…and this is a 
What if the right role for science is to shatter the frame?
Category: Godlessness • Politics • Religion • Science
Posted on: April 6, 2007 2:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney have a short policy paper in Science that criticizes scientists for how they communicate to the public. Mooney says that "many scientists don't really know what they're up against when suddenly thrust into the media spotlight and interactions with politicians" — I agree completely. We are not trained to be glib and glossy, and we simply do not come across as well as we could. We're also not really that interested, generally speaking, in the kind of presentation that plays well in 3 minutes on a news broadcast. It's more than a cosmetological failure, though; as Nisbet says, "scientists, without misrepresenting scientific information, must learn to shape or 'frame' contentious issues in a way that make them personally relevant to diverse segments of the public, while taking advantage of the media platforms that reach these audiences." I can go along with that, too.
In the battleground I play in, the evolution/creation wars, I know that the majority of the public are victims. We share common values: they are promoting their particular beliefs not because they are stupid or evil, but because they care about living in a good society, because they want their children to grow up economically successful and personally happy, and they are convinced that evolution threatens their personal bliss. (They're wrong, of course, because they've been lied to, but they don't know that.) One effective tactic for our side is to hammer on those shared values, and point out that good science is essential for economic competitiveness, for medical progress, and to improve everything from agriculture to reproductive biology. People respond well to appeals to the health and welfare of their grandchildren. It's fair to suggest that instructing the public in abstractions like genetics and molecular biology as wonderful and interesting for their own sake is going to have limited success, because very few will care, while many more will like to hear about the consequences of research in genetics and molecular biology on their well being.
Where we can, we should do a better job of fitting science into the appropriate context of public concerns, and I agree with Nisbet and Mooney that assistance from those better versed in the politics of communication should be welcomed. I appreciate suggestions for polishing. However, I think Nisbet and Mooney are so focused on how better to fit scientist's goals to the public's perceptions that they neglect another important function: sometimes we want to change the public's ideas. We want to break the frames of the debate and shift whole worldviews, and accommodating ourselves to the status quo won't do.
We are living in a country that has gone horribly wrong; more than 50% of the public reject basic biology, we see citizens denied civil liberties because of their sexual preference, and we're mired in an unjust war, to name just a few problems. Nisbet and Mooney acknowledge that we're seeing a hardening of anti-science attitudes along partisan lines. What they propose, though, is a strategy of taking on the problems indirectly, cozening up to people and winning them over on shared values, but basically avoiding contention on other angles that would cause people to shut down and ignore your message.
I disagree. We are a culture afflicted with bad ideas, and it is irresponsible to ignore them. One of our jobs must be to speak out plainly in opposition to bad ideas; sure, we should inform people that evolutionary biology is essential for basic research in medicine, and we should try to avoid boring them with technical details, but at least some of us have to confront deep-rooted social ills that have long damaged the effectiveness of scientific advancement. Asking that we always bow respectfully towards established societal norms is nothing but a demand for conformity, for the maintenance of the status quo, and sometimes we need change, damnit.
For a representative problem, take religion (you knew I'd be going in that direction, didn't you?) The authors' press release also makes an issue of it, though, in a conventional nod to the virtues of piety, which I detest.
The authors point out that when scientists discuss science-related policy questions in technical language, many members of the public tune it out. Moreover, even while continuing to employ traditional modes of communication, scientists themselves have come under increasing attack for being too atheistic, too self-interested and/or too liberal.
OK, let's ease up on the technical language that loses us our audience needlessly; that's a fair cop. The rest, though, buys directly into the conservative and religious framing (useful word, that) by citing atheism and liberal values as negatives. Why do that? The problem isn't that scientists are too atheistic or too liberal. It's that religious leaders are given unwarranted respect and allowed to lie to the public. That's something we should try to change, not to which we should try to conform or accommodate.
They do it again in the Science article:
The evolution issue also highlights another point: Messages must be positive and respect diversity. As the film Flock of Dodos painfully demonstrates, many scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others' religious beliefs.
Examples of a religious belief are that the Earth is 6000 years old, that T. rex's sharp teeth were used to crack open coconuts, and that the Bible is literally accurate in its claim that the patriarchs were giants because we have pygmies and dwarfs today. Why the hell should I treat such nonsense respectfully? Why shouldn't we point out clearly, loudly, and frequently that these ideas are irrational, contradicted by the evidence, and just plain wrong? Religion is more than a social convention to negotiate, it is the root of the conflict. This demand for respect for religious beliefs, unjustified except by the fact that people get offended when they are refuted, is precisely the problem — there are some ideas that we have to eradicate with sledge and jackhammer, and there just isn't any delicate dodge we can use to work around them. Yes, it will hurt, and yes, people will whimper and weep and howl in anger, but running away from the risk of offending people cannot be the be-all and end-all of our efforts.
The major failure of Nisbet's and Mooney's vision is that they seem unable to consider that scientists are capable of or should even try to work for major changes in our culture; we are always to be the ones who must conform to the majority's views, no matter how wrong they are, and we have to be the supplicants who are very careful not to offend and who always beg for scraps in the terms they dictate. Their suggestions are all about tactical poses and completely neglect any long-term strategy or consideration of greater goals than getting by for the day.
I can accept some of their suggestions, but not all. Most importantly, I would emphasize that the role of the public intellectual must be to challenge, not to conform. Yet all I see in their proposal is a policy of appeasement, and nowhere is there an understanding or acknowledgment that scientists must also stretch boundaries, or even break them.
Comments
'I'll drink to that.'
Posted by: Andrew Evans | April 6, 2007 2:31 AM
OK, it's 2:30am here, I am incoherent and I am going to bed now, but I will try to write something tomorrow and I think that you and them are not as much at odds with each other as you think, i.e., I do not think that they would disagree with you (much), they are just focusing on a different facet of the topic, or a different angle, not taking a different stance on the same angle. I may or may not change my mind on this in the morning once I re-read all the articles/posts on the topic again with a rested brain.
Posted by: coturnix | April 6, 2007 2:36 AM
"we are always to be the ones who must conform to the majority's views, no matter how wrong they are, and we have to be the supplicants who are very careful not to offend and who always beg for scraps in the terms they dictate."
Yet scientists have a reputation for arrogance.
Posted by: ferfuracious | April 6, 2007 2:39 AM
From the authors press release:
Moreover, even while continuing to employ traditional modes of communication, scientists themselves have come under increasing attack for being too atheistic, too self-interested and/or too liberal.
i.e., most scientists are not Republican script-reciters.
Really, the observation (which is probably made-up bullcrap in the first place) is not evidence of scientists' shortcomings. It's evidence of the rotten world we live in right now and how anyone who speaks forthrightly as a liberal or atheist is bound to be condemned, ridiculed or viewed as "shrill" at the same time self-described "conservatives" are invited back to national TV over and over again to spout utterly ignorant garbage and smears.
Of course Republicans want scientists to play nice and treat their fundie base respectfully. The worst thing that could happen to Republicans would be for those fundies to be loudly rejected by conservatives who aren't insane religious-peddling idiots. Those cracks are barely visible and now is the time to wedge them wide open. The goal is to create a situation where no serious political party wants the public support of the ignorant anti-science fundies, just like no serious political party wants the public support of the Ku Klux Klan.
PZ writes
I appreciate suggestions for polishing.
Don't use the fundie's "worldview" rhetoric. It's not necessary or helpful, IMHO.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 6, 2007 2:55 AM
Yet scientists have a reputation for arrogance.
That's mugglespeak for "Wah! I don't understand what you're talking about, and you're using big words, and....Oh look, it's Britney, she's cut her hair, and Brad's pregnant, and JLo's fat, and Jennifer's cheating on..."
(Sorry, is that arrogant?)
Posted by: AlanW | April 6, 2007 4:32 AM
You're speaking clearly and sensibly again, now if that's not arrogance, I don't know what is.
But about this:
I've heard this reference quite a bit on this blog and thought it was ridiculously funny... but a joke of some sort. Now you're saying it's an actual "argument" that cretinists make? Where did they ever come up with that one?
Excuse me, my mind is boggling. Must.Not.Read.Creationist.Crap.Ever.Again.
Aaaaaarrrgh!
Posted by: MTran | April 6, 2007 5:37 AM
You give them way too much credit if you think they're going to give you three minutes on a news broadcast. Either you have some in-depth news broadcasts in Morris or you need to get out more.
The segment might be 30 seconds, maybe a minute on a really slow night (say, Bush hasn't called anyone a terrorist supporter in a week); they're not giving any direct quote more than 10 seconds. Fifteen max.
If you can't cogently explain evolution, and quash every whack-a-mole claim in a tight seven, you don't have time left over for a pthy barb and you risk everything ending up on the floor back at NewsCentral.
They don't have time for you to go on and on and on for a solif fifteen seconds.
Posted by: Lettuce | April 6, 2007 5:57 AM
Rght n PZ! Nn f ths trtng ppl y dsgr wth rspctflly. Mk sr thy knw wht y rlly thnk f thm; hw nfrr nd stpd thy r!
Ys, th ppl hv bn ld t, bt PZ Myrs wll tll thm th trth!
Trst hm! H s nly ntrstd n th trth.
H hs n thr gnd.
Y cn bt yr lf n tht!
Posted by: Tran | April 6, 2007 6:04 AM
MTran:
Yes.
Posted by: llewelly | April 6, 2007 6:18 AM
Tran: You don't think there's a difference between general respect and unwarranted respect?
Posted by: tigtog | April 6, 2007 6:23 AM
Excellent!
P.S. Don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | April 6, 2007 6:36 AM
It's telling that of the three 'bad ideas' you listed, which are presumably the first three that came to mind while you were writing this post, two of them have absolutely nothing to do with science. One is a social issue, the other a political issue. Your positions on both are merely your opinion, nothing more.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps your propensity for using your authority as a scientist to back your positions on non-science issues is (rightly) perceived by your targets as a fallacious argument from authority? And that this serves only to degrade your authority in their minds, so that when the topic is something scientific, like evolution, you've already established yourself in their minds as a liar and a con man?
Posted by: wolfwalker | April 6, 2007 6:50 AM
I can't get to the whole article, but, PZ quotes:
"Moreover, even while continuing to employ traditional modes of communication, scientists themselves have come under increasing attack for being too atheistic, too self-interested and/or too liberal."
Note the "even while continuing to employ traditional modes..." In other words, "Even while scientists are being the most boring frickin' people imaginable, they are under attack for being interesting." ANd there's another political parallel. Is there any connection between the behavior of the victim, and the attacks they are coming under? No, there is none.
What is happening is that one side is being nasty; they are name calling and getting off topic. If, as the authors point out, messages "need to be positive," then we would not have a problem. It would be the anti-science side that would be reading articles that say, "We need to stop sounding like knuckle-dragging enthusiasts of the 12th century who are always down on progress."
Let's not kid ourselves. The anti-science crowd doesn't earnestly hate evolution because they believe in irreducible complexity. They hate science because it is liberal and because it is atheistic. They will attack scientists and science for being liberal and atheistic, no matter what the scientists does or says.
The proper response to these attacks is to say, "enough," and kick some balls and go for an eye gouge. Let's accuse them of being afraid of progress, let's accuse them of cleaving to fundamentalism, let's accuse them of being afraid of knowledge, afraid of truth. And notice I did not say, "Let's attack them for believing in God." That's a non-starter. I'm an atheist, and I know that. But there is a way to get in the mud with these pricks and still win. In fact, if we want to win, we have to get in the mud, and that means not being afraid to go negative.
War is upon us, whether we like it or not. Don't be this guy:
http://images.bruinsnation.com/images/admin/theoden.jpg
Posted by: inkadu | April 6, 2007 7:00 AM
PZ: Sometimes it's easier, quicker and cleaner to lever a box (or closed mind) open than to try to smash it in with a hammer.
You said as much yourself: "One effective tactic for our side is to hammer on those shared values...." (OK, you did mention "hammer." ;-)
Yep, show folks where they've been lied to, but there's no better way to ensure they won't listen to what you're trying to tell them than to start by saying "Your long-cherished belief is crap!" Start with the shared values; then show how that contradicts what they've been told; then instead of saying, "See, it's all a lie!" just ask 'em to think about it for a while. (Lots of times they'll think plenty about it without you having to ask.)
Folks can be pretty smart; let's have some confidence that good information will eventually replace the bad in their logic systems. (If one has no confidence in the intelligence and sincerity of most of one's fellow humans, that really *is* arrogance.)
Posted by: Jud | April 6, 2007 7:01 AM
llewelly,
Yikes! It's real, pygmies and dwarfs, oh my! I ... I ... feel ill!
Thanks for disabusing me of my ignorance on this topic.
Posted by: MTran | April 6, 2007 7:11 AM
Exactly.
As satisfying as an all-out frontal assault may be, it's the one sure way to guarantee that the message will be lost and you'll just be preaching to the choir.
Posted by: Orac | April 6, 2007 7:13 AM
Thanks PZ for the thoughtful response. It merits a surreply and we'll have one coming your way. In the meantime, because the Science piece was necessarily brief, I've posted a list of resources that elaborate on the argument that Matt and I were making:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/04/framing_science_additional_res.php
Posted by: Chris Mooney | April 6, 2007 7:19 AM
I don't consider it argument from authority. But again, if a scientist is some uber-marxist, then the population should be able to deal with this fact and separate it from the work of the scientist. It is only the prejudiced framing that causes them to get biased against the scientific work.
I'm sorry that a professional commenting on things outside of his 'field' makes him "a liar and a con man". But since those two other issues are non-scientific, you don't need professionalism in order to comment upon them. As purely political matters every (non)profession has equal weight on the matters.
I suppose that the next time they represent a religious figure that is in opposition to certain scientific issue, they need to include a dozen scientific professionals (including political science I suppose) just to address this ONE religious person. For some reason religious people are given the "ok" to comment on whatever they want while a scientist is expected to comment only on a very narrow spectrum. At the end the public, due to the framing of religion in our society, is still going to take the "religious" opinion with at least equal, if not more, authority than the scientist.
Posted by: daenku32 | April 6, 2007 7:19 AM
I think Mooney is right in that scientists really need some kind of media training. We need to learn how to communicate clearly and concisely and how to advance arguments.
I think PZ is right that sometimes we give religious beliefs too much deference. The so-called "arrogance" is the impatience of an expert with an amateur who thinks they know what they are talking about. I try to frame it like this "if you are going to make a scientific argument then you have to prove your claims, just like any scientists." This actually works well with the "teach the controversy" people because they want to be reasonable, but believe the creationists rhetoric.
So my advice - appeal to reason and fairness and frame the debate as a scientific debate using our rules, not theirs. We can disagree without resorting to calling someone stupid. I do not think that giving a lot of deference to the religious beliefs has worked well in the past, I think this is how we got in the position we are in today.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | April 6, 2007 7:22 AM
Daenke...and what if the scientist is an uber atheist?
Posted by: Tran | April 6, 2007 7:34 AM
I think the definitive two-word response to all of this nonsense about how the "shrill" amongst us should moderate their speech in order to avoid scaring the poor little sheep is, "Overton window".
It's been working for the right wing nutjobs for the past couple decades. It's time to make it work for us too, and stop letting the fantasy-based community define the boundaries of acceptable debate. The fact that liberalism and secularism are on the offensive for once is a good thing, so we need to make the best possible use of our advantage while we have it, not walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of crazy people. As far as I'm concerned, every scientist and every liberal should be shrill.
We should be pushing that Overton window so far that my children in fifteen years or so will be saying to me, "But mommy, how could they believe something so silly as intelligent design? Why would they be so crazy as to not want to stop destroying the planet? How could they be so horrible as to not let people marry whoever they want, or to make women have babies when they don't want to? How could they be so dumb as to think that invading Iraq was a good idea? Why would anybody not want universal health care?" And we should push that damn window so far that the only response I'll have is, "You know, honey, it's been so long since I thought about those people that I can't even remember."
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | April 6, 2007 8:10 AM
There is an urgent need for better communication if one is to believe this Newsweek Poll.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17875540/site/newsweek/
Not only is it discouraging for the persistence of superstition, but for the illogic of a large part of the population.
Though 68% say that an atheist can be a moral person, only 29% say that they would vote for one. That means that about 30% of Americans would not vote for what they think is a moral person only because he/she is an atheist.
There are other inconsistencies in the responses. Can't people even think through their basic beliefs?
Posted by: bernarda | April 6, 2007 8:15 AM
Thanks for the especially compelling entry!
Posted by: scotth | April 6, 2007 8:18 AM
The public is stupid, no so much because of lack of potential (although that's also a factor) as because of lack of development, and it has no interest in becoming not-stupid.
I'm hearing half-truths: yes, the more knowledgeable member of a teaching interaction ought to work to make things comprehensible for the student, but we're not dealing with willing students, we're dealing with people who aren't interested in learning and certainly not in anything we're teaching.
Science is essential. Either the masses can learn it, or get out of the way - if they do neither, we will withdraw it and its benefits from them. If you're not competent to understand the issues, you're not entitled to decide what needs to be done.
That is the message we need to be sending - only if we're willing to carry through on the threat, though.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 6, 2007 8:33 AM
3 minutes on a news broadcast? Isn't it closer to 30 seconds?
Posted by: Zwirko | April 6, 2007 8:39 AM
#16:
If *someone* doesn't make the frontal assault, then people who have their own doubts about the reality of gods will second-guess themselves because everyone else believes it (or appears to).
Even a few dissenters make it much easier for people to follow their own ideas than when there is a monolithic consensus. Asch and Milgram both proved that. If everyone else is pressing the god button like they're told to, one person who visibly refuses can make a difference in allowing others to refuse.
We need a variety of approaches: some people will be repelled by PZ, but respond well to Sagan or Russell, while others need to hear exactly what PZ is saying: there is no god and you're not the only one who thinks so.
#12:
Non-science issues? Which ones are those? The issues where examining evidence and thinking logically about it is of no help whatsoever? I can't think of any.
Normative questions cannot be *completely* decided by empirical means, but even then, a common understanding of relevant empirical facts can be useful. For example, why do people have the sexual orientations they have? That question and its answers may have some relevance to the social issue of how society ought to treat people with less-common sexual orientations, don't you think?
Similarly, while science can't answer the question of whether or not a war is "unjust", it certainly CAN answer the question of whether or not the public rationale for the war was a pack of lies (forensic examination is a science too, you know).
Whether you define "science" narrowly or broadly, critical thinking, skepticism and a demand to see the evidence shouldn't stop at the laboratory door. A democracy cannot be healthy if its people are unable to resist deception.
Posted by: Chris | April 6, 2007 8:40 AM
Er, that sounds a little "Atlas Shrugged" to me. It's not that "we" will be withdrawing the benefits of science from "them" if we don't get our way. It's that "we" and "they" will both start to discover that our high-tech affluent society is simply unsustainable in the face of superstition, loss of technical expertise, and massive social inequality, and "we" and "they" will both lose the benefits associated with that society. The former depiction is merely an unrealistic revenge fantasy. The latter is an actual real-world possibility that "we" are trying to guard against by educating "them".
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | April 6, 2007 8:41 AM
Okay, Orac, Jud, and everyone else who repeats the old canard that starting off by insulting people's beliefs usually doesn't work: I'm calling your bluff. I have a hunch that it's just a thing that atheists who want to be seen as nice keep saying without any evidence that it's true.
Prove me wrong, though: Have you ever actually tried it (it being calling a debate opponent's irrational beliefs, biases, or framing of the issue foolish or just flat-out wrong) and had them, for that reason, consequently shut down to all actual information? Has this ever happened with an opponent who you had any reason to suspect was interested in the truth from the get-go?
I'm just a sample of one, but I used to be lost in a Francis Collins-ish world of mental compartmentalization--praying, going to (a non-fundie) church regularly, even trying to defend my belief in God, in actual arguments, as belonging to this super-special category of things that logic just didn't hold sway over. But the habits I had slipped into were incredibly stupid. I'd listen to sermons (at a mainline, moderate, and consequently muddleheaded Protestant church) and spend my mental energy admiring the architecture, the music, or the joviality of the sermon instead of bothering to notice how it all contradicted the bloody book that was right bloody in front of me.
It is fortunate that I had a close friend (a philosophy major, no less) who felt no compunction about challenging and hammering me on every one of my points, calling them completely silly when they were in fact completely silly. I can't attribute my consequent rejoining of the reality-based community all to him, of course; I actually started reading science again at about the same time. But the salient point is that I wasn't so shallow that I took umbrage to a direct assault (though I was offended by it) and consequently shut down to any and all information about how thew world actually works. I was, in fact, interested in actually learning.
It's possible my experience was totally unique among mankind, but I doubt it. Surely there are other data points out there of people who were challenged directly and had it actually work.
Posted by: cbutterb | April 6, 2007 9:04 AM
Yes, I know that 3 minutes would be an exceptionally generous allotment of time on the TV. I was being pollyannish. Just look at the recent Anderson Cooper episode, where they gave ten minutes to the creationists, and brought in one token scientist, Novacek...who got to utter two sentences.
We need people like Nisbet and Mooney who will help us to make the best of our two sentences, but we also need a lot of howling mad scientists who will break the two-sentence limit and change the way people think.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 6, 2007 9:20 AM
It seems easy to frame debates. But I have some problems with pinning down exactly what framing means, especially in the context of science.
Framing seems to mean to offer a context, often implicitly taken to mean social, that suits certain reader groups. The message is presented within the frame. Another often used term, spin, would conversely seem to imply to distort the message to suit the purpose, for example by leaving out existing data.
Then some contexts makes a "scientific frame" a frame as well. The original post is somewhat suggesting conflating social issues frames with other uses, which is confusing.
Carl Zimmer of the Loom also finds framing science "a bit murky" and sometimes a "surrender". He comes down on the classical note that education is important. ( http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/04/06/scientists_armed_with_frames.php )
One could of course say that he would, being a science journalist. But blogging and other new media will diversify both debates and how they are done. Frames and other presentation methods are important here, as is scientist participation.
But in the ways they feel they can do it best. Provocation and moving an extreme of the debate are also strategic presentation methods. It could also be beneficial for scientists to proactively suggest, help construct, or support frames in areas where it is a political debate or social issue. (For example, "point out that good science is essential for economic competitiveness".)
It is true that it is social questions, and that PZ may want to argue non-scientific such. But if framing, or other participations in a social debate, is to be encouraged it can't be a one-way street. And more specifically here, all of these areas contains science issues.
On sexual preferences, there is the question how much is nature and how much is nurture. On the war, it was the question and search of WMD's, and now studies on the effects of war such as the Lancet report, et cetera.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 6, 2007 9:34 AM
"Being willing to learn" is part of the cooperation they must display. It is not our obligation to cajole the masses into learning the basic skills necessary to maintain our civilization. The simple fact is that the ignorant need the knowledgeable far more than the knowledgeable need the ignorant.
If you haven't accepted that there are actual divisions within our society, and that people with a rudimentary understanding of rationality and the scientific method are genuinely different than the people who lack it, I think you're part of the problem at this point.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 6, 2007 9:36 AM
Though 68% say that an atheist can be a moral person, only 29% say that they would vote for one. That means that about 30% of Americans would not vote for what they think is a moral person only because he/she is an atheist.
I think you're combining the two questions, when they are seperate. Just because an atheist can be a moral person in their eyes doesn't mean they think a random atheist is likely to be moral.
Posted by: Scott de B. | April 6, 2007 9:45 AM
The comment about scientists being perceived as "too liberal" brings up a point that someone (I think it was a commenter here -- anybody remember who?) said, which I think needs driving home: "reality has a strong left-wing bias" (or something to that effect). This sounds dismissively glib, but I think it reasonable to argue that the scientific consensus is the best picture that we have of reality, and we must accept that ignoring them means removing ourselves from reality. Scientific consensus is not merely another "special interest"; its views should not be made to compete with those of business and religious interests on equal footing. If we think that that consensus is giving us "left-wing" messages, perhaps we need to reevaluate where the "left" and "right" ought to be.
(Of course, convincing members of the fantasy-based community of this will not be easy.)
Posted by: Opisthokont | April 6, 2007 11:41 AM
I think that this sums it up in a nutshell. It's nothing short of pathetic that we're living in a culture that values knee-jerk emotional reactions above intelligence and inquiry. I think we have to blame some of it on school systems, who from a very young age train kids to think of what their education gets them in terms of jobs and future financial success instead of learning for learning's sake. THINKING should be goal and reward, not money or job title.
Posted by: dorid | April 6, 2007 11:43 AM
Oh, and as far as that poll goes, I have to wonder about the substantial number of people who identify themselves as atheists/agnostics/non-religious and also believe that God created everything in its present form within the last 10,000 years. Can anyone explain this to me, or are irony meters in such short supply these days that people think them optional equipment?
Posted by: Opisthokont | April 6, 2007 11:45 AM
The United States is going down the drain because of the (largely religion-fuelled) ignorance, stupidity and pigheaded arrogance ("Shining city on a hill", my ass)of most of its population. I'm afraid I'm pretty much at the point of despair as to whether it can still be rescued from the oblivion into which all the other great empires of history have passed. I say that not in a gloating way but with immense sorrow.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 6, 2007 11:48 AM
I agree, and this is one of the places that I differed with Mooney after reading The Republican War On Science. If scientists have to keep conforming language to how others want to hear it, well then they're just letting the public walk al over them. What if the public wants scientists to relabel evolution as "fuzzy whumplekins" in order to injest it without childish, reflexive emotional fits? What good does that serve at all?
I am definintely in the camp that says scientists, when speaking to the public, need to enumerate what their research is doing for real people, i.e. what is a probable outcome given 5 years of research and funding? Tell people why it is important work. Bring up China's progress (which will likely stoke some pro-America sentiment). Show how India is embracing science. Promote science programs at storied institutions across the nations. Show that a science and technology nation is one that thrives in the future.
As I always say, no nation ever became a world leader, in any sense of the term, because of the god it worshipped, and that is absolutely the case for the United States. God didn't give us unprecendented national defense. God didn't give us cures and treatments for diseases thought to be unassailable decades ago. God didn't give us our scientific and technological knowledge. People earned it. And if this nation is going to earn the future it should have, indeed deserves to have, then science education and scientific curiosity are inseperable from that.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 6, 2007 11:55 AM
Nope, let scientists do their job.
Hire good marketing to make the right noises (seriously!).
I was at a little supercomputing gathering last year. This guy from a leading chip maker was showing off his bit of research. 5-mins and everyone is nodding off. Nobody could make any sense of the direction this guy was trying to go - you know good research but bad slides and all.
So around 25min mark there comes a slide (definitely slide number >40) that he claimed marketing designers forced him to include against his *better* judgment. Unfortunately for his *better* judgment, that slide was the only one that tied together everything he said before or after.
I have been more respectful of my marketing group (designers et al) since then :-)
Posted by: GS | April 6, 2007 11:56 AM
Caledonian, #24:
LOL!!! According to census figures, all scientists and related technicians account for just under 2.5% of the US population. Biologists account for maybe 0.3% if we're generous. Notable loudmouth religion-haters attempting to impose their metaphysical beliefs *as* science don't add up to a full complement of fingers and toes.
Yet the general public is the largest contributor to science funding, even though they seldom receive the benefits of applications. Thus the public has a direct interest in how their funds are distributed, and are not all that impressed with claims of infallibility or personal arrogance from the proudly amoral inventors of designer plagues and other WMDs gifted to shady politicians so they can kill people more effectively.
It's a lot more likely that questionable 'scientific' endeavors will find themselves without public funding altogether than it is likely a handful of rabid haters will succeed in appropriating the public purse with empty-headed threats. This would be a shame, but humanity will survive.
Posted by: jb | April 6, 2007 11:58 AM
Humanity in fact could survive only with a vastly reduced population and standard of living without the application of scientific knowledge. (And the process of getting to that radically lower population density would be ugly indeed.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 6, 2007 12:03 PM
Scientists:
I'm sure PZ didn't mean it this way but to be clear: Please, please, please don't stint on the technical details when they're important. How else are we going to understand things otherwise?
Dumbing down the science has the potential to be bad ideological framing. When you leave out too many details, then the reader has to take the science article on faith.
I'm not advocating that science articles in the NY Times be filled with jargon and equations. But please understand that interested laypeople are willing to be challenged and positively enjoy puzzling out a complicated, but well-written science story.
In fact, I just did so: PZ's marvelous post on the Hagfish!
love,
tristero
Posted by: tristero | April 6, 2007 12:05 PM
The bias in favor of religion can even be seen in something as trivial as a review of the new (crappy looking) supernatural thriller, "The Reaping," which refers to the lead character as "losing her faith." Really? Because as a former evangelical Christian who is now a thoroughgoing atheist, I do not consider that I so much "lost my faith" as "awakened from my delusions." I think that's why we usually say a drunk is "sobering up" rather than "losing his slurs and stumbles."
I think we might need to fight this war on two fronts, sort of good cop/bad cop, as PZ implies in this post. The bad cop part is the full-on message that the masses are being lied to and fooled about many matters of fact. But the good cop part, expressed very well in Philip Kitchers "Living With Darwin" and in portions of Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell," is sympathy for what the masses think is at risk. Yes, we want healthy children with good opportunities in the world. But religious leaders convince many people that without their dogmas and superstitions, those children will have no basis for morality, and no sense of meaning or purpose in life. We must address that concern in more reassuring tones, even as we condemn the factual lies in no uncertain terms. Seeing that the very people who denounce religion's lies are essentially moral and fulfilled people can start to set up a cognitive disonance in believers that might help pry their minds free from the tar pit of religion.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | April 6, 2007 12:06 PM
Wasn't the U.S. just surpassed by Denmark in the scientific productivity stakes? It seems to me that an Internet article to that effect just zipped by.
And believe me, I know all about watching your country's sensible values tipped down the drain by the Yahoos and fundies in government...
Posted by: Mona Albano | April 6, 2007 12:10 PM
For those with a strong stomach, here's a news story about authentic Good Friday reenactments: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Gruesome_crucifixions_in_annual_Phi_04062007.html
I guess in the Philippines they go all out for Palm Friday.
Posted by: Peter M. | April 6, 2007 12:10 PM
OTOH, scientists in my field are highly, though covertly, discouraged from speaking to the public, although there is lip service paid to the idea that it is a good thing. One's peers tend to believe that you are just a publicity-seeker, and that your simplifying the technical language is exaggeration and hyping. This is not a promising state of affairs.
Jared Diamond has speculated that Sagan's intensive effort to speak to the public is one reason that he was never elected to the National Academy. There is defnitely a stigma involved, in at least some fields.
Posted by: garnetstar | April 6, 2007 12:11 PM
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER start with the assumption that you're "dumbing down" the message, that they're the "ignorant masses" and so forth.
The minute you do that, you're trying to force the unintiated into your frame of reference and putting the burden on them to do most of the work. And you've immediately lost.
Like it or not, YOU are going to have to do much of the work to explain, to connect and to bring your information to them. Given the nature of the world, there are many, many things people have to pay attention to in this world, ranging from the trivial to the important (and don't discount the trivial; in your own life, you're bound to have SOME interests other people will find lightweight). And individuals have to develop strategies for handling this information overload--many of these strategies will be derived from their familiar religious and moral background.
Ignore that and you are doing a crappy job in communicating.
Posted by: gwangung | April 6, 2007 12:17 PM
As usual, PZ managed to state a very close approximation of my opinions in a much more clear and lucid manner than I could.
Thanks, PZ, and let me say that I agree with you 100% on this issue, and I'd like you (and lots of other people) to continue the frontal assault.
Posted by: TheBrummell | April 6, 2007 12:21 PM
Some of the people who claimed to be non-religious in the Newsweek poll may in fact be Christians, as a a certain strain of Christian thought holds that Christianity is not a religion.
Posted by: tim gueguen | April 6, 2007 12:26 PM
Re #31, Caledonian, the thing that I have a problem with in your comments is the seeming notion that there's some well defined group of "us" who have some sort of sole ownership of science, and who are capable of acting in concert to deny its benefits to the rest of our fellow citizens, like we can just all pick up and go live in a hidden city in the wilderness somewhere and watch from a distance as the rest of civilization crumbles while we point and laugh.
I don't disagree that there are divisions in society, but I also don't think they're quite as clear-cut as you seem to be implying they are. There are people with greater and lesser degrees of understanding of the scientific method and with greater and lesser degrees of facility at approaching the world in realistic terms. But I can't see how it's even remotely reality-based to believe that there's some kind of clear bright line between "us" and "them" rather than a multitude of shades of gray, and a bunch of people who are able to apply these skills in some areas but not others. Consider, for example, Francis Collins.
And the concept of a deliberate science embargo is so silly and impractical (and unethical) I don't even know how to begin addressing it. It doesn't seem to me that any deliberate action along these lines is even possible, much less necessary if you really want to see all those inferior imbeciles get what's coming to them. Like I said before, if we don't address this widespread ignorance, the ignorance itself will screw the country over (and is screwing us over, actually) without scientists having to make any attempt whatsoever to hurry things along.
Make no mistake, I'm happy to be shrill, strident, uppity, forceful, and even a bit of an asshole about getting the people of this country to see sense and develop some respect for science. But I think Objectivist fantasies about how the masses are too dumb and "we" should abandon them to their fate are just as much part of the problem as Francis Collins is, and I'm gonna be shrill, strident, uppity, forceful, and even a bit of an asshole about pushing that point too.
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | April 6, 2007 12:36 PM
We must remember that both methods work but on a different section of the public. The hard-core nut-jobs are nothing more than sheep. They are programed to do what they are told. Right now, they are being directed by their religious leaders. To convince these people (if that is possible), you must boldly tell them what to believe and then direct their actions. The middle of the road, don't give a shit, I just go to church for appearances segment of the population needs to be coaxed into a new position. These people respond better to subtle convincing rather then blatant confrontation. The key is to have people doing both. I am glad that PZ, Dawkins, Harris and others are loud and abrasive. We need that. It is also great that Nisbet and Mooney and others are using the "nicer" approach. We all seek the same goal and variance in rhetoric can only prevent the "enemy" from using a single defense. It is not only how the message is being presented that matters, it is the fact that people are spreading the message that matters as well.
Chaoswes
Posted by: Chaoswes | April 6, 2007 12:50 PM
garnetstar:
I think the stigma is a little weakened, now, since we've got a generation of scientists who all grew up watching and reading Carl Sagan.
Anne Nonymous:
Yes.
PZ:
But on YouTube. . . ?
All in all, I have to wonder what the "ground level" effects of all this framing talk will possibly be. Is someone going to organize seminars for scientists to learn about talking to the public, talking to high-school students, or (hardest of all) talking to politicians? Will we see a drive to recruit more scientist bloggers? That could be a very helpful thing, I think: get more and more scientists used to communicating in manageable chunks to a wide audience, allowing each person to practice striking their own balance between technical exactitude and popular appeal. (The balance doesn't always lie in the same place, and not all pieces should be written to the same specifications. How can I learn more about anything if all essays are framed in the same damn way?)
I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that "framing" any scientific issue of importance will sweeten bitter medicine. Maybe in an honest world, playing to people's values would help more, but on this planet, we've got to deal with a thriving community of callous frauds who will wear any mask and tell any lie to increase their power. That's the Discovery Institute and AiG in a sentence; I don't think anybody here has slept through the whole affair, so it should be pretty obvious.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 6, 2007 12:56 PM
As Popper (1945, Open Society and its Enemies)put it, "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." (from Wikiquote)
Posted by: Dann Siems | April 6, 2007 1:18 PM
I have to agree with Caledonian's (#24, #31) comments in that I think he's basically saying, "You can lead a horse to water..." There are MANY scientists who can communicate well; there are MANY science museums, zoos, TV programs, and web sites all over the Internet where science is being communicated to the masses in every possible way. There's much devoted to public outreach on government sites such as NASA, NOAA, the CDC, etc, let alone tons of bloggers.
When I link Talk Origins as a site to peruse the evolution/ID debate for starters, and some conservative parrot comes back with, "I'm not going to read some lefty site," and they won't even educate themselves from all perspectives (goes for global warming, too) when it's all out there for the taking, then that is not the fault of scientists or framing. If someone chooses to watch American Idol rather than a special on climate change, that's a choice. It's society's obligation to instill value on continous education (and I don't mean institutional only). If one is not willing to educate themselves about topics, even in an understandably surface way, then have the decency to admit that you're a parrot, and thus don't make uninformed decisions.
I applaud those who keep at it - trying to get people to care and put their votes and money where their mouthes are, but I see so much not caring going on, I'm in the Very Cynical Club at the moment. Geesh, nothing changes...
Posted by: Observer | April 6, 2007 1:18 PM
"We are living in a country that has gone horribly wrong; more than 50% of the public reject basic biology, we see citizens denied civil liberties because of their sexual preference, and we're mired in an unjust war, to name just a few problems."
You need to separate those problems very, very carefully. The first one you quote has to do with objective observations of nature, the next two with purely social human political constraucts. By fitting the first in with the other two, you are making acceptable the idea that scientific questions fit in a political arena, and should be subject to a "fair and balanced" approach. Your statement immediately convinces a large number of less-informed spectators that the creationists have a valid political stance they should be allowed to defend.
Case in point: Global Warming. Whether or not anthropogenic warming exists is a question with a concrete answer, like whether 2+2=4. There is an unambiguous truth at the end of that question. But the question has been politicized, and the science subjugated to the need to "let every side have its say." Creation/evolution debates are quickly sliding down that slope, if they haven't already.
In short, please do not make the veracity of evolution a "liberal" issue. I know you are not trying to, but you are. In doing so, you are hurting our cause and undoing some of the great work you do elsewhere. Scientists tend to be liberals because they need a government that is large enough to fund research. Don't let that get in the way of the science itself and never allow the results of inquiry to be lumped in with all the truly purely political issues of the day. The moment "the common man" sees creationism/evolution as just another axis on the conservative/liberal debate, our whole civilization is jeopardy.
Posted by: Gabe | April 6, 2007 1:19 PM
PZ: I've been reading your blog since you started and this may be one of the most important posts you've ever written. because the way i see it, this country is actually at a critical turning point in its history, and it'll be people like you who prevent incredible damage to our species.
credentials: i'm a land use/water lawyer in Southern California.
On NPR's Day-to-Day show this morning, it was reiterated that the entire American Southwest has slid into a multi-year drought. For the next 15 years (until i retire), I'm going to be mediating disputes that are ultimately not resolvable for the simple reason that the Colorado River is grossly over allocated. Global warming IS HERE!
what should a scientist say? Start with the following: If it weren't for scientists, most people watching this program would be dead or never been born. If the people watching this show enjoy the quality of life they have, they have scientists to thank. All the work ever done by my opposition has never kept a baby alive, cured cancer, or fed a population of 6 billion people. People are entitled to their own faiths, but they're not entitled to their own facts. And the facts are that without the understanding provided by evolution, neither medicine nor agriculture would be where they are today. And that means that you, your parents, and most of your kids would already be dead.
Final point: people LIKE extremists. They're interesting and fun. Anne Coulter writes books and Rush Limbaugh pontificates to millions of people because they push the envelope. Dawkins gets air time because he pushes people's buttons. Go ahead and be extreme. That's how you change the terms of the debate.
Posted by: francis | April 6, 2007 1:23 PM
That's not the problem! There are tons of sites devoted to educating kids, adults, and whoever the heck wants to learn about anything. Heck, I see these scientists on TV all the time. Even ridiculous ways to attract attention to programs doesn't work with everybody. We don't need more science bloggers, we need people to read them. That takes parents, teachers, and Joe Blow on the street to encourage others to care.
Posted by: Observer | April 6, 2007 1:29 PM
Yes, we should work to stamp out irrationality that damages people and society. I'm with you 99.9% of the way on this one, P.Z.
But:
Those are beliefs held by religious people, but generally they are not religious beliefs. For example, there is no major Christian university on Earth that teaches those things as scientific fact. Evolution is taught in the biology departments of all major U.S. universities with Christian affiliations. If flood geology is mentioned at all in the geology departments of those schools, it is as a footnote in geology history, and not as science, unless it's how to scientifically determine there was no flood of Noah as described in scripture (as Darwin noted).
Those beliefs don't deserve a lot of respect -- but they are just as out of the mainstream for most Christian faiths as they are out of the mainstream of science.
It is not that religion is inherently evil in this regard; but it is true that religion has a lot to atone for when it does not stand against these beliefs.
There is some irony here. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to pick two of the biggest culprits, wanted to do away with the way scriptures were taught in their day, with a preacher telling people what was in the Bible, and often getting the telling wrong. They thought that a more decentralized system would work better, and so they encouraged public education so that every person could read the scriptures and see where the preachers got it wrong, and correct the errors.
Unfortunately in this case, it has led to many if not most Americans thinking that Christianity is pretty much whatever they want it to be -- and in this case, the creationists have been hammering away since at least 1925 to twist the interpretations of scripture to the bizarre stuff we now recognize as creationism.
The more serious question is whether Christians in America are able to stamp out irrational and silly superstitions, and beliefs that either run contrary to their faith or are unnecessary to it, especially when those beliefs and superstitions are harmful.
Can I push the final 0.1%? Religion has not shown itself to be a thoughtful player in public discourse much since some Christians campaigned to end slavery (and let's not forget the Quakers, who were shunned by most Christians for their anti-slavery and pro-peace advocacy).
Religion needs to call people to rational, non-harmful behavior at a minimum. A kid in our Sunday school made a wonderful poster a few years back: "Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds." Religion that works for justice and peace, and which emphasizes the use of rationality in seeking those things, may be indistinguishable from good science.
But religion which encourages dark superstition, as creationism does, is no better than the foulest form of Thuggee belief.
It's not the leap of faith that hurts; it's the leap of faith against the flow of rationality.
There are many rational people in Christianity who are offended when the dangers of superstition are pointed out to them. They think they are the targets.
If we could, could we recruit them to the cause, to stamping out irrational belief -- for the sake of their churches, as well as for the sake of society? I hope that would be possible.
Kepler wrote, in Somnium in 1634: "So long as the mother, Ignorance, lives, it is not safe for Science, the offspring, to divulge the hidden causes of things."
It is ignorance that we need to fight against. I suspect many in the churches