on an emotional and ideological journey to a (hopefully) more realistic frame.

The disruptive process is one where the frame is held up to reality until the cognitive dissonance becomes too much for the frame to survive. As Molly Ivins described the process well in her article on becoming a southern liberal. "I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point -- race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything. If you grew up white before the civil rights movement anywhere in the South, all grown-ups lied. They'd tell you stuff like, "Don't drink out of the colored fountain, dear, it's dirty." In the white part of town, the white fountain was always covered with chewing gum and the marks of grubby kids' paws, and the colored fountain was always clean. Children can be horribly logical." Much of the civil rights movement was disruptive frame breaking. When blacks voted, ate at "white" lunch counters, had equal access to education and jobs, even married outside their race, the world didn't end, and it became much harder to maintain a racist frame.

The point of this is not that one method of moving or breaking people's frames is better than the other. THEY BOTH CAN WORK!!! Which to use is just a matter of strategy and tactics and not a law of nature. I don't think you and Nisbit give people enough credit that people can change their way of thinking. I think PZ could be less of an ass with his attitude sometimes, but I think over the long run, his method of communicating is as likely to be successful as trying to persuade the faith community that the moral implications of poisoning the world and using war for political gain are more important than what some ancient document says about how people use their naughty bits.

Posted by: justawriter | April 1, 2008 12:37 PM

As Chris accurately lists them, these have always been the bedrock assumptions of the Framing Science thesis.

We also detail these assumptions, cite their foundations in the social science literature, and apply them to a diversity of issues in The Scientist article from last year, PDF linked below:

http://www.soc.american.edu/docs/Scientist.pdf

Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 1, 2008 1:07 PM

5. "you have to do more with your communication strategy than simply informing people about the details of science"

Duh. I was thinking all along that scientific papers and conferences were all that was needed to educate the public.

6. "you have to pare down these highly complex issues"

Maybe science can be entertaining instead of dumbed down? It can be on its own or when good writers like Dawkins (or Gould, Sagan, Feynman, ...) describe it.

7. More or less says the same thing as 4., and here too, in the competition for ears and eyeballs, it seems that Dawkins has proven himself, being a regular guests of TV, radio, and newspapers.

8. "All of this leads to the following conclusion"... I fail to see how the conclusion is reached from the premises. The idea that one "communication strategy" should be defined (by who?) and sticked to by all is ludicrous.

There is still *no* case for asking anybody to shut up about this subject. There is enough room and work for many different voices. Dawkins and Myers (and others like Randi and Hitchens) have been effectively promoting science and atheism. You've had some success with your books too: good for you and your readership. Use your own voice and make good, but please stop giving condescending advice to Dawkins and Myers!

Posted by: Ph(i)Nk 0 | April 1, 2008 1:28 PM

I think you have completely missed the point of the request for getting to substance.

I was skeptical of your first "framer culpa" post, but ready to listen for what came next. Basically, your first post tried to spin the whole thing as a failure to communicate your point. Unfortunately, your second is still just trying to back up and try again to make your case.

That's not what people were asking. They wanted you to deal with specific criticisms and refutations that were already on the table in response to several of your posts on the subject.

For example, quoting the comment from Siamang, March 31, 2008 6:44 PM:

To date neither Mooney nor Nisbet has responded to the SUBSTANCE of the substantial criticisms of the "Enablers" post, the "This helps Ben Stein" post, the "Let others stand for science" post.

My advice? When you notice that you've said something that causes a firestorm, and just about all the people who should be your allies have turned against you... ADDRESS IT before igniting another firestorm. Go point by point. Respond.

In retrospect, this thread has not quite lived up to being a mea culpa. It seems to be more of "I was right, I just didn't frame it very well." Or, "No, really, that used Yugo is a **great** car! I just didn't do a good enough job selling it to you."

I agree with Siamang on this. All I see here is another missed chance to give a real engagement with specific criticisms, replaced by an attempt to make a better sales pitch.

Now I appreciate that you've got a lot of comments to deal with, and how overwhelming it must be. Some folks are not going to be satisfied by anything you do, at this point. Many others bear you considerable good will from the past and find the self-examination encouraging, but even most of those (as I read the comments) feel you're still not getting it. For myself, I'm happy to give you space and time to address the matter as you think best, and I'm willing to listen. But this post here is not at all encouraging. The devil is in the details.

Take a simple example. PZ Myers did a terrific job of getting across problems with the Expelled movie in his followup to his own expulsion. The "frame", if you like, was simple and direct, and required no difficult scientific details. PZ Myers provided us all with a magnificent opportunity to make a hard hitting effective response that fits all your points listed here to a T. Heaps of people took up that opportunity, and it worked.

A glaring exception, however, was Nisbet and the Intersection. Incredibly, Nisbet tried to bring it all back to religion and athiesm and a call for PZ to stand down, and the Intersection backed him up, got into vapours about a well deserved rude word, and -- in a fit of profound stupidity that still has me reeling -- took at face value the spin of Kevin Miller wanting to hug PZ.

There is simply no credible way I can see at all for you to deal with your posts "This Controversy HELPS Ben Stein, People", or "Expelled Screenwriter Wants to Give PZ and Atheist Followers a 'Group Hug'", other than a frank - "I was wrong". Because you were indeed completely wrong there.

Furthermore, your response to criticism there was truly appalling. In both posts you spoke of how clueless "our side" was, and disparaged our critical faculties. Then, in the comments, you made no credible defense to real responses, but focused on the fact you were getting abused as some weird kind of self-justification. You ignored posts that robustly engaged your thesis, and just blew off the whole thing. We got this "frame" from you:

These reactions--often nasty, rarely intellectually serious--really don't make me want to explain myself further. Nisbet and I would much rather make the case before thoughtful public audiences that are engaged and ask questions--and especially before young scientists who actually want to learn something about communication.

That was really insulting of you, Chris, to a lot of thoughtful contributors whom you just ignored.

If you've changed your mind about wanting to explain yourself to your many critics in the blogsphere, you won't be able to do it just trying to reconstruct the whole framing thesis from the ground up. You have to give a substantive response to genuine specific criticisms over the details.

You should give serious consideration to doing that not with more worries about having failed to make your point or explain it well, but with a frank acknowledgement of where you were actually wrong. You've been the gift to Expelled recently; you've certainly got their endorsement. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 1, 2008 1:37 PM

Points 2 and 3 resonate with me in my field, where I basically have to convince people to do things even though most will never really understand the details. Mostly I have to convince them, for instance, that taking a handful of pills is "good for the heart".

Where it breaks down for me is this: I don't lie to my patients. If they, for ex, tell me that they are going to a homeopath, I tell them (nicely) that they are wasting time and money for no health benefit. I don't say, "well, OK, as long as you follow my advice as well."

Posted by: PalMD | April 1, 2008 1:52 PM

Evolutionary biology doesn't have anything to say about religion. It is, after all, about animals, plants, viruses, and so forth. On the other hand, there is lots of empirical evidence that accepting evolution correlates with disbelief, and I doubt if anybody seriously believes that learning more about how nature actually operates is going to bolster very many people's faith in traditional theological ideas. Logically, it could. In fact it doesn't. If framing amounts to talking up the formal neutrality of science with respect to religion in order to fool people into thinking that it isn't a practical threat to traditional religion, it is simply dishonest. Now that doesn't mean that framing is rhetorically ineffective; and while theists tend to be humorless when it comes to the morality of lying, rhetoricians (i.e. communications professors) famously are not. On the score of effectiveness, I don't claim to know whether or not the framing approach to talking about evolution is effective or not, though I think most Fundamentalists see through the sophistry in short order. Maybe it does serve to give people who don't really care about religion but want to appear "spiritual," thus providing them a way of finessing the contradiction between faith and science by allowing them to connive in the fraudulent implication that there isn't one.

Framing aside, I think the single most important thing in speaking about evolution or any other scientific issue to the general public is to recognize that the audience is incredibly ignorant. In my experience, scientists have a terrible time recognizing this fact and almost always talk way above the heads of their listeners. The issue isn't that people are stupid--they aren't--or that they should be talked down to, but that the conversation has to begin where they are at.

Posted by: Jim Harrison | April 1, 2008 2:00 PM

Chris, before you embark on a month-long discussion about the minutia of framing, address Duae Quartunciae's post. It is a perfect synopsis of the problems most Sb readers have had with the actions of you and Matt over the past week. Do so competently and you will salvage a lot of the respect that you recently lost around here.

Posted by: MH | April 1, 2008 2:55 PM

Chris, I am one of those who bears you considerable good will, and am willing for you to go about addressing things in your own way. I think you're doing it badly so far, but I am still listening, and will continue to do so.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but my name in real life is Chris Ho-Stuart. We met in Sydney, and my autographed copy of your book on the Republican War on Science remains for me a valued memento of that. Just to let you put a face with my remarks.

At the start of this post, you say:

People on the last comments thread, though, seem impatient for me to get to "substance." So I thought a slight deviation in my plan would be both more satisfying to them, and also quite illuminating.

That suggested to me that you were not merely trying to do things your own way, but actually adapt to concerns of your commenters. I think you failed in that aim, and that this post will not be at all satisfying to any of the posters who raised the matter of "substance".

Carry on as you consider best; you can do no other. You have my ear. But the dialog will continue to include criticisms and disagreements; and my attempt to point out where you have (apparently) totally misinterpreted the request for substance is a part of what is intended to be helpful criticism.

Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 1, 2008 3:28 PM

I reject your points 5 and 6.

It's a demeaning opinion of the public, and it assumes that the only way to approach people is to "pare down" the ideas. I think this is false. I can agree with the general idea of framing as a tool to get people to pay attention, but I think you're going in the wrong direction.

Science educators need to get people to accept new ideas, and they have the goal of having people learn more. You and Matt are too mired in the politics, where the idea is to get people to shift more laterally, to get them to back something without necessarily expecting them to actually acquire new information. Feed their frame, don't expect them to actually change substantively, but get them to adopt a policy in a way that doesn't require them to actually change attitudes or beliefs. That's fine if you're trying to get them to vote on a bill, but I'm not interested in that.

We want to challenge people, we want to annoy them and shake them up, we want to make them rethink, we want to make them absorb new information and come out of the process smarter. "Framing", as you and Nisbet have presented it, makes all that undesirable. It's actually a process for preserving the status quo, and if you dislike the status quo, it's going to be the opposite of what we want to do.

Posted by: PZ Myers | April 1, 2008 3:41 PM

All this discussion of if and how to frame the message of science to the general public is worthy of the highest ivory tower in academe.
It completely ignores the changed nature of the audience.
In any previous century strategic framing may have been viable, but, when anyone can access all the information excluded by a framed presentation via a few clicks of a search engine, it is counter productive to attempt such exclusion.
One may address a mesage to a well defined audience in such a way as to lead them gently towards the truth but any attempt to pander to their prejudices will be quickly exposed.

Posted by: DominicH | April 1, 2008 3:56 PM

The motivation for framing seems to be the assumption that the public can't think critically, and that we can't teach them to.

George Lakoff argues that unfortunately, when you look at things historically, people can't be relied on for this:

[W]ithin traditional liberalism you have a history of rational thought that was born out of the Enlightenment: all meanings should be literal, and everything should follow logically. So if you just tell people the facts, that should be enough -- the truth shall set you free. All people are fully rational, so if you tell them the truth, they should reach the right conclusions. That, of course, has been a disaster.

Posted by: Jon Winsor | April 1, 2008 4:15 PM

I agree with Nicole's comment above. I absolutely fail to see where "framing science" has anything at all to do with your and Nisbet's challenges to PZ and Dawkins *at the point in time* where you did. At that point, the entire "Expelled from Expelled!" event had nothing whatever to do with either science or religion; it was simply (and effectively) exposing the hypocrisy of the Expelled! producers and the way *they are framing* their publicity.

I may be eventually be amenable to a rational discussion of the role of framing in the overall promotion of science to John Q. Public, but until you address the colossal blunder of telling PZ and Dawkins (or anyone else) to shut up (in any context), I'm not quite ready for totally dispassionate discussion.

Posted by: chezjake | April 1, 2008 4:40 PM

"Frame analysis" is junk science based on introspection. Unlike real science "frames" are neither objective nor empirically determinate. Thanks, Noam.

Posted by: Mr_G | April 1, 2008 6:17 PM

So the general public won't understand the fine scientific details and need information that's been extruded from the orifice of "intensive (and expensive) research - polling, focus grouping, media research, and frame analysis". Great; if that needs to be done, do it. But once someone's interest has been caught by all the filtered stuff, where can they turn for the absolutely straight dope? I bet not many people leave Pharyngula thinking "wow, that's an overrefined and overmanaged message. I wonder what they guy really thinks?"

What I really like about SB is that it isn't advertising and it isn't journalism. I can send someone a link and know it isn't just another article in Parade magazine.

I am really looking forward to your explanation of how your fellow framers "got to the point" of telling two super-successful communicators to pipe down. Seriously.

Posted by: decrepitoldfool | April 1, 2008 6:43 PM

I reject #17 and #156

#17: All scientists and science bloggers must understand that the highest priority is to be given to immediate promotion of "science education". To the extent that promotion of other goals (e.g. atheism, rational thought, fighting terrorism) interferes with this aim, these goals must be abandoned.

#156: A single dissenting voice spoils everything. Once we get PZ and Dawkins to shut up, we must work tirelessly to suppress the next interesting voice that links science and atheism.

Posted by: ngong | April 1, 2008 6:58 PM

I think you've missed the point.

What you have set out is PR advice that might, over all, be good. Well, I don't know how it is in the US but here in Australia all universities are already well-stocked with PR people who are following that sort of advice to "frame" the importance of research in science (and other fields). Some of this is also done at the national level by the universities' peak body. Huge amounts of money go into this, but I have no problem with that at all. Nor do I have a problem if scientists (and people in other fields) are trained to do some of it themselves.

Where I have a problem is when public intellectuals who take a particular philosophical position about religion - one that may be based, in part, on what they consider to be the philosophical implications of science - are told to shut up. As I've said before, those of us who take that position may make life more complicated for the PR people who have to deal with existing demographics, including religious ones. However, we have a legitimate message of our own - whether or not any particular individual agrees with it - and reasons to think our message is important. In those circumstances, Nisbet - and all those other PR people - are just going to have to adjust their strategies to the fact that we exist and will go on doing our thing. I can understand why he finds us frustrating to deal with, but that's life in a pluralistic society for you.

Far from trying to suppress the, ahem, Voices of Disbelief in our society, which has happened all too often, I think we should be doing what we can to enable them to deliver their message to the public and provide alternatives to religion. Well, that's what I think I should be doing. In fact it's one of the things I'm doing right now, in that I'm co-editing a book provisionally entitled, ahem, Voices of Disbelief. Udo Schuklenk and I have settled a list of contributors and are currently finalising negotiations with a major academic publisher, so it looks like this book will be a reality.

For the record, that's where I come from. But it's just my opinion that these voices (such as PZ's) should be encouraged. I'm not trying to impose my opinion on anyone, but I'd like to persuade more people to adopt it.

Nisbet can disagree with me, but what he can't do, unless he wants to be met with anger and outrage, is tell people like Dawkins and PZ to shut up.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | April 1, 2008 7:23 PM

"8. All of this leads to the following conclusion: With various types of intensive (and expensive) research--polling, focus grouping, media research, frame analysis, etc--it ought to be possible to come up with a communication strategy that should work on a given scientific issue. However, these strategies will often not involve talking about the technical details of science. Often, it will be important to emphasize other aspects of the issues--moral, economic, and so on."

---------------

What you're doing here with framing is normative theory; you're generating a theory that is supposed to guide us in what we ought to be doing. Specifically, you are telling people how they ought to communicate science-influenced policy positions to the general public.
Several people have made a theory/practice distinction, and reject framing on the ground that it is merely a theory, and thus not practical. I hold a more supportive view of the role of normative theory in cases like this. But I see your argument for framing as being fundamentally misconceived, though this is apparent only once we've recognized that it is a normative and not a descriptive theory.
You approach the communication of policy positions to the general public as a practical problem, rather than as a moral problem. What you are advising is that scientists learn to manipulate the public into holding the positions they want them to. I am not suggesting that you are recommending that lying be involved; Nisbet I know explicitly rejects this. But still, what you are advocating is a form of manipulation. This, I believe, is antithetical to the values of reasoning and evidence that is the content of science itself. While name-calling and profanity are surely impolite, they are not undemocratic. Manipulation of the kind I believe is suggested by the framing thesis is antithetical to the values of public reason implicit in a constitutional democracy.
If what we want is to be the kind of society that takes science seriously, it is wrong to manipulate people into holding the right positions (though even makes the mistake of assuming that scientists are monolithic in their stands with regard to what counts as being the right position, which, when it even approaches being the case, like with climate change, is still always only approximately true). Rather, what we need to do is to be the kind of people that treat science seriously, which means engaging in arguments and citing evidence in a way that accords with our best practices and standards. I certainly do not mean to reject the idea that science needs to be communicated in a way that can be digested by many different audiences. Rather, I think it is a mistake to have as your end convincing your audience, rather than giving good reasons . The former clearly recommends manipulation as a potential tool, the latter does not.

Posted by: Pete M. | April 1, 2008 8:34 PM