…and this is a 
You know, I think communicating science is an extremely important enterprise, one that I think scientists need to work at more. That interface with the general public is poorly cobbled together and we often seem to be working in completely different directions, producing a lot of, well, chafing, where the citizenry is off supporting some lunacy like creationism or homeopathy and pissing us off, and we're grumpily tossing off thunderbolts of scorn and pissing them off…and unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of the automatic deference given to such scoundrels as the clergy. I suppose we could aspire to indoctrinate the public into believing in our infallibility and saintliness, but it seems to me that learning how to communicate better would be easier. Not easy, of course, but at least achievable.
While I admit that scientists need to improve their communication skills, you may have noticed that I tend to be scathing in my reviews of pundits who try to tell us how to be better communicators. Too often they seem to have no understanding of how scientists actually think; they're outsiders who don't seem to understand our perspective while telling us to bow to the whims of non-scientists. They're also fond of dispensing generic advice, like "get more education in communication!", without actually telling us any specifics. It gets rather infuriating after a while.
And then there's Randy Olson.
He can be very annoying, and even infuriating, too: his movies, Sizzle and Flock of Dodos, generate some interesting reactions from scientists, where "interesting" covers a range of emotions from bafflement to outrage. But the reasons he annoys are different from the way the communications experts and framers and media folk are exasperating: in his case, it's because he actually is a real scientist, one who left the ivory tower to try and succeed in the fantasy land of Hollywood. He has more credibility and a more informed view of both sides of the argument, so his criticisms have a little more bite to them. He's also a weird chimera, a kind of crocoduck of the science and media worlds, so he freaks us out a little bit.
Randy has a new book out, Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). It's another of that genre that nags scientists to be better communicators, but it's a productive kind of nag. He tells us exactly what the public finds annoying about us, and is specific about what we should do differently.
It's a short book with chapters with simple commandments: don't be so cerebral, don't be so literal minded, don't be such a poor storyteller, and don't be so unlikeable, and each chapter is illustrated with stories from his experiences in the transition from science to movie making (See? He's practicing what he preaches, by trying to be a good storyteller.) There is plenty of material here to convince any empiricist that we need to change our attitudes.
For example, he gives the case of the Pew Oceans Commission report, a major scientific policy report that should have fired people up to protect our coastal resources. Most of you probably haven't heard about it — I hadn't — because scientists sunk a huge amount of effort into it, and then plunked it down on desks in Washington DC…and left it to speak for itself. They invested a grand total of 3% of their budget in marketing. Randy reports that one of the staff members said, at the completion of the study, that "I'm not sure we've even got enough money for coffee at the press conference." Compare that to a movie that was released at about the same time as the report, Napoleon Dynamite: 96% of the budget was marketing. You've probably heard of Napoleon Dynamite. It doesn't matter if you liked it or not…it raked in the cash at the box office.
There are lessons worth learning throughout the book; one of them is one I've known for a long time, that science is at odds with popular culture because it is largely an exercise in constant criticism, and people hate being criticized. We encourage a culture of negativity, because it works for us…which means, of course, that I can't simply let the book slide by with a happy two thumbs up. I must be such a scientist. One of the things Randy seems to be oblivious to is the fact that character and personality are an essential part of the style element he is endorsing, and scientists can capitalize on their particular, peculiar, aggravating set of common characteristics. He tells his story of being the scientific dufus in the company of artists; the guy who takes things too literally, who has strange stories, who can obsess over odd stuff that no one else cares about, and who has enough character that his friends can talk about "being a Randy" and everyone knows exactly what they're talking about. He writes as if this was a problem, and I can sympathize with some of his embarrassing moments…but it was a strength. He sounds like he was one of the interesting people in his group.
So I end up feeling a bit torn. He's telling us "Don't be such a scientist", and it's true that there are many occasions when the scientific attitude can generate unnecessary obstacles to accomplishing our goals. At the same time, though, I want to say "Do be such a scientist", because it's part of our identity and it makes us stand out as unusual and, like Randy, interesting, even if it sometimes does make us a bit abrasive. But, you know, some of us revel in our abrasiveness; it's fun.
It's definitely a book worth reading, even if what I'm saying is that a better title would be "Be Conscious of When You Are Being Such a Scientist and Modulate Your Behavior According to the Situation". But then I'm being such a scientist, and his choice of a title is a bit snappier. Probably more marketable, too.
You can find more about the book on the official website.
Education
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Goldenmane | August 11, 2009 10:34 AM
I'd go with "Know When Being an Arsehole Works".
But that's just me.
Posted by: Moggie | August 11, 2009 10:38 AM
That list of "don'ts" sounds like it could be titled "Don't be such an Aspie".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2009 10:39 AM
My apartment building is full of artists. This description would apply pretty well to their interactions with non-artist people.
Posted by: Enkidu
|
August 11, 2009 10:41 AM
There is another option to being a great scientist and a great communicator . . . find a partner. Bill Bryson wrote A Short History of Nearly Everything by working with the scientists who knew but couldn't or wouldn't write for the public, and the result was a spectacular book.
Science is all about collaboration. Collaborate!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2009 10:43 AM
Good point.
Posted by: hannah's dad | August 11, 2009 10:47 AM
How?
Easy.
Buy a TV network.
And a radio network and maybe a large publishing company.
A few years ago I would have suggested a newspaper company as well but I'm not so sure about that now. Then again you will probably be able to get one real cheap, a few billion or so, loose change really, in the near future.
Then you'll be able to comminicate.
Until then .....
Posted by: Alex Tolley | August 11, 2009 10:50 AM
I suppose the organized religions like Catholicism went through something similar when they decided to allow non-latin masses. We lose some of our other-wordly authority in exchange for comprehensibility.
Clearly science needs to be more comprehensible to more people, but look at what has been done - popular science magazines are a joke, even SciAm is nothing like it was back in the 1980's. We need to ensure that we don't end up like the dystopia depicted in "Idiocracy".
I think more user approachable communication can be very helpful, but it is a band-aid. The problem starts in school with science classes that don't engage the kids. Somewhere down the line, we have lost the concept of "truth" or "correctness" and substituted "opinion" as an acceptable view of the world. I don't have a solution but I think this is where we need to start so that we can have more adult conversations about the findings of science in the population.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 10:53 AM
Does anywhere in the US offer courses such as the two offered by Imperial College, London ?
Posted by: flaq | August 11, 2009 10:54 AM
Ok, so this is timely. Just last night my 7 y.o. son was telling me that he's "worried about evolution". Basically, his line of questioning went, what if it's not god, but it's also not evolution? Basically, he's asking, how do we know Darwin was right?
My wife, dog bless her, took him straight to a Natural History museum this morning, and helped him look through the card catalog (yes, actual cards...) to find a book or two on the subject, and he was thrilled to walk out with "Origin".
Now here's the problem -- I'm not a scientist, my wife's not a scientist, and my kid is a kid. I love it that he's so excited about getting the "real book by the actual guy," but how do I help guide him through this content that's obviously way over his (and my) head?
Where is the brilliant scientist/communicator who can show us the evidence that Darwin got it right, but in a way my 7-y.o. can understand?
Posted by: Thomas Joseph | August 11, 2009 10:57 AM
To paraphrase Dr. George D. Gopen (Professor of Rhetoric at Duke University): You cannot explain a complex idea simply. You can explain a complex idea clearly. It's figuring out how to do that consistently, which appears to be the rub for most of us.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2009 10:58 AM
The kids' section of the book list for evolutionists might be a good place to start.
Posted by: emote_control | August 11, 2009 10:58 AM
The problem with comparing something like the Pew report to a movie is that in order to complete the Pew report, 97% of the budget was required to complete the report, leaving that 3% at the end for other concerns. If Napoleon Dynamite only spent 4% of its budget on the film, it's because the investors knew that the important place to spend their money is on marketing. The movie could be a steaming pile of monkey poop, but with enough marketing, they'll make a steaming pile of money on it anyway.
As I'm sure you are aware, when you go to a funding panel to ask for money, you have to justify every last cent as necessary to completion of the project. If you start talking about how you're going to waste their valuable and finite money on running ads or putting someone on Oprah, they're going to look at you like you're a lunatic.
If the Pew report had spent 96% of its funding on marketing, there would be no Pew report. In order to get more money, one of two things would have to happen. First, the funding bodies that paid for the report would have to be convinced that marketing is important. Second, the report would need to be able to turn a profit, in order to attract investment to be spent on marketing. Napoleon Dynamite went with the second option, but I don't think that we're going to see any blockbuster Ocean Commission reports any time soon. It remains, then, to change the way that funding bodies think about funding, and ensure that publicity doesn't get short shrift.
Of course, the problem with that is that every dollar spent on marketing is a dollar that didn't buy some pipettes. That's going to be a hard sell. Why is making people aware of your research more important than making someone else's research even possible?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 10:59 AM
Flaq,
I am not sure where you live, but I have been told that Evolution Revolution by Robert Winston is a good book for kid's.
Amazon US here.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 11, 2009 11:00 AM
We need more people like the late Magnus Pyke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o
He was good at explaining science to a lay audience.
Posted by: Thomas Joseph | August 11, 2009 11:01 AM
Of course, the problem with that is that every dollar spent on marketing is a dollar that didn't buy some pipettes. That's going to be a hard sell. Why is making people aware of your research more important than making someone else's research even possible?
Academia, Government, and Industry all should have departments that handle this. The goal of the scientist is to successfully interface with this department, so that it can then successfully interface with the public.
Posted by: daveau | August 11, 2009 11:02 AM
Catchy!
If we could raise the general level of scientific literacy, we wouldn't need special communication tools to speak to the average person. There are a few valid points there, in the meantime.
Posted by: Andy | August 11, 2009 11:03 AM
@#4
I think that you're right on the money. I had always had a little bit of an interest in science, but it was really only a superficial interest. I picked up "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and it really got me interested in science. That book led to me reading other, better, more in-depth books about science. I let a few people who I worked with at the time borrow it and it really got them interested in science as well. We were talking about things in the book on our breaks. As a matter of fact the book got me so interested in science that I am considering going back to school to study it because it is more interesting to me than the field that I am currently in.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 11, 2009 11:04 AM
I think the problem with scientists communicating science is that science has gone too deep.
There are too many layers of understanding. You have to get through the alphabet to explain what is a simple concept, once you get through the alphabet.
It really isn't any fault of scientists that the chasm is getting larger.
It's simply the fault of scientific progress.
BUT PICTURES ARE COOL.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 11, 2009 11:11 AM
The point of science and of scientists are that these are different from most other human concerns, and to some degree science isn't supposed to be about marketing, rather about fairly "objective" and relatively neutral statements. It's what Chris Mooney, and especially Nisbett, never seem to have adequately understood.
Of course better communication and "don't be such a scientist" might help at the margins to actually get science to the people paying for it. But it's also true that people don't want to pay a lot to have scientists mounting PR campaigns.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: emote_control | August 11, 2009 11:13 AM
@flaq:
Go get a used copy of a first-year biology textbook. You'd probably be surprised how simple the writing in those books is.
Also, google search for lectures on evolution. Lots of professors post their slides on the web, and you can poach them. Since they're slides, they'll be bite-sized bits of information that is easy to understand.
Find out if your local natural history museum has a program to teach kids about that sort of thing. If they don't, they might know someone who does.
Evolution is actually really simple and easy to understand, on a general level. There are a few basic principles that inform the theory. The wikipedia page on evolution is a good place to start. Scroll down to Natural Selection and look at the three bullet points there. That's the evolution by natural selection in a nutshell.
Posted by: Quart7 | August 11, 2009 11:15 AM
Concern noted.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 11, 2009 11:16 AM
I would prefer an improvement in the population towards thinking logically rather than scientists communicating by NOT being scientists.
When 96% of your budget is advertising, that says a lot about your product...and your audience. Neither are good things to say.
PR usually does cost more than production. Where will this money come from?
Posted by: Whiskeyjack
|
August 11, 2009 11:17 AM
Wouldn't it just be easier for scientists and (bright) artistic types to just collaborate on this whole communication thing? I don't mean some slick marketing firm or ghost-writers who don't really understand what they're talking about, but a real collaboration. This way, scientists don't have to fret about sacrificing their scienceness, and writers stay employed. :P
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 11, 2009 11:17 AM
In other words, talk nice to the American assholes, retards and thiefs who brought you this, among other things :
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
No thanks. I disrespectfully decline.
Posted by: Dave X | August 11, 2009 11:18 AM
See! See! Nisbit, Mooney, and Kirshenbaum are right! You are saying just what they meant to say, but you are framing it using all those rude sciencey words so that scientist can understand you.
Posted by: Attila | August 11, 2009 11:18 AM
Can we co-opt creationism for teaching science. Most of the time you look at the arguments and you go this is wrong, but why. This is almost an encouragement to go deeply into looking at evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, geology, basic physics, evolutionary psychology, theories of morality.
The act of wanting to know more almost gives you the complete curriculum of understanding the universe around us.
Posted by: PsyberDave | August 11, 2009 11:19 AM
I think Ekindu makes a great suggestion. Perhaps scientists should just continue being scientists rather than try to change to be more palatable to the people. Instead, hire a person skilled in communicating with both scientists AND popular culture; someone who has the same commitment to accuracy and data integrity as a scientist.
If you are a brilliant engineer, but a poor sales person, hire a sales person who understands your work and can skillfully translate to customers.
Many of the scientists or professionals who become popular in the media unfortunately tend seem to me to be poor scientists - even pseudoscientists and cranks (e.g. Deepak Chopra, Dr. Laura, Dean Ornish etc.).
I think many good scientists also have poor social skills, so asking them to be charming and charismatic is a tall order. We see this struggle in psychology. Psychologists are asked to be hard core scientists AND to be warm and caring therapists. In many cases being both is quite the challenge.
Posted by: Thorne | August 11, 2009 11:20 AM
Growing up in a Catholic school could have severely crimped my science education, but I managed to find science essays by Asimov and found them both entertaining and informative. His ability to "dumb down" some of the more arcane aspects to make them at least understandable helped a lot. He rarely used a six syllable word when a couple of two syllable words would do.
Since then I've tried reading others, but none have come close to his style and charm. Neil Tyson's 'Death by Black Hole' was good and fairly understandable, though it tended to be a bit dry. Phil Plait's 'Death From the Skies' is probably the one book that came closest to what I remember of Asimov's collections.
The key is to make the science both understandable and enjoyable, especially to the non-scientist. Once they get interested they can get into the deeper aspects if they want. But you have to get them interested, first.
Posted by: Andy Groves | August 11, 2009 11:23 AM
Let's face it - science has a large over-representation of people who are at least somewhat deficient in social skills, and many of us in the science community know people who could be high-functioning Asperger's individuals. Given this, it's hardly surprising we are not very good at communicating. Being able to see the world from someone else's perspective is a social skill and we are not terribly good at it as a group. And I would disagree with PZ - talking about stuff that no one else cares about in a social setting is not a strength. It's boring. Being a nerd should not be a badge of honor. It should be regarded as a handicap.
The trick is to talk about your personal scientific obsessions in a way makes people interested in it. So I would echo the need for story-telling. The general public have an enormous appetite for stories about science. It just has to be presented to them on their terms, not ours. I had quite a lot of experience with this in my old job at a small non-profit research institute. We relied heavily on fund-raising, and so the scientists were constantly being wheeled out to talk to potential donors. It was very good practice for being fluent in both English and science.
Posted by: Martin Brazeau | August 11, 2009 11:25 AM
Indeed, it's important to be have a personality, but just try to keep it one that people who aren't like you can still relate to. This is one of those rare 'truth lies in the middle' times, I think.
Posted by: Rob C | August 11, 2009 11:26 AM
Hey, I have a better idea than scientists hiring PR firms and making TV commercials. Why not teach Americans how to think critically? I would rather fail at that then seen another institution turn into a business.
Posted by: Desert Son | August 11, 2009 11:29 AM
I guess my overall concern is the characterization that scientists (or any person, really) is just one thing: i.e., scientist which is somehow separate from good communicator which is somehow separate from accessible which is somehow separate from entertaining, and so on and so forth.
Characterization is dynamic, too. Even the best communicators aren't the best communicators all the time. Everyone has days where they're not as good at the many things they're good at most of the time.
It sounds like Olson's arguing for attention to other aspects of personality, and that's fair. I think PZ is, too. Enkidu's point about collaboration is worth repeating, as well. The great moments in human communication have often been more than just one contributor.
As an aside, did TypePad go kaput?
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: tsg | August 11, 2009 11:33 AM
The short answer is: there isn't a lot of point in doing the research if no one's going to read it. Obviously, that's an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Posted by: Desert Son | August 11, 2009 11:35 AM
"scientists is"?
lol
So much for good communication. And my English degree!
Off to write "scientists are" on the board 100 times. Sheesh.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Dave X | August 11, 2009 11:36 AM
@ #9: "Where is the brilliant scientist/communicator who can show us the evidence that Darwin got it right, but in a way my 7-y.o. can understand?"
"Origin" is a great book. It looks and sounds intimidating, but it is very clearly written and steps carefully through lots of interesting examples. Darwin himself shows you how he got what he got, and points towards criticisms and confirmations that many other scientists have built into whole fields and careers. (Try Johnathan Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch" for one example.)
"Getting it right" isn't quite the crux--the process of science is "getting it (more) right", and Darwin does a great job of writing about it.
"Origin" is certainly a lot more accessible than other">http://www.randombible.com/">other rantings that people read to 7 year olds.
Posted by: RPF | August 11, 2009 11:39 AM
My first suggestion for helping scientists communicate better is to have all scientific journals insist upon clear, readable language. Not in the sense of "dumbing things down" or avoiding accurate terminology, but in avoiding such abominations as the all-passive voice paper.
I've had to read way too many sentences that start like "To a 100mL aliquot of ether under reflux was added 500 mg of..."
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 11:40 AM
Let's face it... - Andy Groves
Whenever a comment starts thus, I assume it's going to be a bunch of crap from a smug git about to air a prejudice they assume everyone else shares. Sometimes I'm wrong, and your comment is unexceptionable, but just so you know. Maybe your communication skills aren't that wonderful?
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 11:40 AM
1. No way am I going to stoop to being as thick as the average human - or anywhere near. Tough. That one is a non-negotiable asset. The rest of the population should start being more embarrassed again about not being cerebral enough and instead being overly emotional animals who merely react instinctively. Or perhaps "cerebral" means something else in US "English" or locally coded language. It's certainly not as though scientists don't try to express their enthusiasm for thinking, ie being cerebral. It's just that many people really are too thick and many more are chronically lazy.
2. Literal-mindedness also isn't a particular fault of scientists. When considering stuff it's necessary to work through as many options as possible - including, but not at all limited to, some sort of literality. It seems unlikely that many people I'd regard as scientists are only capable of "literal-minded" views of things. What creationist types (and any other dishonest subgroups) do hate though is that, after considering and testing things, the scientist bothers to work out what's true and what isn't - and says so! Worse yet - does so with largely irrefutable evidence and logic!
3. This is about the only fair cop for some. On the other hand, stories, while engaging for the peasantry, do tend to miss out very important details (eg of how) and it's easy for habitual story-tellers to slip into lying for better dramatic effect - which is an unforgivable sin in science.
4. This is merely an unavoidable hazard of making people aware of stuff they don't want to be true. While one could try to stick to areas of science which couldn't possibly offend anyone's fantasy world, that would be extremely limiting in scope and not much like science.
It would be like reports I've heard of Saudi TV (and even US TV!). Pretty much everything from the UK is censored / banned because the government and religious nutters in charge there don't want the population to know it. But they weren't making much good quality stuff of their own. So broadcasts tended to be limited to wildlife documentaries (David Attenborough would count as having ensured he wouldn't be in an unlikeable field!) but with any bits relating to sex (or mentioning evolution in the case of the US) censored.
A similarly inherently unlikeable job is that of a judge. Although some might go into it for the sort of power, money and influence which isn't available to scientists, one would like to imagine that at least some people went into the job for the right reasons - that it's important and necessary and even interesting. Yet they certainly don't have a reasonable expectation of being popular. If they do the job right/properly, most criminals and their cohorts are going to hate them (and even try to kill them) for making the truth known and there being consequences of that. Even though that's better for society.
Where scientists are the judges, the equivalent of criminals etc are the bogus ideas and the people who support them. They won't go down without a fight and many of them are murderous types as well as intellectually and even pathologically dishonest. The trouble is that intellectual dishonesty hasn't been widely and traditionally regarded as a crime in the way it should be. So support for the institution of science is even lower than that for the police and judiciary. Stylish liars tend to be acclaimed even more highly than Robin Hood types, rather than denounced. Hence gift-of-the-gab generally being a compliment rather than a condemnation and flattery being regarded as a good thing.
Posted by: Dave X | August 11, 2009 11:42 AM
Sorry for the unpreviewed useless broken link: http://www.randombible.com/
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 11, 2009 11:43 AM
Blake,
I'm at a course (projekt management) with graduates from different majors - humanities, languages, a couple of us sciencey types and other assorted goods. (I suck at it, but I don't know whether it's me or 'just' brain injury).
Anyway - one of them mentioned on the first day, that it was strange to observe how people spoke different languages. Not (just) in terms of vocabulary, but their way of talking. (Though to be fair I don't recall who it was, and I haven't asked the linguist or anthropologist how true it is).
But the arty/creative types do rather scare me.
Posted by: RPF | August 11, 2009 11:49 AM
I'll also add that I think that the public actually does like and respect scientists. It's academics they can't stand, and to be honest, for good reason.
Scientists are (can be) clever, curious, open-minded people.
Academics are (can be) self-important, arrogant, status-obsessed self-centered pricks. Think "Prof. Smith" from Jorge Cham's PHD comics.
Mind you, there is a certain amount of overlap between these sets...
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 11:49 AM
The trick is to talk about your personal scientific obsessions in a way makes people interested in it. So I would echo the need for story-telling.
All you've got to do is speak as if you already knew how to be engaging and interesting. Easy!
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 11, 2009 11:52 AM
Let's face it: any comment that starts with "let's face it" is going to be worthless.
Er, wait.
Crap.
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 11:53 AM
@ Sili #41:
The way of talking is a very important part of learning another language. Getting the correct feel (including attitude, gesture, mouth shapes and voice pitch/intonation, not just idiom and "accent") makes it so much easier - even to the extent of generating a new sub-personality for handling the language. There's a comparable situation in dance; and it's so much the norm in art and music that people take it for granted.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 11, 2009 11:55 AM
This is an excellent point.
Actually, some government funding agencies are pretty big on the "public communication" aspect. The problem in my experience (in the social sciences) is that they often don't ask people how they're going to follow through on their plans for public communication, provide enough to make it realistic to do, or - I think most importantly - provide any kind of infrastructure to assist people in putting together public presentations, finding collaborators in communication, organizing events, etc. That should change.
(By the way, since I discovered Sb I've learned more science by far here, on the other science blogs, and from the resources linked to here by far than anywhere else.)
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Origin of Species isn't over your head. It's a well-written book written in mostly plain language. I must admit that I skipped over the sections about plants, because I didn't know any plant terminology and wasn't that interested.
Darwin has many sections listing the evidence in support of his theory and I think even a 7 yo could find it compelling.
Posted by: Scote | August 11, 2009 11:58 AM
Well, at least many Randy Olson's suggestions are actually useful and productive, unlike the "Atheist scientists need to shut up" mantra of Nisbet and the Twins(tm).
PZ exemplifies one of the points Olson brings up. PZ is an excellent story teller. Studies have shown that people like stories and find them more compelling that data, which is one of the reasons that people give so much (too much) credence to anecdotes over actual studies. But what do do about that fact? Can scientists be made into great communicators? Can communicators be made into scientists? In most cases I think the answer is no. Instead we need to value the scientists who are good communicators, like PZ, and not try and marginalize them the way Nisbet and the Twins are trying to do.
Posted by: me | August 11, 2009 11:58 AM
Look, it's one of Bill's students!Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 11:58 AM
But the arty/creative types do rather scare me.
Why? Art is just another medium in which to communicate complex ideas.
Posted by: flaq | August 11, 2009 11:58 AM
Thanks for all the recommendations people.
And this:
is a good point that I will try to remember.Posted by: Hillary Rettig / www.lifelongactivist.com | August 11, 2009 12:00 PM
What a fantastic post - absolutely on target. The Napoleon Dynamite stat - 90% on marketing - is crucial.
The last section of my book The Lifelong Activist is on marketing and sales for lefties, and discusses, among other things, the misconception that good ideas sell themselves. Much as we want to believe that's true (for idealistic reasons as well as our own aversion to doing marketing and sales) a cursory look at the world around us proves it's not.
Story telling is crucial - and scientists have fantastic stories to tell. Carl Sagan would be exhibit A. But I recently heard Edward O. Wilson speak in a lay forum and he mesmerized an audience of hundreds. "People are always asking me what to do about the ants in their kitchen," he says. [dramatic pause] "I always say, get a magnifying glass and get down on your knees and study 'em!" [big laugh]
As someone who does a lot of public speaking herself, I suspect many scientists underestimate how much time and effort even "charismatic" non-scientists spend prepping for their talks. It's not that the scientists are charisma-deficient, it's that they think they are and perhaps aren't prepping as much as they could. A rule of thumb is to rehearse 10x for an important presentation, and you can hear yourself improve each time.
Posted by: tsg | August 11, 2009 12:00 PM
Shiny, shiny mirror.
Posted by: laserboy | August 11, 2009 12:03 PM
You know, nothing pisses me off more than a huge generalization that serves only to belittle a whole category of people. Gee, scientists are Aspies, so don't expect good communication from them.
What a load of fucking nonsense. Good scientists have to be good communicators in at least one respect: communicating their findings to other scientists. Some of you may argue that this is different from communicating to a more general audience, but it is exactly the same skill set.
The difference is the audience. And no, being less cerebral is not dumbing it down, it is learning that a general audience that is less focused on the details of facts and more interested in why this finding is exciting, what the implications are, and why its implications are important. Guess what, the general audience is correct, they have spotted intuitively the most important part of the science: what it tells us about how we understand the word.
I am not saying the details are unimportant to science, but that, when presented to a general audience, they should be summarized to the point where they don't overwhelm.
My personal opinion is that many scientists don't step back often enough to consider how they would sell their research to a general audience (compared to how much time is spent considering how to sell it to their peers). As a result, they are caught unprepared when they are asked to.
I haven't read Randy's book, but it sounds like a prescription for preparing yourself for the occasion. A good thing in my opinion.
Posted by: Cheyenne | August 11, 2009 12:03 PM
Whatever people may like or dislike about Obama we should all be pretty stoked that scientists at least have a seat at the table now (unlike before).
Posted by: Michele Walsh | August 11, 2009 12:03 PM
Sometimes it is just the way scientists think that prevents effective popular communication. My late father was a physisist (Manhattan Project, NASA, etc.) My mother used to say that when you asked him what time it was, he would tell you how to build a clock. Basically, that was true. I would ask for help with my arithmetic and he would give me math theory - for him that was logical but it wasn't especially helpful to a sixth grader. You have to start where your audience is and build on it. This is the toughest thing I can think of and people like Carl Sagan made it look easy. People are often intimidated by "brains" and assume that intelligent people are also arrogant. They rarely are, but the anti-intellectualism that permeates U.S. culture has already established this powerful stereotype. It is yet another barrier to be overcome by any educator.
Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2009 12:04 PM
Wait, are we really such a weird subspecies off of "normal" people? I'm getting tired of hearing scientists talked about like we're some sort of bizarre alien race that has nothing to do with humanity. I communicate with other people quite well, thank you very much. In fact, most of them don't even know I'm a scientist unless they ask about what I do for a living. Do I need to make bumper stickers that say "Scientists are people too"???
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / www.lifelongactivist.com | August 11, 2009 12:04 PM
#12: "The problem with comparing something like the Pew report to a movie is that in order to complete the Pew report, 97% of the budget was required to complete the report, leaving that 3% at the end for other concerns"
That's a bit of a tautology, and it's also indicative of a mindset that emphasizes outputs (e.g., a report) over outcomes (measurable social change). It's also a mindset that is fading fast, even in the nonprofit world. (You could make the analogy that the Pew report is like basic research and shouldn't be concerned with outcomes, but no one is doing that here.)
Business and other entities that must reach their audience (or market) or die find a way to do their work and market/sell it. Often the compromises are painful. But for nonprofit and for-profit organizations alike, that's the only real way to sustainability.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 11, 2009 12:08 PM
Tommy Traddles @#32: References to academic papers in which, for reasons of ideological distortion, PZ Myers falls short of accepted standards of scientific rigour, or GTFO.
Posted by: Walton | August 11, 2009 12:12 PM
Speaking as a non-scientist, with no background in science and very little clue about most of it, I can tell you that clear communication of ideas to laymen like me is immensely important.
Most of the time, my ignorance of science doesn't matter to anyone. It isn't important that I don't know how brain surgery works, for example; no one is ever going to expect me to perform brain surgery on them.
But there are some issues where a politically active layman like me needs to be informed. A good example is climate change. Climate change is a hot political issue, and, as a voter and a political activist, I need to have an opinion about it; being neutral is not really an option, since the measures which are proposed to deal with climate change are in direct conflict with the goals of economic growth and reducing poverty.
Yet, however hard I try, I can't understand any of the scientific literature. Not only is it complicated, it's as dull as ditchwater, and as someone who grew up in the digital age I don't have the longest attention span in the world. This is why I generally avoid the issue of AGW, because I just don't have the scientific knowledge needed to have any kind of meaningful opinion about it. And since the issue is so politically charged, everyone writing about it has an agenda of some sort.
I realise this is to some extent my own fault, for being too lazy to learn more about scientific issues. But most of the public, including most of the political classes and the media, are in the same position I am - though most of them don't recognise their own lack of knowledge, and make blind assertions one way or the other.
Posted by: Travis | August 11, 2009 12:14 PM
The issue is obviously very complicated and it is difficult to find simple solutions, but scientists are fairly good at thinking about things that are like that. We do need to improve our communication skills, more of us actually have to get out there and work with the public, there are lots of things we should do.
However, I am not so sure we have to make ourselves not like scientists to relate to others. How will scientists be distinguished from other voices a that point? (I do not mean go act like a complete freak and stuff, don't try to be a "scientist" and be something you are not to fit an image) I think we have to be careful how far we go down that route otherwise we will just blend in with all the other messages. And our stories are good, we just need to improve how we tell them, look at popular people who told many stories, like Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan and James Burke. They were interesting and made the science and the people involved interesting as well.
Arg, got to get back to work but still have a lot to say. I will have to put some thoughts together in a little more organized way later on.
Travis
http://pretendbiologist.blogspot.com
Posted by: Nick Gardner | August 11, 2009 12:15 PM
@24 "In other words, talk nice to the American assholes, retards and thiefs who brought you this, among other things"
No, in other words, talk nice to the people who vote for the assholes, retards and thieves.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 11, 2009 12:17 PM
This, which I just saw on Deltoid a couple of hours ago, looks like a really nice example of an engaged scientist (I've read the forum questions - will listen to the interview in a minute):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/berenbaum_on_ddt_and_malaria.php
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Heather | August 11, 2009 12:19 PM
Great book review, PZ - thoughtful, and it piqued my interest as intended.
From personal experience, #57 Michele is right - most people I encounter do assume intelligence = arrogance, and they start off defensive when facing a scientist.
#52 Hillary and the misconception that good ideas sell themselves: I plead guilty. This is the same laziness for which we scientists sometimes reproach our lay audience - not wanting to dig in and do something to which we're not naturally drawn. Sales and marketing, in my case. Concentrating on new, if rational, concepts for others.
It seems rather unfair though that one can be (monetarily) rewarded for being good at sales and marketing and not at science, but the reverse is not true. Communication is somewhere in the middle - the rewards have more to do with fame, prestige and public awareness. I think most scientists aspire to these so we can certainly work on our communication skills at least.
Posted by: me | August 11, 2009 12:24 PM
What case? Hand waving assertions do not comprise an argument.Posted by: Carlie | August 11, 2009 12:26 PM
You have to start where your audience is and build on it. This is the toughest thing I can think of and people like Carl Sagan made it look easy.
The analogy that's stuck most in my mind wrt that idea is that of geography. I can tell you I live at 9 Pine Street, but that has no meaning to anyone on this blog, so the information is useless. If I start off with saying I live in Townsville, that might get a few more people, but not many. For this audience, I'd have to say I live in the western part of the state of South Dakota (but I don't really). That's a location most people (in the US) can envision, so that's the "grab" point. If the audience was international, I'd say the top center part of the country. After that, I can specify it down to the city of Townsville, then the neighborhood, and they can follow me there. But if I don't have the appropriate "grab" point for the initial reference to the audience I have, the rest of the info might as well be a foreign language.
When I'm teaching, it's interesting to try and find that reference point. Often I have to throw out a bunch of things before I find the information that sticks for the majority of the class. I never try to go further until I've found that grab point, though.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 11, 2009 12:27 PM
Indeed. People who don't explicitly believe in that which couldn't be proven either way but for which there is no positive evidence are SO unreasonable. You know who are even worst than the atheists? Those that don't believe that Moloch is the Lord of the universe. ALL HAIL MOLOCH Exactly! It may be the most tested theory in the history of science but NO CROCODUCKS = NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.[That was a parody. I find it's best to be clear about such things]
Posted by: heliobates | August 11, 2009 12:32 PM
I see what you did there.
"Darwinism" is a supernatural straw-ideology invented by evolution-deniers. Oops, you tipped your hand.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 12:33 PM
Traddles = Charlie Wagner people.
Here's a scan of his expired MENSA card that was supposed to prove some measure of his intelligence.
What does it tell you?
He's a self important blow hard.
Posted by: me | August 11, 2009 12:36 PM
That we haven't caught one of Bill's students trying to get extra credit. Too bad.Posted by: mothwentbad | August 11, 2009 12:43 PM
Napoleon Dynamite 2: Coastal Crisis
With a cameo from Al Gore.
Posted by: me | August 11, 2009 12:46 PM
Although, Mr. Wagner's "arguments" are trite. Maybe the Dembskiites do a better job.
Posted by: BlueMonday | August 11, 2009 12:46 PM
Just so you guys know, I'm doing my part. I'm not a scientist, but I love science deeply, talk about it frequently (with more passion and glee than any religious person could express over their faith), and I'm pretty darn hot. If you scientists want me to be your spokesmodel, I'll gladly do it. Hell, I'm doing it now anyway on a small scale. Luckily I'm in a position to have at least a small platform for it already.
I find that being "the [lady] who takes things too literally, who has strange stories, who can obsess over odd stuff that no one else cares about..." doesn't cause me too much trouble because the fellas are usually trying to at least act interested. I've got a few more years of exploiting my good looks, and I plan to do so for science.
P.S. You're on your own with the women. The taking things too literally, etc. really puts me on the outs with my own sex, sadly.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 11, 2009 12:49 PM
Aww, we have another theotard here to get extra credit for his IDiocy course. He's an ignorant turd, and not even an entertaining one. Better trolls, please!
Posted by: abb3w
|
August 11, 2009 12:53 PM
PZ: That interface with the general public is poorly cobbled together
I believe the phrase you are looking for is "evolved, not intelligently designed".
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 12:55 PM
This is why I generally avoid the issue of AGW, because I just don't have the scientific knowledge needed to have any kind of meaningful opinion about it. And since the issue is so politically charged, everyone writing about it has an agenda of some sort. - Walton
Dishonest garbage, Walton. Many of those writing about it are climate scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom are convinced AGW is happening, and is an urgent issue. The IPCC report of 2007 was distilled from the scientific literature. You don't need to understand a lot of the science to assess the state of scientific opinion. This is as clear a case as the "controversy" over evolution. You just don't like the political implications, and you're too much of a moral and intellectual coward to educate yourself on the issue.
Posted by: alvin kervin | August 11, 2009 12:56 PM
Tommy Traddles @62 get in the fucking sack!
Posted by: Pareidolius | August 11, 2009 12:58 PM
Flaq @ 9
How exciting it would be for your son to have you sit with him and go over Origins together! I was a very geeky kid and had lots of "adult" science books I didn't fully comprehend (usually acquired for the pictures). I loved it when I would bring some weird science question to my dad, who while very successful and smart, was mostly self-educated. We would find a book (usually a kid's science book) that we would both learn something from and go over it together. He encouraged my questioning and seeing that there was plenty that adults didn't know, I never felt like a "dumb kid" when I didn't have an immediate answer for something. Sounds like you have a great (and fortunate) kid.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 11, 2009 1:03 PM
Clash of personalities. They're so confident and extrovert.
Posted by: PVA | August 11, 2009 1:04 PM
AAACCK! Elephant in the room guys. Yes, yes, yes, we could all do better. we can all strive to be carl sagans. yadda yadda yadda. but the bottom line is that reality, no matter how well communicated, cannot compete with seductive lies. and it ain't just science and scientists who are losing the culture war to bald faced lies. and it's not just fundamentalist christians who are doing the attacking.
The fossil fuel, chemical, pharmaceutical, tobacco and other industies all have their schills and astroturf websites telling pretty lies to people who believe anything that is consistent with their "world view" (CO2 is not a pollutant; obesity has nothing to do with health, smoking doesn't cause cancer). the health insurance industry and their paid for political hacks are screaming bald faced lies about health insurance reform (Obama will murder your granny...) the religious right is rewriting history, misportraying the U. S. founding fathers as devout christians. the texas board of education proposed a while ago to redo the history curriculum to emphasize the bible and the civic virtue of religion while eliminating Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez from the curriculum.
There are endless examples of the willingness of people with an agenda to tell lies. and all they have to do is create doubt. And, horrible irony, all the lies work together to undermine the public's belief in objective truth making it easier and easier for them to manipulate people with more lies.
oh, and these guys have at least a 20 year head start on us.
I don't know how we're going to compete with decades of skillfully crafted and oft repeated lies but I know it's not by being better communicators.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 11, 2009 1:06 PM
To pick up on what Knockgoats has said, all of us lack the knowledge required to come to a truly informed opinion on most scientific matters. That goes even for those who are scientists. We rely on scientists in the relevant field and normally accept the consensus with that field. Scientists when explaining their science to the public should give an indication as to how widely their ideas are accepted by their peers. Most do this, and do so honestly.
Posted by: jdhuey | August 11, 2009 1:22 PM
I don't know if this is at the core to the problem with the general public's lack of science literacy but this is what bugs me most about science in the general media: it is focused on just the findings/discovery and what that means for technological advancement. This is just so bottom-line to me that it loses all of the thrill.
The science stories that I like - usually heard on NPR - are the ones that follow the format of a mystery story. First they talk about the problem: what do we know, what don't we know, who are the likely suspects. Then then they discuss the process of the investigation - how did we find out the information that lead to the solving of the case. Then they discuss, as the climax, the findings. And then, as a denouement, they discuss the implications for either policy or for tech advancement or sometimes for just the joy of having found out.
I understand that this type of narrative flow does take some time to present and that most mainstream newscasts just can't spare that amount of time but, still, news stories of the form - "scientist at this university have discovered that x causes y and that means that z years from now we will have a improvements in this gizmo" - just leave me flat.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 11, 2009 1:25 PM
I know I get rather exasperated when people bloviate about the titles of, say, Richard Dawkins' books without actually having read them, but as long as we're discussing the marketing side of life, I can't resist the temptation to be a little hypocritical. So, here goes:
As a student of science, I learned the hard way that good communication requires criticism. The first draft of a journal article I scribble down while riding the bus will not be the version sent to the journal, and that version will not be the one published. Every step in the process requires feedback. From my perspective, then, my summary title for the kind of advice Olson seems to be offering would read, Be More Of a Scientist! Subtitle: embrace the ethos of your profession! Face the complexity of the problem, and acknowledge that your first idea for tackling it won't likely be the best one. Seek out experience, and profit from it. The obvious plan could be totally wrong.
We science folk do, after all, have to communicate to multiple audiences, even if we hide in our ivied tower and never face that leviathan known as "the general public". A lecture to freshmen is not an article to Journal of Theoretical Biology which is not a paper for Physical Review E which is not a submission to Nature. We do, after all, tell stories: heroic little fables of our own invention, which begin with a recounting of all the ways others have failed to snatch the golden apples, and which end with our exposition of the labour we'll perform in the next exciting episode. Sometimes — as with the project I'm working on right now at my day job — the greatest challenge in crafting a journal article is just choosing the right subset of all the bits and pieces we've uncovered, and deciding which have to be left for the sequel.
Olson's title emphasizes the perceived negative aspects of a persona, to the detriment of the positive ideals. To me, that sounds like. . . bad marketing.
Posted by: Eye of Horus
|
August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
Re #81
The main problem with presenting a story like that is peoples attention spans, particularly on the internet. People won't tend to read an article unless the first paragraph tells them what it's about, and then they can decide if the want the rest of the details.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 11, 2009 1:34 PM
"Speaking as a non-scientist, with no background in science and very little clue about most of it, I can tell you that clear communication of ideas to laymen like me is immensely important."
Ok - EDUCATE YOURSELF! Is that clear enough?
This is how it works, you open your eyes, look at the screen, type keywords into the search box. Postfix them with 'wiki', it gets the results you want a whole lot faster.
Then, this is the important part, click on a wiki link, open your eyes, look at the screen, and READ THE FUCKING WORDS.
Look at the pictures and graphics too. How hard is that?
But you don't want to. Learning is too hard for you.
You lack courage. You are a coward.
Posted by: ritebrother | August 11, 2009 1:35 PM
RPF @41: I take it you're not an academic? If you were, you would bristle at your characature, because you would know the extent to which you actively work on how to effectively communicate complex scientific ideas in limited time to neophyte undergraduate, graduate, and medical students in ways that maintain interest and understanding. This is not that far removed from communication to the general public, and the resources are there for the public to become actively informed at this level should they choose. This aspect of what "academics" in the sciences do appears to be missing from the equation. I have yet in my academic career spanning four universities to meet a colleague such as you describe. The "academic" you describe is a myth. Such a person would not make tenure.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 1:37 PM
Clash of personalities. They're so confident and extrovert.
I don't think that's any more accurate a characterization of arty/creative types than Andy Groves' depiction of scientists. Many of us are introverts in our own worlds, speaking our own private languages and are reluctant to have to get out in the rest of the world and explain just what it is that we're up to. Unfortunately, in any world, it's the confident and extroverted who are most successful at marketing what they're doing, whether it's science or art. It's the marketroids who scare me. I was working on an early 3D CG piece to be used for the New York Toy Fair back in the late 80s, and the client was up supervising a late night edit session. In her thick New York, Madison Avenue, Fran Drescher nasal whine, she asked me what I had been doing on the project. I told her I'd modeled and animated most of the characters, and suddenly I found myself dismissed, with, "Oh. You're a Cre-ateive."
Apropos of Randy Olson, I had a chance before Comic-Con to chat with my old friend/mentor/co-worker Tom Sito*, about contributing some old stories to his book about a history of computer graphics. Sito is the animator responsible for all the dodos in Randy's film, and I want to ask him more about how that went. At least as an industry and an enterprise, animation and film-making is a hugely collaborative medium, so if Randy has learned anything from his experience making movies, the value of collaboration can't be over-stressed.
*(don't worry, it's not like I went to Kw*k High School with him)
Posted by: Theodore Brown | August 11, 2009 2:09 PM
Although scientists are people of the world generally as well as of the world of science, not all of them are eager to acknowledge that fact when it comes to their willingness to communicate with the public. The recent Pew Research Center report, which includes a survey of scientists conducted in collaboration with AAAS, shows that scientists generally fault the media for failing to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not, and for oversimplifying science. But it is not the news media's job to educate the public in the broad sense of teaching about the nature of science, how it works, what makes for reliable scientific judgment, and so on. Too few scientists take time to interact with their fellow citizens through activities such as participation in local school affairs, giving talks to various informal groups, and promoting NGO’s that work from an informed position, e.g. the Union of Concerned Scientists . Then there is the matter of how we scientists approach our conversations with non-scientists. PZ doesn’t seem to want to take advice on how to talk about science with non-scientists [“Too often they seem to have no understanding of how scientists actually think; they're outsiders who don't seem to understand our perspective while telling us to bow to the whims of non-scientists.”]. But we should pay attention to work that reveals the difficulties that non-scientists often have with the modes of communication that scientists use. In a new book,Imperfect Oracle: the Epistemic and Moral Authority of Science, which is wending its way through the labyrinths of commerce into bookstore warehouses as I write, I have devoted a chapter to Science and the Public, which addresses the challenges to scientific authority that arise from poor educational and communication practices, and to related aspects of science’s contacts with the larger society.
Posted by: Jdhuey | August 11, 2009 2:10 PM
@84
I'm not a writer myself, but I recall a term called a 'narrative hook'. Good articles and stories have them. Perhaps the problem is not that people have short attention spans but that the articles are not well written.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 2:16 PM
Boo!(Silli runs, screaming like a little girl)
Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 2:55 PM
I think Dr. Myers might reconsider how he wrote this (unless this is what he means). Basically, he is saying that science is an exercise of constant criticism of people. LOL
Since the basic goals of science is to gain knowledge of the natural universe through prediction and experiment, I "think" Dr. Myers meant the constant criticism of scientific theories, not the people behind those theories.
Perhaps, Dr. Myers did mean exactly what he wrote, but I hope not as that would argue against the objectivity of science.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 3:12 PM
Jesus Christ CT, ... both hands and a flashlight! What warped reality do you live in that you can't discern that PZ meant the people who follow popular culture feel that science and the scientists who promote science are critical of vapid woo-infested thinking? Oh, thats right, you're one of them only in a perversely wacked sort of way...
Posted by: latsot
|
August 11, 2009 3:13 PM
"As I'm sure you are aware, when you go to a funding panel to ask for money, you have to justify every last cent as necessary to completion of the project. If you start talking about how you're going to waste their valuable and finite money on running ads or putting someone on Oprah, they're going to look at you like you're a lunatic."
Well, these days you're expected to say something about how you're going to promote and exchange the results when you apply for funding. However, from my experience, if you suggest anything more radical than "well....I'll write 10 papers....or something" you'll be considered a crackpot. I've spent a few years working with sociologists who know more than I do about how to communicate particular types of ideas to mixed audiences and I think we've been successful for the most part in coming up with general methods. However, when we ask a funding body to pay for those types of activity as part of a project, they won't. Even though they know that more is needed than the usual writing papers, going to conferences etc. And even though the methods aren't particularly expensive.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 3:15 PM
CT: You do realize that you just shot your near perfect translation of the Bible idea all to hell?
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 11, 2009 3:19 PM
Since the basic goals of science is to gain knowledge of the natural universe through prediction and experiment, I "think" Dr. Myers meant the constant criticism of scientific theories, not the people behind those theories.
The modern enlightened individual incorporates modern scientific methods into all aspects of their life, not just the pursuit of arcane peer reviewed journal publications, so us modern scientists have no problems criticizing individuals.
I guess you'll just have to deal with that. The reason the United States is SO ROYALLY FUCKED UP, is that you refuse continue to refuse to incorporate modern scientific methods into your governance and your personal lives, and dare not confront your idiotic congress and senate, your former president, current president and your friends and neighbors when they are inarguably complete and total FUCK UPS.
I'm pretty sure PZ meant what he said, but if not, as always in science, it's ok to be wrong, or even make a retraction. The problems arise when people are unwilling to admit they made a mistake, might be totally wrong, refuse to even acknowledge an obvious problem, and continue with delusion, unwilling to solve said obvious problems.
NASA's Ares I rocket always comes to my immediate thought.
Creationism and religion comes to PZ's immediate mind.
Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 3:24 PM
E.V., please go back and read what I wrote (#90). Read it slowly and carefully.
I think you seriously misunderstood what I wrote.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 3:27 PM
If you're being critical of someones work, you're going to be interpreted of being critical of them.
Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 3:35 PM
Rev,
I don't think that is true is it? To be critical of someone is to be personal (non-objective). To be critical of someone's theory is to be objective, isn't it?
For example, lets go back to Einstein. When he was developing his general relativity theory, he wasn't critical of Newton - I don't know if he was ever critical of Newton himself, or if he pointed Newton's theory itself as being flawed.
To my mind, being critical of Newton is unreasonable - it is non-science. To be critical of the theories of Newton are testable - quantitative.
Does that help? I could see that 'outsiders' might view it as being critical of Newton - but the scientists don't see it that way.
Maybe we should define criticism:
a serious examination and judgment of something; wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So, science isn't critical of person (how can it be?) but is critical of the theory.
Posted by: Paul Shin | August 11, 2009 3:36 PM
Matt Penfold (#8),
Please see the course(s) at the University of California, Santa Cruz: scicom.ucsc.edu! Go slugs!
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 3:41 PM
Does that make it clearer CT?Because popular culture consists of fashionably irrational beliefs, practices, Gurus, etc... such as bastardized zen buddhism , Deepak Choprah, ear candling, chakras, auras, Christians who deny a belief in hell, Anti-vax nuts, Dr. Phil, Kabbalah string bracelets, What the Bleep Do We Know type films, crystals, The Secret, Suzanne Somers anti-aging weirdness etc.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 3:46 PM
Well duh. Any scientist knows that. We are our own worst critics. But, try telling Jenny McCarthy her anti-vax propergander is not scientific. She takes it personally, even though we criticize the theory, not the person. Happens all the time with woomeisters and godbots. We criticize their pet theory, we criticize them. It's part of the reason scientists are seen as arrogant.Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 3:49 PM
So in your mind, popular culture means all people? Is that correct?Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 3:51 PM
E.V.,
I see what you mean, but I still think you missed my point. :)
Sure, science is critical of popular culture. Who is popular culture? People.
So science is critical of people [the way it is currently worded].
But the goal of science is not to be critical of people, but of theories. Once you begin to criticize the person stating that theory (whether its a pop icon, or another scientist), you are no longer in the realm of science.
Does that help?
Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 3:54 PM
Fwiw: people = individuals
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 3:57 PM
CT in the context of what PZ said, I think my point is... well to the point. People in popular culture are not scientists (in general). They don't understand the critical nature of science and there for what i said.. yada yada yada
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 4:01 PM
CT:
You obviously haven't a clue to what is meant by the term popular culture and who is included in that subset of the greater populous.
Again, this demonstrates the error of your "why can't scholars just come up with a single translation the Bible?" disconnect with reality. In this case, you don't know jack about pop culture.
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | August 11, 2009 4:04 PM
Science is hard work, and for most people , is not much fun. Hell, for most people thinking critically is hard work and not much fun. What will drive most Americans to start paying attention to what science is doing and what scientists are saying is not interest or amusement; it is fear. The last time we had a big upsurge in public and governmental attention to science was due to the Sputnik scare. "They" were getting ahead of us! Perhaps this time the Chinese will do us the favor of pulling ahead in critical fields and scare the American public into taking science seriously.
The Chinese graduate more scientists and engineers each year than the total number of scientists and engineers that America has. ( I don't know if that's true; I just made it up. But it's the hard hitting simplistic kind of factoid that people like Olson seem to want us to communicate to the public as a sign of good PR.)
The fear of terrorism has directed a lot of funding to various scientific explorations and a good portion of the Homeland Security budget goes into technology. When we have a long term external threat, actual or perceived, we will see a renaissance of interest in science funding and respect. When we think our survival depends on it, we will make the change. That's how evolution works.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 4:09 PM
FAIL. Not all people constitute popular culture. This is widely known, that is if you're not cloistered culturally or ideologically, if not physically. Your attempt at a logic train was amusing though. Spin FAIL.(The disconnect in PZ's post was yours and yours alone.)
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 11, 2009 4:24 PM
But the goal of science is not to be critical of people, but of theories.
Science has no goals, certainly not because you say so.
Science mirrors evolution, the result is survival, and that's not even a goal, and occasionally that even fails. If that means criticizing people, then so be it. It real life, it means eating people, so consider yourself lucky we're so tame.
It also means occasionally mating with people, so consider yourself doubly fortunate, or unfortunate, depending on a lot of different things, mainly your perspective on reality.
Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 4:42 PM
I didn't say all people constitute popular culture. I said people constitute popular culture. Period. And people are individuals.
I'm sorry we're having a disconnect in this conversation and that you miss my point.
Posted by: Walton | August 11, 2009 4:48 PM
Well, Viscount Monckton, who I met a couple of months ago, is absolutely convinced that the AGW "consensus" is the product of a small group of left-wing scientists, and that the data has been distorted to serve a partisan political agenda. He claims, for a start, that the global temperature has been much higher in the past (in the Bronze Age, the Graeco-Roman warm period, and the medieval warm period), and that there has been no new record year in temperature since 1998; and that temperatures at both poles were higher fifty years ago than they are today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html
(Ignore all the bizarre waffle in the first few paragraphs. That is, I'm afraid, the Viscount's style.)
I honestly don't know if he's talking bullshit, and I'm certainly not going to go and check out all his citations and try to decipher pages and pages of graph and data and technical babble. So what can I do?
I'm not "afraid of the political implications"; I'm afraid of shutting down vast tracts of our industrial economy by government fiat, putting people out of work and increasing poverty, on the basis of scientific predictions which may or may not be correct.
Posted by: CT | August 11, 2009 4:59 PM
Oy vey.
You're not serious I hope?
or
Or
Posted by: shonny | August 11, 2009 5:12 PM
- and full of themselves!
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 5:16 PM
Walton,
You know perfectly well Monckton has never published a scientific paper of any kind, let alone one in climate science. He is also a conspiracy-theory lunatic. If you were even marginally honest with yourself, you would see that the conspiracy-mongering he specialises in, and that you are also going in for is exactly what the creationists do.
He claims, for a start, that the global temperature has been much higher in the past (in the Bronze Age, the Graeco-Roman warm period, and the medieval warm period), and that there has been no new record year in temperature since 1998; and that temperatures at both poles were higher fifty years ago than they are today.
The only one of these claims that is true is that there has been no new record year in global temperature since 1998. This is because 1998 was an exceptionally strong El Nino year. Climatic trends must be measured over periods of 30 years of more to be meanngful.
I'm afraid of shutting down vast tracts of our industrial economy by government fiat, putting people out of work and increasing poverty,
Since no-one with the slightest degree of influence has suggested any such thing, this is just further evidence that you are a liar.
Posted by: kevinj | August 11, 2009 5:20 PM
@ Walton.
so you are giving the same weighting to Viscount Monckton as to the entire of the IPCC?
I think that does kinda prove the point being made by Knockgoats that for whatever reason you are suspending logic.
even if you dont want to individually peer review his interpretation you could always read some of the many responses to his claims.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 5:23 PM
I honestly don't know if he's talking bullshit, and I'm certainly not going to go and check out all his citations and try to decipher pages and pages of graph and data and technical babble. So what can I do? - Walton
On Monckton's account, there is an evil conspiracy afoot which threatens the downfall of democracy and vastly increased poverty. On the climate scientists' account, there is an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent environmental catastrophe. In either case, this is clearly an issue of the utmost importance. If you gave a shit about anything beyond your stupid ideology, you would clearly take the trouble to find out the truth. You don't, because you are a liar and a coward.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 11, 2009 5:28 PM
Oy vey.
Go fuck yourself.
You're not serious I hope?
Hope is not a generally accepted credible scientific method.
These goals are intimately associated with the scientific method.
There is no 'the scientific method'.
You can be the nuttiest crackpot in the world, and not even reveal your methods, but if your results stands, it gets used by others to produce more results, which may or may not evolve into yet more interesting new credible scientific methods. What you are suggesting is that science doesn't evolve. You do understand what that labels you, right?
C'mon, think it through, you can do it!
Posted by: Moleculeman | August 11, 2009 5:36 PM
So, it's not so much dressing science up as easier for people to get their heads around as maybe, just maybe, fixing education up so people can critically appraise ideas?
If instead of teaching kids facts, we taught them how to learn, we'd never have to look back. Good, well researched science would stand on its own legs.
Tall order, but a worldwide enlightenment would be truly awe-inspiring.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 5:39 PM
Sometimes it seems that the ratio of talent to self-promotion is inversely proportional, but you see that in every field. The work has to speak for itself among peers, but if you want to reach others, promotion is a necessary expense.Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 11, 2009 5:42 PM
Okay, putting my old public relations hat back on for a moment [blowing dust off the visor; brushing it just a bit]:
Too many "don'ts" in Randy's book so far.
You're right, P.Z. Scientists are often the most interesting people in the group -- partly because of their nerdiness, which everyone secretly envies. So let it shine. Here would be my rules for "improving science communication."
1. Be yourself. You were always the nerd? So what? You're not going to tell the story well if you're worried about how you look in the tie you haven't worn in the last five years.
2. Get comfortable. Yes, this is a repeat of #1. Talking to the press in an odd venue? Show up early. Talk to the broadcast guys as they set up. Make sure you know it's your room.
Maybe better, do it in your lab. Yeah, it's dusty and dirty -- and it's a cool backdrop and it shows reality. Unless your lab is genuinely dangerous, show off the horrible place you work. Remember Feynman talking about which school had the best nuclear reactor? It wasn't the one that looked pretty.
3. Tell the truth. Somebody asks about effects, and you don't know? Tell them that. Somebody asks if this will improve relations between the Protestants and Catholics in Belfast, and you don't have a clue? Say so. It's probably a bizarre question. Tell what you know, don't make up what you don't know, and don't speculate on what you don't know.
4. Tell the story. It's probably a good yarn. Tell it. Forget the 50-cent words you used in the published article, especially if you don't usually use them -- bring a model of what you did, or if you can bring a real one (an alfalfa plant, a zebra mussel, a black-footed ferret), bring it. Tell what you did, and why, and what you found out. You don't think it sounds important enough? Let the editors and the day's news make that judgment -- it's not yours. Tell the story as well as you can, and let it go out. Crick and Watson went for a beer after they realized what they'd done. That should be part of the story. Darwin didn't even show up for the reading of his and Wallace's paper -- and the president of the society noted that nothing much of note happened that year. When Darwin's book hit, telling the stories it told, it was an instant smash hit. There's a moral there. Damned few can tell you anything about the topic that got Feynman the Nobel -- Quantum Electro Dynamics, or QED -- but tell the story about how he was trying to explain the wobble of the spinning dishes of the Chinese acrobats on Ed Sullivan when the idea hit him, and everyone will remember Feynman's work had something to do with wobbling atoms.
Tell the story. Your department head said it would never work? Your department head thought your work was the best thing possible and cleared hurdles for you? Either way that's a great story. Your funding has run out and this is the last publication before you go back to selling GM corn to farmers? Tell the story.
Humans are story tellers. Humans learn through stories. Humans like a good story.
So tell the story.
5. Tell the story often. You'll get better as you tell it more often. But be sure you do tell it often. It's not just news the moment you discover it. It's also news every time someone hears it for the first time. What? There are tens of thousands of transitional fossils? I didn't know that! Tell me again. There was a news report that got a detail wrong, or seemed to be unaware of some great discovery? Call the reporter and let her know. Write a letter to the editor. If the reporter didn't know, there are probably 100,000 other people who also don't know, and you won't inform them by staying quiet. You've told it before? That reporter missed the telling -- tell it again.
That's it. Five rules. No "don'ts."
You don't have to buy a new suit or learn a new set of behaviors to be successful in talking about science. But you do have to talk about it, and you need to do it often.
In the 1959 World Book I learned that Dante lived at a time when one person could know "every fact" of science, and he did. He was probably the last one. From here on out, all scientists need to tell about their little piece of turf. We can't count on Dante -- besides, some say he didn't do such a good job then, and he's dead.
Talk. Talk early. Tell the story. Talk often.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 6:06 PM
Many artists have talent, but nothing worth saying, and many scientist have stories worth telling without the chops to communicate it; so, collaborate.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 11, 2009 6:14 PM
Walton
First of all, find someone who's judgment you feel you can trust. But they should be knowledgeable in the subject matter. For example, listen to your lawyer on legal matters, your mechanic on your car woes, your accountant on your taxes, and your friendly science blog for science matters. I wouldn't take tax advice from the mechanic, nor an opinion on what needs fixing on your car from the lawyer. (Unless you know they have some special knowledge, like the lawyer races Jags on the weekends.)So, for scientific matters listen to scientists. There are many floating around this blog. And listen to those closest to the subject matter. I'm no expert on climate (I have been following the story for years though), but when I see a consensus opinion signed by a large majority of those scientists working the field, the data is usually very reliable. So AGW is happening. Likewise, listen to evolution from biologists, and string theory from physicists.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 6:15 PM
And sometimes they're mobs. What about peer pressure - alpha groups? At the risk of invoking Godwin what about the Milgram experiment - where individuality is erased and brought into a coalesced whole, more or less, and people commit acts that they would never would dare as an individual to prove ideological loyalism?I got your point CT and I rejected it as an overly literal reading to suit your rhetoric. I gather from your posts that you're either very young or a complete fish out of water.
You display the cognitive abilities that would define you as intelligent and yet...
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 6:24 PM
Nerd@121,
Well put! I fear, however, that Walton's head is so far up his arse that he has no hope of seeing what's in front of his nose.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 11, 2009 6:31 PM
A cornucopia of crackpottery:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 6:55 PM
Nerd@121,
Well put! I fear, however, that Walton's head is so far up his arse that he has no hope of seeing what's in front of his nose.
Posted by: windy | August 11, 2009 7:03 PM
Even if your fear was realistic, the changes to the economy should be mostly reversible if we learn that the predictions were too pessimistic. But if they turn out to be correct, and no measures are taken, then what? The consequences of taking the wrong approach are likely to be much more severe in the latter case.
Posted by: Laurie | August 11, 2009 7:04 PM
I am a trial lawyer and sometimes (not often, thankfully, but sometimes), I need to hire scientists to testify as expert witnesses.
Sadly, I have seen reputable scientists at a disadvantage in testifying against someone willing to B.S. a little bit. Juries are impressed by certainty and by things that they can grasp intuitively. (Propane flows like water was my mantra in a fire case; perhaps not the most scientific formulation but something that the jury could remember and understand.) Of course, good scientists often don't sound quite as certain as the charlatan, because there are always exceptions, qualification, and limitations to whatever proposition is being asserted. The key is to isolate the scientist can testify about with certainty and teach him how to hammer away at those things. Also, coming up with illustrations or examples that the jury can easily picture or relate to is also important.
If something is counterintuitive, acknowledge that it is counterintuitive and then explain how science we know the counterintuitive thing to be true. ("You wouldn't expect x, but in such-and-such experiment, scientists found x to be the case." Then describe how the experiment proved x.)
Posted by: Gerald | August 11, 2009 7:47 PM
I kept reading the title as "taking substance", that was disturbing...
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | August 11, 2009 8:01 PM
Walton (@59 et seq.):
One step that is entirely within your reach is to get your science information from scientists. Monckton is not a scientist, so move on. There are many blogs out there, but once you limit to those by scientists, the picture is far clearer.
Second step is to ensure that you get your science information from scientists with relevant backgrounds. If a hurricane guy is talking about the deep ocean circulation, move on. If a deep ocean circulation gal is talking about deep ocean circulation, you're ok. Again, many places where you can find people with professional knowledge speaking about their professional area or close to it.
Beyond those easy ones, I'll suggest you stop by my blog and follow up the 'weeding sources' tag. As a rule, the methods described do not require major knowledge of the science so you can apply them. And then you can have a more considered opinion than '... everyone writing about it has an agenda of some sort.' I also hang out a 'question place' post for people to ask questions. That's another option you can take.
I suppose I do have an agenda of _some_ sort. I believe that the fundamentals on climate are understandable with little or no mathematical background, and without extremely high reading levels and quantities. How close I come to my aim of writing accessibly to jr. high students, I don't know (substantive comments welcome). But that is indeed the aim.
Posted by: mikeg | August 11, 2009 10:37 PM
pz... this is why i love you... succinct
Posted by: Dan W | August 12, 2009 12:13 AM
I don't know about what Randy Olson says, but I think scientists might be more easy to understand by people with little background in science if they talk about science more like Bill Nye. Sure, his show "Bill Nye: The Science Guy" was for kids, but he also did a more adults-oriented show, called "The Eyes of Nye", which I've seen a few videos of on the Internet, and liked. Bill Nye seems to have figured out how to make science understandable to the general public pretty well. Hmm... maybe more scientists should host tv shows, if they can find the time for that.
Posted by: Vicki Siedow | August 12, 2009 1:12 AM
As the only person in my familial generation that doesn't have a PhD in science, and descended from many generations of teachers and scientists, I feel qualified to comment. It helps that I spent many years excelling in the fields of PR, marketing and sales. I did extensive training in communications, and while I'm not a scientist, I am a private investigator, and very possibly one of the most qualified to comment here, all of the above being considered.
Most scientists need an interpretor. That interpretor needs to be intelligent and if not completely versed in the area of science being discussed, needs to be educable, a researcher, and able to "speak" both "science" and "public."
It is extremely helpful if that interpretor, if financial gain or other recognition is desired, is also either versed in PR, marketing, and sales, or is able to in turn associate the originating scientist's material and explanations thereof with yet another interpretor, this time in the field of PR, etc.
What I am proposing is a network of people like me who, while they don't want to spend their lives in scientific research, do enjoy a mental challenge. They will need to be versed in PR, marketing, sales, etc., and be willing and able to bridge the gap between scientists and the general public; something of a human Rosetta Stone.
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 12, 2009 1:51 AM
One really good science/art collaboration is The Science of Discworld - Parts 1-3. Terry Pratchett in collaboration with Ian Stewart (Mathematician) and Jack Cohen (biologist). They cover the history and development of the universe (the real one), evolution of life on earth, the theory of evolution, in tandem with a Discworld story to help explain the concepts from a different perspective. They are informative and fun for kids and adults.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | August 12, 2009 3:21 AM
Laurie #127:
So maybe you should tighten up your policy and stick exclusively to charlatans as your 'experts'. It's the verdict that matters, after all (or is it the fee?)
Ed Darrell #119, excellent. I take it you've told that story before?
Walton, lame. One nut (and a few industries) vs. all the climate scientists in the world, which could possibly be closer to the truth? I don't know, it's too hard to figure out, it could be either... so I'll just go with the fruitcake. Yeah.
Oh, and about criticism... I'm talking here about what you folks wrote, not (necessarily) who you are. If you take it personally, well, that's your problem (would it sting if it was not a fair criticism?). Newton could not be hurt by anything Einstein said, but modern science has overlapping generations; the senior scientist whose pet theory you mock today may be reviewing your next paper (or grant!), so it's sometimes difficult EVEN THOUGH it's the theory, not the person you disrespect. Hypotheses are like children or lovers; scientists can have blind spots for their own and that's not (always, necessarily) a bad thing. I suspect PZ in the post consciously used 'criticism' in a way that could apply to both theories and individuals, and I consider that good writing.
Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 5:27 AM
True. His degree is in Classics, and, as his detractors go to great pains to point out, his article for the American Physical Society was not peer-reviewed and has not been endorsed by any qualified climate scientists.
Having dined (and wined) with the good Viscount in an overpriced Oxford restaurant, I am well aware that he holds many truly bizarre ideas (I won't elaborate, as it would be unethical of me to post details of a private conversation) and is something of a conspiracy theorist. Nonetheless, eccentric people have been right in the past (even if only by accident).
I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, as I keep trying to explain, I find it very hard to evaluate the claims made either way about climate science. And I don't think I'm the only person in such a position.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 5:32 AM
Nonetheless, eccentric people have been right in the past (even if only by accident).
They laughed at Galileo... but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
You need to understand this more clearly, Walton, before you too become the conspiracy nut you're shaping yourself up to be.
I see bad things in your future.
seriously, spend some time working with someone who you don't know personally and work on honing your critical thinking skills.
somewhere along the line, you missed out on that.
Posted by: echidna | August 12, 2009 5:34 AM
Walton,
You should know enough about science (even if only from this blog) to know that:
any one person might be wrong,
any group of people arguing rhetorically might be wrong,
any one scientist might be wrong,
but a large number of scientists evaluating evidence is very likely to be right.
You don't have to evaluate the claims per se, you can evaluate the process by which the claims are derived.
Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 5:52 AM
But in everyday life we would also recognise that all those people have agendas of their own. The mechanic, for instance, wants to make as much money out of you as he can, so he's going to exaggerate the problems with your car. Likewise, if your lawyer bills by the hour, he's going to make things as complicated as possible so that they take longer.
Now, I have enough knowledge about law (as a law student), and about the tax system, to determine if the lawyer or the accountant are talking bullshit. But since I know next to nothing about cars, I won't be able to tell if the mechanic is over-charging me. I just have to trust him.
But this climate science issue is the equivalent of two different groups of mechanics telling me different and contradictory things about my car. I can't really tell who's right; all I can do is check out their professional qualifications and try and make a guess at which one is likely to be more reliable.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 12, 2009 5:52 AM
Don't go all Kwok on us, Walton :)
Posted by: prochoice | August 12, 2009 6:03 AM
Why don´t you do it like in sports?
A.f.a.i.k. Americans are fond of competition?!?
Persons with their stories and their whimps competing for knowledge, instead of records.
And good loosers, shaking hands when someone reaches a point;
instead of bloodyly destroying "THE ENEMY".
Often getting the funding is a story of its own - but it could be told as a win-win-situation.
And THE DUMBTH always lurking around the corner, because in every good horror movie THE EVIL cannot be defeated once and for all, it is always there for a remake.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 12, 2009 6:05 AM
Walton,
This is absolutely false. Of climate scientists:
- 97% believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
- 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring.
Getting 84% of people in any field to agree on anything is hard. Now some may not agree with the consensus, but they can't say it doesn't exist.
Reference
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Posted by: prochoice | August 12, 2009 6:14 AM
P.S.: Vicki Siedow might have a point with the interpreters, people who know how to investigate and present that to courts and juries, but it might also be too professionalized.
I will try my sports story-like approach tomorrow, because I will meet a sports journalist then.
I will tell you, if I get him off his "science is something beyond me" on one or two things.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 6:21 AM
all I can do is check out their professional qualifications and try and make a guess at which one is likely to be more reliable. - Walton
Actually it isn't, because you can check for simple untruths, and look at the internal coherence of what they say, but let's assume you're too lazy or stupid to do that. That AGW is real, and a problem demanding urgent action, is agreed by the overwhelming majority of published climate scientists, the national scientific associations of the G8 plus India, China and Brazil, the editors of Nature and Science, and all the relevant professional scientific associations in the USA (with the possible exception of the Association of Petroleum Geologists, who I think may still be fence-sitting). Against that you have a very small number of climate scientists, most of whom have published little in recent years, and a mass of conspiracy theorists, often with obvious political motivations. If you were an honest person, that would leave you in no doubt which side is likely to be right.
Conclusion: you are not an honest person.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 12, 2009 6:22 AM
No, it's like one group of scientists and one group of mechanics telling you different and contradictory things.
You can easily tell who's wrong by just reading up on the issue.
Start here (from comment 124). Yes, it will take several hours. It's a big topic. But if you do invest that time, you will be in a position to have an opinion.
Demonstrably wrong.
You see, when someone says something, that not only doesn't mean they're right, it does not even mean there's any chance they could be right. They can just as easily be ignorant (...or lying, or both).
Demonstrably wrong.
All of this has been shown to be wrong. Spend a few hours in Google Scholar and look it up.
That Monckton doesn't know a paper exists does not mean it really doesn't exist. That Monckton believes research hasn't been done does not mean it really hasn't been done.
It really is that simple.
Demonstrably wrong.
This can easily be shown to be irrational. Surely you know about the German project to build lots of huge solar power plants in the Sahara? What do you think how many jobs this alone will create? What about the wind power industry? What about the producers of photovoltaic cells for the roofs of private homes? What about the producers of fuel-efficient or electric cars? What about Obama's plan to finally give the USA a halfway serious railway network?!?
A bit more capitalist optimism, Walton. Please.
I mean, you're saying "vast tracts of our industrial economy" are directed by businesspeople who are inflexible and can't recognize a business opportunity when it stares them in the face. O RLY?
And besides... which government except China's could at all afford, politically, to shut down lots of industry without replacement? Stop being silly already.
If you absolutely must be afraid of something, start pondering the question of how to evacuate Bangladesh.
-------------------------
Finding out whether your result stands is the scientific method. It consists of nothing more than falsification and parsimony.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 12, 2009 6:27 AM
Actually, I'm not at all sure China's government could afford shutting down lots of industry. They could just afford more than a democratic government probably could.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 6:33 AM
Wrong Walton. What you have is a group of certified master mechanics (climate scientists) all telling you one thing. Then you have a bunch of non-certified backyard mechanics whose cars run badly telling you the master mechanics are wrong. Look at the credentials of people. That was my point. Again, trust those with credentials much more than those without.So, in the climate/AGW area, those with credentials are almost unanimous in saying AGW is happening. Those who are not working in the climate area, or arrogant liberturds like AG who simply cannot have anybody tell him anything, are the ones claiming AGW is not happening. The decision should be a no brainer. The credentials should win big time.
Walton, anytime somebody claims a conspiracy, you should know they aren't just a bad mechanic, they have no business around tools. These are the ones to treat as your "well meaning fools", in that the truth is most likely opposite of their claims. Like a stopped watch, they may be right twice a day, but they are wrong the other 23:58.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 6:54 AM
I find it interesting that the AGW debate seems to be split down libertarian lines. If you're going to buck the scientific consensus on one issue, why global warming? Surely taking such a position is untenable where the current evidence sits. It's almost at conspiracy theory levels that denial has taken place.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 12, 2009 6:54 AM
The most convincing evidence I found for global warming was the retreat of the glaciers in Alaska, British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, Montana and Washington.
Global warming is also having an affect on the North American forests. The winters haven't been cold enough to kill off a large percentage of larvae that feed on trees, which in turn kills the tree that is host. There are expanding stands of trees that are dead, which in turn become tinder for forest fires. This is easily spotted on drives through the northwestern states of the U.S. and the Canadian Provinces.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 12, 2009 6:59 AM
Walton, you may remember the smoking/lung cancer issue. There was a "controversy" there for a while. But there were two things you could do to help resolve it. Firstly, a quick game of "follow the money"; if most of the "smoking is fine" argument is directly funded by the tobacco companies and most of the "smoking is bad for you" argument is coming from e.g. medical associations, that should be kind of a red flag. Secondly, you can step back and ask a very simple question: "I plan to inhale the smoke from burning the dried leaves of a poisonous plant. Should I expect this to be (a) good for my lungs or (b) bad for them?" That helps bring perspective.
Similarly, here, once you've see how the actual climate science tilts, and filtered out the noises that were bought and paid for by the enormously profitable fossil fuel industry, you should be able to make a decision. And you should ask the simple question: "My species is increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 lets visible light by but scatters IR radiation. This planet gets a lot of warmth from visible light and loses it as IR radiation. Should I expect (a) nothing to happen or (b) warming?"
Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 7:11 AM
YES, YES, and fucking YES. As someone wrote above, science has gotten too deep. What this really means is that we do not, and cannot, have in depth knowledge outside of our specific fields. There simply isn't enough time and there is way too much to learn. If it's not an area that you have a real love for (and thus you spend a lot of energy on), then it's going to be outside of your arena unless it is your arena. And when I say within our specific fields, I mean it. I'm talking about the specific area within your field that you have trained for and work in. I personally know way more about evolution than I do geophysics, even though to the outsider geophysics would logically seem closer to me, since it sits within the earth sciences. But the sad fact is, that I don't work on anything remotely close to geophysics, and as such, I know fuck all about it. If a hurricane guy is talking about deep ocean circulation, then move on...
Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 8:54 AM
All forms of renewable energy (except hydroelectric) are much more expensive, per kilowatt hour, than energy generated by fossil fuel burning. At the moment, much of our economy depends on fossil fuel energy; so do the nascent industrial economies of India, China and Brazil.
In the end, switching to renewable rather than fossil sources, on a large scale, will lead to much more expensive energy, and require decreases in energy consumption. This will push our standard of living back decades, reduce the availability of cheap consumer goods, and deny people in the developing world the chance to move out of poverty through industrialisation.
My preferred solution would be to switch to nuclear energy on a large scale, which would certainly reduce our carbon emissions. But the environmentalists don't like that idea either.
If the most alarmist predictions are right, and we are facing a global ecological catastrophe, then this kind of sacrifice is perhaps a reasonable measure. But I need to be absolutely certain that there is no other possibility, before I can endorse measures that will vastly increase poverty and human suffering.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 12, 2009 9:01 AM
Shorter Walton: the energy generation approaches that haven't had a hundred-years-plus of massive-scale research, development and implementation are, currently, more expensive than the ones we're used to. Well, there's no way we can solve _that_ problem, is there?
Walton, seriously, no course of action is more certain to vastly increase poverty and human suffering than _not_ switching to sustainable energy. Take off your libertarihat and think about it.
Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 9:45 AM
And so you're just ignoring the fact that, in the actual end, the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and we're ultimately going to have to make the switch whether we like it not?
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 9:54 AM
That whooshing sound you just heard was that concept going right over his head.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 9:54 AM
And people wonder why I'm anti-capitalist...
Penn and Teller pulled the same argument about recycling. It's more cost effective just to produce new plastics than to recycle them so recycling is a waste - missing the complete point about what recycling is actually for. By making doing what's best for our species and planet in the long term down to fiscal incentives now, the problems facing our planet will never be solved.
Long term survival and short term profiteering just don't go hand in hand. The fact that Walton pulls out the cost of renewables as a reason not to go to them completely misses the point of why one needs to go to them. It's because they are more expensive that the market won't shift that direction on its own. The cheaper way is short-sighted and causing destruction to the planet we reside on, and it will remain cheaper until it's too late.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 9:58 AM
My preferred solution would be to switch to nuclear energy on a large scale, which would certainly reduce our carbon emissions. But the environmentalists don't like that idea either. - Walton
Deeply dishonest rubbish. Many of those advocating cutting emissions do advocate a massive expansion of nuclear power. It does have serious problems, most crucially that deploying it on a large scale would take too long. But the first essential step, which you refuse to take, is to acknowledge the reality of the problem.
But I need to be absolutely certain that there is no other possibility, before I can endorse measures that will vastly increase poverty and human suffering. - Walton
Deeply dishonest rubbish. Start by acknowledging the current state of relevant expert scientific opinion, and one might possibly believe in your sincerity - although your callousness in other matters would make it difficult.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 10:03 AM
In the end, switching to renewable rather than fossil sources, on a large scale, will lead to much more expensive energy, and require decreases in energy consumption. This will push our standard of living back decades, reduce the availability of cheap consumer goods, and deny people in the developing world the chance to move out of poverty through industrialisation. - Walton
Do you, by the way, actually have any references that show this? It is certainly not the opinion of many of the economists (e.g. Nicholas Stern) who have studied the matter, I venture to guess, rather more deeply than you.
But I need to be absolutely certain that there is no other possibility, before I can endorse measures that will vastly increase poverty and human suffering. - Walton
This is a deeply dishonest and disgracefully irresponsible attitude to risk. Absolute certainty, of course, is not available in any empirical matter; so what Walton is really saying here is that no evidence whatever will convince him.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 12, 2009 10:09 AM
Great article about "climate scepticism".
So quickly do you forget? There is no such thing as absolute certainty, at least not in science. How disingenuous.
If the least extreme IPCC predictions are right – and there are climatologists like Stefan Rahmstorf who think that even the most extreme ones are too low to be realistic –, then half of Bangladesh is toast when the sun shines (and the other only during the monsoon). Toast. T-O-A-S-T. Poverty? Suffering? If we do nothing, you will see poverty, suffering, and death with your own eyes.
You act as if nothing happening were the most probable possibility by far. It is the least probable possibility by far (unless you include a Venus-style runaway greenhouse, which I'm not aware of any climatologist ever having done).
Well yeah. There's a lot of potential for cutting consumption without changing anything else. There are uninsulated buildings everywhere that require lots of energy for heating and/or cooling. In a few years, white-light LEDs will hit the market, and lightbulbs will die out along with compact fluorescent (mercury vapour) lamps.
I can only repeat myself:
After all, the photovoltaics cells from 10 years ago are absolutely laughable compared to today's. In other words, we're working on it.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 10:10 AM
While I can't be certain of AGW, to me even if there was no science behind it (there is), it comes down to simple bets. If we switch to renewables and AGW is not true, we get a long term future for a little short term hardship. If we switch and it is true, then we've averted a potential crisis. If we don't switch and it's not true, then we keep on until the crisis of having to switch in the next couple of hundred or so years. If we don't switch and it is true, then we've doomed ourselves for the sake of short term gain.
The meaningful bet is to sacrifice a bit now for the future of our species, because acting regardless of AGW is going to be vital for the survival of our species in the long term and not acting can at best hang off until the disaster of tapping the resources dry.
How can anyone try to make the argument otherwise?
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 10:14 AM
Asperger's Syndrome.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 10:15 AM
The other thing too, infrastructure doesn't magically appear overnight. We have a civilisation utterly dependant on sources of energy, we need to start planning now and help make the gradual change from our current practices towards renewable energy sources.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 12, 2009 10:31 AM
And long before that, oil production will hit its peak, causing the price of oil to skyrocket.
It seems that Peak Oil will come sooner than most people expected. And that's according to the International Energy Agency.
Obviously, as soon as oil becomes more expensive than other energy sources, the Invisible Hand will switch the economy over to other energy carriers. Problem is, it will knock most of us over in the process. We must preempt it. We must gradually switch the world over before it happens catastrophically on its own.
Does "oil into potatoes" ring a bell?
If we do nothing, and the oil becomes too expensive, we have a problem completely independent from the climate.
The Invisible Hand is strong, but blind, like natural selection. It can accomplish a lot, because it doesn't care about the costs, like natural selection. I think we should try some intelligent design in this case. I think we should start taxing coal and moving the subsidies to other things.
Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 11:03 AM
An excellent point. Thank you, David.
Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 11:42 AM
How about Bjorn Lomborg? He is certainly not a libertarian (indeed, he describes himself as a left-winger), but is highly sceptical about AGW and believes that alarmism on the subject is currently damaging our ability to achieve other goals, such as reducing global poverty.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128896.html
Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 11:59 AM
@ E.V. #160:
As is typical of the output of psychobabblers (rather than genuine scientists) engaged in merely making up conditions to demonise anyone who isn't exactly like them, a couple of those alleged symptoms are mutually contradictory. Either these Aspies are not trying to share something of interest with others or they are too enthusiastically trying to share, despite other people being unreceptive.
Actually, condition (b) sounds rather more like politicians - always making long-winded speeches, despite the boredom of their audience, and then avoiding dealing with any difficult responses they do get.
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / www.lifelongactivist.com | August 12, 2009 12:51 PM
Below is the description of a panel from this weekend's Netroots Nation about the importance of story telling. Obviously, it's not just scientists who could use these skills! Story telling that gets at the real truth behind things is incredibly powerful, and can counteract the most powerful propaganda. To cite just one example, the 19th century slave narratives were a crucial component of the abolitionist struggle. - Hill
Connecting People to Policy: Storytelling as a tool for progressive change
Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:30pm, 406
Too often advocacy organizations will wrap complex policy issues in focus-group tested messaging without honestly connecting with the people most affected. People’s stories and voices are incredibly powerful and compelling, and may be able to accomplish what email outreaches, blogs and social networking cannot: humanize progressive reform, capture the attention of new supporters, and build a diverse and powerful outcry for change. The challenge for progressives is to use storytelling to pierce the static of advocacy messaging, and inspire more people to get behind meaningful and lasting reform. This session features the creative work of new-documentarians, people who are using the power of storytelling through video and new Web applications to let people’s stories drive large audiences to support policies that solve real-world problems.
PANELISTS: Tim Karr, Wendy Cohen, Robert Greenwald, Crissy Spivey, Megan Tady
Posted by: Hillary Rettig/The Lifelong Activist | August 12, 2009 12:56 PM
People who are interested in Asperger's should read John Robison's autobiography Look Me in the Eye. It's terrifically written and really provides insight. (JR has Asperger's.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 1:29 PM
How about Bjorn Lomborg? He is certainly not a libertarian (indeed, he describes himself as a left-winger), but is highly sceptical about AGW and believes that alarmism on the subject is currently damaging our ability to achieve other goals, such as reducing global poverty. - Walton
He has no qualifications or publications whatever in climate science or environmental economics, for a start. That really should be enough - he does not have any relevant expertise - but he's also apparently a liar: one of his big claims in The Sceptical Environmentalist was that he was once a environmentalist, but he has never produced any evidence of any environmental activism, or of belonging to any environmental organisation; and the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty found that in his work "there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty ... have been met".
I think it likely describing himself as a left-winger is just a useful tactic: all his links appear to be with the "libertarian" right. For example, he was appointed to his current position by a right-wing government, which later also defended him against the verdict of the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty; and in November 2004 he was the after dinner speaker at a special pre conference environmental meeting ahead of the annual meeting of the Philanthropy Roundtable, a coordinating committee of conservative foundations. Frankly, however, I don't believe he has any political convictions at all: he's just seen a lucrative opportunity. Incidentally, he does accept that "Global warming is real and caused by CO2.", but continues, falsely: "The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming" Daily Telegraph 12/12/2004 .
Lots of information about Lomborg, pro and con (though primarily the latter) is available at http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | August 12, 2009 1:31 PM
Walton (@151 and prior):
So, when you said that they're (blogs about climate) all pursuing an agenda, would it be fair to say that your conclusion is "Therefore I'll only read the sources whose agenda I like."
To get back to the original post of PZ's ... for cases like this, I don't see that the book, regardless of how well it is written, would be much use. Walton isn't ignoring science because scientists aren't telling stories, or are being too literal, etc.. He doesn't like the story that science has to say. So he gets his stories from other sources -- sources that tell stories with happy endings (i.e., that they have absolute certainty, that Walton need never adapt to anything, etc.)
I'll second the sentiment about the market. Walton looks at current costs, and assumes that the market is entirely incapable of lowering costs for a product. Then makes some rather wild (you know that much yourself Walton) alarmist disaster conclusions about global impoverishment, etc., based on his utter lack of confidence in the market to respond with any creativity and inventiveness to a demand for cheaper non-fossil energy sources.
I also appreciate the irony of folks who say the scientists are alarmist about climate, turning around and making very large, alarming, claims about 'shutting down vast tracts of the industrial economy', setting back standard of living by 'decades', increasing world poverty, and so on. The folks who taught him that, needed zero evidence. But the scientists, he wants absolute proof from.
Ah well. There may be a proper way to approach such audiences. But I doubt Olson's book will be much use towards it. Since I think most audiences aren't like that (or at least not most people), and Paul's review of Olson is much more favorable (in my eyes) than the Mooney advertising for it a while back, I may well pick up a copy and eventually read it.
Amusing, or something, that it is PZ, a guy who is 'such a scientst', who wrote the review that encouraged me to read the book, and not either professional communicator Olson or Mooney. Then again, I'm a scientist, so maybe don't count for them.
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 1:48 PM
Sorry SEF, but the purpose of DSM is to determine diagnostic criteria not to demonize. Having dealt with many people who exhibit certain mental disabilities, I really get perturbed when someone dismisses it all using "psychobabble" and "not real science. Neurologists, chemists and biologists abound in trying to make sense of the brain and consciousness and what happens when it goes wrong. You are implying Schizophrenia is not a disorder? Autism? BiPolar?. Really? ( I have direct experience with several people who have these disorders.) Your dismissal is telling, but everyone has a bias against something.
BTW-I'll take Dr. Oliver Sachs views over any layman's any day.
Posted by: Paul | August 12, 2009 2:13 PM
@E.V.
What disturbs me is how casually the anti-accomodationists use "autistic" or "aspie" as general purpose slurs towards uppity atheists (more specifically towards their approach, but either way it is tasteless). It's really been bothering me lately.
Posted by: Paul | August 12, 2009 2:35 PM
In 171 I meant accomodationist, many apologies.
Posted by: TiG | August 12, 2009 3:50 PM
WTF??
Napoleon Dynamite made me laugh so hard I snerked.
Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 3:51 PM
@ E.V. #170:
And Christianity claims not only to have morals but be the one true source of them. The DSM and its associated psychobabblers (ie in everyday practice of their black art) have a similarly poor track record for accuracy.
Yeah, you pound away on that nice soft strawman. Don't bother to address the valid point I actually made.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 12, 2009 4:41 PM
Without knowing about his dishonesty, I always found his arguments to be arguments from ignorance.
"Demonise"? Where is that implied?
That said, reality is indeed complicated. I seem to have about half of the symptoms – should I be diagnosed or not?
BTW, mutually contradictory symptoms can arise through overcompensation. For instance, when I don't expect a response in mimics, gesture or body language, I don't see a reason to look at people I talk to. I'm aware of this, and I've been told about it by other people. So, what happened at the first scientific congress I participated in? I was told, second-hand, that some people had said I had stared at them way too much. Indeed I had consciously tried to look into people's eyes as much as possible when talking to them.
This bears repeating. Again and again and again.
Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 4:52 PM
OK, I misspoke in talking about "absolute certainty". But when the stakes are so massive - billions of dollars, millions of lives - I am uncomfortable with putting absolute faith in the majority view, when there is a very vocal minority challenging that view. Is that such an unreasonable position to take?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Yes. It all goes back to credentials. The majority of those climate scientists are doing their jobs of searching for and refining their data on, and they are doing it right, and they almost unanamously say AGW is real. Compare this to the minority, who is either out of their fields (say engineers), have an agenda (libertarians who can't take responsibility for others), or just out of their minds (conspiracy theorists). Then there is a clear idea that AGW is happening, and we need to do something. Your problem is that doing something goes against your libertarian principals. But that is also why those principals are morally bankrupt.Posted by: SEF | August 12, 2009 5:16 PM
It isn't implied (certainly not in a post here, if that's what you misinterpreted me as saying). It's just there as a simple matter of fact in the culture. Being different is automatically wrong/criminal rather than potentially better than normal or at least neutral, whereas being the same is uncritically desirable. Maybe you missed the part where homosexuality was also a diagnosable mental illness. And the part where they have to make feeble excuses for excluding religion from counting as a classic folie a deux.
Perhaps you also missed the infamous test where a bunch of perfectly normal volunteers got themselves incarcerated by entirely typical incompetent psychobabblers on the flimsiest of indications. These are people who demonstrably, on many levels, don't know what they're doing and certainly aren't honest about it.
Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 5:18 PM
And even so, Walton, you're still doing an end run around the elephant in the room. We are going to have to move away from fossil fuels at some point, regardless of how we feel about it. There is only so much fossil fuel energy in the system. All you're really doing is advocating putting that step off. The stakes aren't going to become less as time goes on.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 5:29 PM
I am uncomfortable with putting absolute faith in the majority view, when there is a very vocal minority challenging that view. - Walton
More dishonesty. No-one is asking for "absolute faith"; simply for a rational response to overwhelming expert advice.
Posted by: Walton | August 12, 2009 5:41 PM
They're asking for lots of money to be spent, and the economy to be weakened, in efforts to cut carbon emissions. I don't wish to gamble truckloads of money, or sacrifice our present comfortable lifestyles, on something about which there is substantial doubt.
Imagine a fire safety expert told you that your home was at risk of burning down, and you had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on making it safe. Would you trust him, and spend the money right away without checking it out further? And if someone else - not a fire safety expert himself, but a keen amateur who'd read up on the subject - examined your house and told you the fire safety expert was talking bullshit, wouldn't this cause you to think twice about spending so much money?
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 5:46 PM
Maybe I misconstrued the psychobabblers in question. There isn't a discipline that hasn't been plagued by misguided thinking and egregious mistakes. Not only has homosexuality been dropped as an official disorder, but recently the APA condemned "exgay" therapies as emotionally destructive and ineffective in altering same sex desire. Psychiatry and Neurology are very dark corridors that have been badly chartered for just over a century. New insights are accrueing at a record pace now. The baby/bathwater approach to psychiatry is not viable though. What if medicine had been abandoned because barbarous cures like leaches and bloodletting were once considered mundane treatments. Let's not forget Miss Evers' boys at the Tuskegee Institute if we're isolating horrendous acts.(And never undervalue or demonize modern ECT as a final critical stopgap when pharmacology and talk therapy fail.)
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 12, 2009 5:51 PM
Walton, when is it going to be the proper time to cut carbon emmisions? The last time I looked the economy was tanked. Whether you like it or not the government is slowly getting involved with global warming.
What are your solutions?
Posted by: Paul | August 12, 2009 5:58 PM
Your analogy does not fit. Imagine after the initial fire safety expert, you took his claim to a location where the most highly trained fire safety experts congregated. They all concurred with his analysis. However, a crackpot who makes money by helping rebuild houses when they burn down told you that there was no risk, and the fire safety board was simply trying to drum up funding to fix the non-existent problem of homes at risk of burning down.
You're falsely equivocating both the motive and the means on both sides of the issue. We'll ignore that for hundreds of thousands of pounds you could buy a new home, and assume that at least that part of the analogy was brought in good faith instead of OMG LOTS OF MONEY Libertarian scare-mongering.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 6:28 PM
A short term downturn in some industries is necessary for the long term sustainability of our country. You start on water restrictions well before the dam runs dry, otherwise everyone is stuffed.But you're neglecting that this means a boom in other industries. It will drive R&D, drive infrastructure and create jobs too. No-one is asking society to shut down, just that they focus on more sustainable technology and practices. What you are proposing at best will delay the need to shift for 100 years or so, we'll need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while it won't be a problem. Do you think that it'll be easy to take the hit all in one go?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 12, 2009 9:00 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you value your quality of life now over the future of this planet and our species.Though basically you are arguing a straw man. That the choice is either to cripple the economy or protect the earth. Surely you can see that logically this path of consuming non-renewable energy is unsustainable for at best anything beyond the mid-term. What happens when demand for oil outstrips supply? Will you maintain your comfortable lifestyle then?
In terms of gambling, I refer you to post #159. What's wrong with my logic there? Did I inaccurately assess the options and the potential outcomes? Or do you just disagree that anything should be looked after for the long term?
What I really want to know is when is changing to a more sustainable future a better option? Will it be when scarcity of non-renewable energy sources occurs? Will it be when renewable technology becomes cheaper? In either case, the jobs of those in the oil and coal industries will be lost. The same argument comes up now in terms of deforestation, every time there's a call to protect the environment, there's complaints by those in the timber industry that there wil be job losses.
Regardless of whether global warming is happening or not, the fact remains that this "way of life" is unsustainable for the planet. That the way we fuel our civilisation: to feed, to power, etc. this is done by depleting the earth of natural resources. Species pushed to extinction by hunting or habitat depletion. Commodities drained in order to feed or sustain us. We can't continue on like this, and the consumerist nature of the system does not help.
What global warming does is puts an immediacy on doing something about it. It means that we can actually look towards the future and plan for the long term. To invest in research now and to gradually move our society towards a more sustainable future. Acting now will mean that in the coming decades where demand outstrips supply on certain finite commodities that we are in a position to deal with that seamlessly i.e. protecting our quality of life.
Though I've got to say this, the truth of AGW should never be tied to the consequences it will have for our society. Either humans are inducing climate change or not, and this should be exclusively a scientific question. All we can do as a society is act on what the science says, not what consequences that science has for us. Accept the science on its own merits, take away all consequences from the argument. After all, there's great discussion on the consequences of nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean we can reject the science behind it.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 13, 2009 7:24 AM
Walton,
Analogy fixed.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 8:05 AM
For all your talk of rationality walton, I really find it hard to imagine that you would essentially put your trust in what is partially an appeal to consequences, a gambit on potential outcomes if you will. While I often disagree with your posiitions, I respect the rationality you bring to your thought processes. In this case though, I really can't see how your position is rational at all.
Posted by: llewelly | August 13, 2009 9:45 AM
This is often claimed. Is there any peer-reviewed evidence for it?Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 9:52 AM
I went to a skeptic lecture tonight on this very issue and asked the scientist about it. He actually runs the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science and works doing the things that M&K suggest will science-ize the unscientific americans.
He responded that if some scientists want to go hide in a lab and spend time doing research then let them as it furthers the cause of science itself. You don't need every scientist to be a communicator.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 13, 2009 10:12 AM
True. One thing that has bothered me for quite a while is that talking to the general populace is not in anyway significant in promotion and tenure decisions. In many science departments P&T decisions are solely made on research monies and papers. I have always thought, even at research universities, if someone wanted to just teach and communicate to the general public, and does a good job of it, they should also be rewarded in P&T decisions. Alas...Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 10:19 AM
It was not to argue that no scientists need those skills, just that not every scientists needs them. That there are scientists who don't want to talk to the public, who just want to research and are driven by what they do. What good would it do to have them taken away from their work and put into a role they are uncomfortable in doing?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 13, 2009 10:25 AM
Walton: vocal minorities with good evidence and arguments should be listened to. Vocal minorities with neither should be ignored. Being vocal is really, really easy. Empty barrel, most noise, you know?
Posted by: Walton | August 13, 2009 10:28 AM
I think I've perhaps miscommunicated here. I was not intending to say "The measures proposed to deal with AGW are potentially expensive and economically destructive; therefore AGW is not real." That would be an argument from consequences, and therefore fallacious. The question "is AGW real?" is a purely factual one, which can only be evaluated based on empirical evidence. Allowing political considerations to interfere with one's scientific evaluation of the evidence would be intellectually dishonest.
Rather, what I'm saying is "The measures proposed to deal with AGW are potentially expensive and economically destructive; therefore, we need to ensure that there is substantial empirical evidence for AGW, and substantial evidence that the measures in question will actually help, before we proceed with any action."
If you're right that (a) AGW is a real and immediate threat to human civilisation, and (b) we have a good chance of reducing its impact through immediate action, then obviously the only rational approach is to take whatever action we can to reduce its impact. But I am merely arguing that we need to be reasonably sure that both of these statements are supported by evidence, before we can endorse the taking of substantial action to ameliorate the threat of AGW.
However, you might well be right. I will read up on it some more and get back to you. It seems I need to conquer my fear of scientific jargon, and read some of the science. :-)
Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 10:28 AM
Shit, in many university departments it will hurt you to talk to the general public. You're just not a serious-enough scientist for our department if you're not spending 100% of your time writing papers for the four other people on the planet who give a shit about the obscure bit of the universe that you're the master of.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 13, 2009 10:37 AM
Imagine a fire safety expert told you that your home was at risk of burning down, and you had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on making it safe. Would you trust him, and spend the money right away without checking it out further? And if someone else - not a fire safety expert himself, but a keen amateur who'd read up on the subject - examined your house and told you the fire safety expert was talking bullshit, wouldn't this cause you to think twice about spending so much money? - Walton
More dishonesty. It is not a case of a single expert, but of the overwhelming majority of the relevant expert community: climate scientists.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 13, 2009 10:41 AM
What part of carbon dioxide is a major contributer to global warming, and reducing carbon dioxide emmissions will reduce in increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and therefore have the effect not increasing temperatures as fast are you having trouble with Walton? Really. It is not hard. But you don't like the political answer, so you equivocate. Honesty is essential to science. It is one of the reasons science works. Honesty can be a liability in politics.Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 6:29 PM
What I was trying to get at before in post #159 among others is that global warming isn't the only factor in working towards a sustainable future; that even if global warming isn't true then the path towards renewable energy and sustainable living is still one humanity must take. And when will we be prosperous enough that we can do that? No matter what the economic climate, any attempt to protect the environment or work towards sustainable living has the familiar whine of "there will be job losses."When will be the right time to plan for the future? Because on this model it seems to be that the time to plan towards renewable energies is the moment it gets more expensive to harvest fossil fuels, and in that sense humanity will have a much more drastic shift putting our "quality of life" in more peril. We know the fate of continuing to depend on fossil fuels, surely that knowledge regardless of global warming means we should act.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 11:11 PM
Again, this feels like an appeal to consequences.First question:
Is there substantial evidence to validate human-induced climate change?
Second question:
What, if any, course of action should be taken based on the answer to question 1?
Now the first question should never be asked in conjunction with the second question, only the second question should be asked after there's an answer for the first question. This way it avoids all association with an appeal to consequences.
This to me is why so many libertarians reject AGW, it's not that the scientific evidence is weak and inconclusive, but that they constantly frame the question in light of a response. It shouldn't be that at all.
Should we be as sure as possible that we know before we act? Of course. The question is, do you think the many thousands of scientists who study the matter over the course of decades might actually have an understanding on how the process works? And do you think that none of the scientists advocating change have any regard as to maintaining their quality of life as well? This is why I said it feels like you are arguing a straw man. Your characterture of what the scientists are saying and what proposed solutions there are looks nothing like what has been proposed.
The scientific consensus is there, there's data to support it and there are consequences known. In the next 100 years there could be up to 100,000,000 refugees from the pacific islands alone. Will you put them up? Will England? Or are you just expecting Australia to do it, even though our current population isn't sustainable as is? (let alone take in a six-fold increase)
Posted by: Cedrick Reinholdt | January 2, 2010 7:01 AM
To market in conditions of high-performance rather than cost, and in order to differentiate consequently, you require to play along the official format of the 4 Ps marketing plan. That is, Price, Product, Place and Promotion manifestly you recognize the profound properties of the merchandise, and the cost, but for place you should consider about the type of people who are willing to pay over 4x price of competing product whereas the low-priced option may be sold where accent is on cost, your product will be suited to places/distributors where the customers will be willing to pay for quality. Thank you for this article! I've just found a without doubt awesome news about seo Seek it!