Having been away for the past two weeks i’ve missed most of the exciting “Framing Science” stuff. I feel most sympathetic to the PZ view… In that addressing your message to your audience seems fairly obvious. But I rather like this from the globalchange mailing list:
> ...how does a field of human endeavour which has at its foundation a > profound belief in the value of reason go about addressing an audience > which, for a variety of reasons, has a large proportion of members > whose response to the issues is irrational and who do not value reason > in the same way, instead apparently preferring an almost pre-rational, > mythic narrative and its associated value system? ...I think the Pielkian (Jr) answer is to redefine the problem in such a way that the denialists can swallow an acceptable solution, the Mooney and Nisbet answer is to dress it up in language that might disarm their objections, and the scientists' answer is to wait for them to die out.
[Update: that was JA responding to FB, btw -W]
The scientists answer has worked before for other questions, but perhaps not for things that actually require policy responses.
BTW, Eli has a nice joke that is partly relevant… check the comments as well.
So how do I know if I understand the framing stuff? N+M say “In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments” – weeeelll… I assume that citizens are thoroughly confused by the news media, as they get different incompatible stories from different sources – or even from the same source on different days. Judging from the way the media publish things, the stories are there for entertainment not enlightenment – and I assume that is what their readership wants.