Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the One of the aspects to the evolution vs. ID debate I took most notice of was the boycott of Kansas School Board proceedings by scientists holding mainstream opinions on evolution science.
The boycott was much debated throughout the blog'o'planet before the KSB hearings started, but did nothing to reverse the decision to boycott. Consequentially, the KSB hearings went on without much credible science to speak to it.
This event interested me greatly, because the boycott presents a paradox, and it's a paradox upon which scientists, as a group, made a strong decision to favor one side.
I say it's still an open question. Do you face ignorance with persistent education? Or do you assume that the outcome is fixed and so not bother to even try?
In choosing the former, the pro-science crowd perhaps didn't learn from a group of episodes in another subgenre of earth science history: earthquake prediction.
In brief, this is what happened: the late 1970's saw a few somewhat successful predictions of quakes. These "successes" bred two cottage industries: scientists trying to come up with prediction models and non-experts coming up with individualized predictions.
In 1989, a guy named Iben Browning predicted a massive quake along the New Madrid FZ. It never happened, and Browning never had even the scantest scientific backing to say that it might, but that didn't prevent massive public interest in his prediction. The science community was asked, and asked, and asked some more to address the Browning prediction, but they demurred, and demurred, and demurred some more. Their grounds were that to examine the prediction was to lend it credibility that it clearly did not have. Seems reasonable enough, but in the final analysis, it turns out to have been the wrong approach.
In a book chapter I just found, Joanne Nigg of the Disaster Research Center at the U. of Delaware explains the problem. I think those of you actively engaged in the evolution/ID PUS game should take particular note of Nigg's last two sentences, which I bolded. Obviously these two situations are very different, but they have a common thread.
Fifteen years earlier, when a similar type of pseudoscientific prediction was announced in Southern California by Henry Minturn, the legitimate scientific community had been extremely reluctant to become involved in the issue (Turner et al. 1986), and this same reluctance was on display for the Browning prediction. As early as spring 1990, some of the state geologists in the region-who considered the prediction to be completely without scientific merit - attempted to have NEPEC undertake an evaluation in order to lessen public concern. NEPEC, however, resisted conducting a formal hearing on the prediction because its members mistakenly believed that by evaluating the prediction they would give it more credibility. Informally, the legitimate earth science community had already determined that the theory upon which the prediction was based was not valid, that the evidence Browning used was flimsy, and that Browning himself had no scientific credentials in the earth sciences arena; but it had issued no formal, countervailing statement. Much of the public, meanwhile, was apparently taking the prediction seriously, as indicated by increased information-seeking about protective measures, inquiries about and purchases of earthquake insurance, and the common decision to keep children out of school during the first week of December.7 Finally, under congressional pressure, NEPEC convened in late fall 1990 and publicly issued a statement to the effect that no evidence existed that an earthquake was any more likely to occur in the New Madrid region in early December than at any other time (USGS 1990a).This prediction "event" illustrates the complex relationship between a developing science, public understanding, and governmental policy responses. Perhaps most important, the mechanism established to provide legitimate assessments of scientific predictions, NEPEC, did not provide sufficient - or sufficiently timely - guidance to citizens who lived in an area of the country that was not earthquake prone, and who were not familiar with the developing science of earthquake prediction. NEPEC attempted to deal with this prediction in much the same way it dealt with approximately three hundred other less public predictions that had come to its attention since its inception-by not evaluating it because it was deemed unscientific (USGS 1993). Eventually, NEPEC recognized that it needed to respond to the social - rather than the scientific - significance of the Browning prediction by conducting a very public evaluation. But by then, much of the damage had already been done.
Nigg, J. N. (2000). Predicting Earthquakes: Science, Pseudoscience, and Public Policy Paradox. Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. D. Sarewitz, R. A. J. Pielke and R. J. Byerly. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 135-156
Comments
# 1 | Corkscrew | March 6, 2006 8:25 PM
I'm not sure that this is a directly analogous situation. In particular:
1) The scientific community has been pretty damn forthright in condemning ID for the pseudoscience it is, and in investigating the systems that ID claims couldn't have evolved.
2) The geological community wouldn't have been presenting their findings to a hostile kangaroo court that was looking for an excuse to promote unscientific beliefs as scientific fact.
# 2 | Kevin Vranes | March 6, 2006 9:37 PM
Sure, which is why I said, "Obviously these two situations are very different, but they have a common thread."
The common thread being scientists unwilling to engage, whatever the circumstances.
# 3 | SkookumPlanet | March 7, 2006 12:25 AM
Good pick. This post is about an ongoing problem I've been watching for months in the environmental and science online communities as they discuss the current, unfavorable sociopolitical environment and what to do about it. The analysis, at all levels, seems to be in outdated and generally ineffective terms. There's an inability to come to grips with the reality of how mass decision making is being done in America these days.
The key is in the two sentences of Nigg's you highlight. "... it needed to respond to the social - rather than the scientific - significance ..." Reality barely matters. What people, especially voters, percieve to be reality is what decision making is based on. Perhaps this is so obvious it's overlooked.
There has grown up in the last two decades, basically invisible except to the relevant professionals, a sophisticated, science-based approach to subconsciously building reality in peoples minds. This approach allows persuaders to, in essence, pre-condition how people treat new incoming information.
So, if all citizens hear week after week after week is the erroneous prediction and nothing else, the prediction becomes reality by default. It's very costly to try to undo something like this once it's been established. It's nearly impossible to fight this approach when it's being done long term and deliberately unless those in opposition get in the game of influencing and shaping this unconscious terrain also. Otherwise, when you make fact-based information available, it never makes it through the front gate.
# 4 | guthrie | March 7, 2006 6:09 AM
Skookum PLanet, have you got any links to stuff about subconsciously building realities in peoples minds?
I know about some stuff, all the way from Vance Packard's book "The hidden persuaders", but am lacking in up to date knowledge.
# 5 | Brian S. | March 7, 2006 12:25 PM
I'd tend to favor "debate the bastards," but how about a compromise suggestion: refuse to debate whether creationism should be taught in schools, but accept a debate over whether creationism/ID is a school of scientific thought. The idea is that people first have to consider whether it's even a scientific theory, before they weigh whether it should be taught agains the consensus position.
This eliminates the unstated assumption that creationism IS a scientific theory, and puts the focus squarely on whether creationism has any explanatory power.
# 6 | SkookumPlanet | March 7, 2006 1:23 PM
Guthrie
First, I know about this from being interested in science, advertising, mass communication [media], script writing, journalism, and politics for 30 years and following developments in these fields. Much of my understanding of psychomarketing has come in bits and pieces, which makes it difficult to succinctly describe and reference.
I have some pages downloaded and I'll try to chase down their addresses, but not until this evening west coast time. I can give you some people and places that will provide some fundamentals.
George Lakoff. He has a number of introductory articles and interviews on the web, including his Rockridge Institute. Two of his books cover politics using his linguistics approach to understanding "persuasion" messages. Moral Politics and a slimmed-down version of it, Don't Think of an Elephant. He's trying to drag the left into the reality of what and how the far right has gained control. He has his work cut out for him. His concept of "framing" stresses using the right language to activate existing "subconscious realities" and, over time, to buid them
On the other side is Frank Luntz. He's the GOP genius who uses various tools to select specific words for Republican message scripts. Some of this is infamous. Luntz convinced the GOP to change the name of the Estate/Inheritence Tax to "Death Tax", and voila! In spring, 2003 the Environmental Working Group obtained 16 pages of a 200+-page briefing book for Republicans, by Luntz, that detailed how to spin environment and public health issues. It should still be on their website. He's interviewed on the "Persuaders" website, below, and appears in the show/transcript. I believe he rationalizes the "Death Tax" decision. You should be able to find his firm by googling "Luntz Research", but I don't think there's anything insightful there -- his thing is subconscious.
Finally, google Douglas Rushkoff . He's a media analyst, focuses a lot on psychomarketing to teenagers, and has articles on-line. He's co-written PBS-Frontline's The Persuaders and was the correspondent on PBS-Frontline's The Merchants of Cool. Both these website have lots of information.
Both Lakoff and Luntz were on Bill Moyer's "Now" during the last presidential election and its website had transcripts and links to other info about them.
Brian S.
You/we don't get to pick what/how a public audience perceives what a public debate is about. And there's no way to control what the opponents talk about. In general, the public is so scientifically ignorant, and any sort of debate format so inimical to scientific discussion, these things always favor ID. For example, all ID has to do is present their laundry list of "weaknesses" of evolution. You can address them, which takes your time from your message, or ignore them, which means then, I guarantee you, is what the audience will take away with them.
The public is not, and cannot be made to [short of decades of functional science teaching], psychologically suited to following arcane scientific debate. We need to understand how their brains process information first, then devise strategies for getting messages through to those brains. Not how we want or assume their minds to function.
# 7 | Kevin Vranes | March 7, 2006 6:04 PM
BS: refuse to debate whether creationism should be taught in schools, but accept a debate over whether creationism/ID is a school of scientific thought
SP: You/we don't get to pick what/how a public audience perceives what a public debate is about.
Yes and Yes. I think the answer is you march right into the KSB hearings and say, "Here's what is science, here's what is not science, and here is why everything that the ID people are critical of is off base."
# 8 | SkookumPlanet | March 7, 2006 9:34 PM
Kevin
I don't disagree, but I don't think many understand how to do that in an effective way.
Of course, literally marching in, flaunting debate structure, talking over your opponent, etc. doesn't work either. Humans are primarily emotional decision makers and it's a given that the right type of negative image of the messenger in the receiver's mind can shut out anything else.
There's an analogy here between the KSB debate issue and my point about psychomarketing.
Taking such a debate seriously means fighting to "march right in" from the earliest possible moment. From the beginning tailor everything, try to control everything, to your advantage. The debate format is only the beginning.
This is analagous to our current sociopolitical situation. The radical right has, over a couple decades and very slowly, manufactured a social/political environment conducive to their tactical success -- think of it as very long-term agenda setting [here, "debate format"] by shaping a public's collective unconscious mind. The results speak for themselves.
I don't know details of the KSB hearings, but I read complaints [and assumed] that the format was set up to favor creationists and disfavor scientists. Really smart, knowledgable people could, and do, just format their opposition to defeat. So, our side should have been in the trenches from the first whiff of this, with a fully researched and prioritized battleplan designed to shape the battlefield long before the debate.. This isn't something left to improvisation -- every bit of every decision should be considered from the viewpoint of such strategy.
This is why presidential campaigns are, early on, primarily about setting the agenda for that cycle. One example. During the Republican convention that nominated Reagan the first time, numerous media people commented on the air about how strange the convention hall looked. All the red, white, and blue were strangely off-hue, I don't remember how it was described. And these media people had all been told by the party's PR that the reason was this -- these hues were picked to present the correct, perfect, etc. red, white, and blue on a television screen! Camera's and CRT's don't reproduce color accurately and these colors would look right. [I actually know a bit about this, and the RGB technology was chosen early on because it was best at displaying skin color. [no, I don't know whose skin.]]
I know this sounds excruciatingly mundane to many. But this is what's happening, it's heavily based on science, and the other side has built their success on three decades of carefully analysis, experiment, and results of details at all levels. This is no more excruciatingly mundane than what scientists do daily in the lab.
# 9 | Brian S. | March 7, 2006 11:35 PM
Skookum, the problem with shaping the battlefield at KSB is the wingnuts were in charge. I think we can beat them even when they're in charge, though, because they've got nothing else in their favor. Regardless, I was suggesting an alternative - scientists decline to testify over comparative evidence for evolution v. ID, but accept invitations to testify whether ID is a scientific theory. This is a way to reshape the battlefield somewhat, and frame the question differently - have people think first about whether ID even rises to the level of being considered part of science.
I'll admit that many people won't notice the difference, but some would, and it gives an intellectually honest way to debate the issues.
# 10 | SkookumPlanet | March 8, 2006 1:30 AM
Brian
I understand, and agree with you. And it is a way of shaping the battlefield.
I'm suggesting your level parsing this out should be applied to everything, every venue, channel etc. Even though wingnuts were in control at KSB, scientists should be smarter than them, and a relentless, semi-stealthy discussion over every possible item might allow some of the "battlefield" to be shaped in our favor without them being the wiser. If scientists and allies understand what is they are after.
# 11 | guthrie | March 8, 2006 7:50 AM
Thanks Skookum Planet!
(Thats a weird name)
From the persuaders on PBS link, it looks like they are still talking the language of marketing like when i did a couple of management mondules. But then the neuromarketing is also taking it to a new level. What I am really interested in is the use of language- hardly a new skill, but its one I need to get better at. I shall see if I can find these books.
# 12 | SkookumPlanet | March 8, 2006 1:19 PM
Guthrie
Start by googling Lakoff. There are a number of intros and summaries of his ideas on the net. And interviews also. I believe his Rockridge Insitute website has similar material too.
With some background, you can just deconstruct the language you come across, especially in the messages you want to emulate or counter. To see an example of this -- last summer I posted such an analysis of two paragraphs of some ID babble on wikipedia and found, by one count, 93 lies in 200 words! It's on my user page, same name, one word.
While you're there you can look up "skookum". I paint and write about landscape, and love to read science about evolution, especially our evolution. Hence, the nom de net.