Yet another round of the unholy wars has broken out again here at Scienceblogs. Matt Nisbet and PZ Myers are at each others' throats. Again. If you read the other blogs here, you know that this isn't anything that's exactly novel. The two have some fundamental differences, and every so often those differences brush up against each other. When Matt and Paul's differences interact, we usually see something that chemists and science geeks like to refer to as a "highly exothermic" reaction. (In other words, things go "Boom!")
I don't always get involved when these disputes come up, and when I do I usually wind up taking a middle-of-the road position. This time, I'm firmly in Paul's camp when it comes to quite nearly every issue of relevance. Paul's right that there are times when it's better not to try a framing approach. Paul's right that there is a need for atheists (and miscellaneous other nonbelievers) to speak up about their view of religion (I do sometimes disagree with his choice of volume setting on that one). Paul is also right that Nisbet seems to be displaying a distressing lack of respect for folks who disagree with him, particularly when it comes to the AAAS panel he set up.
I'll talk about the some of the other issues a bit later. Right now, I'm just going to focus on Nisbet's distressing decision to avoid even the appearance of fairness to other perspectives.
Matt put together a panel discussion for February's American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. The title of the panel is: Communicating Science in a Religious America. So far, so good. America is definitely a nation where religion plays a large role in shaping public policy, often in areas that intersect with science. I don't think that's healthy, but I'd be stupid to argue that it isn't true. Under the circumstances, it would be asinine to claim that we shouldn't be trying our best to communicate with religious people about scientific issues that affect all people. It's almost certainly a good idea to talk about how to do that.
The panel Matt put together seems to consist almost entirely of scientists who are friendly toward the idea of religion. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. The topic for discussion is communicating science to religious people, and the people picked seem to have good track records when it comes to doing just that. If the topic of discussion is simply how to talk to religious people, it's probably more important to pick people who are good at doing that than it is to pick people representative of a wide range of religious views.
The problem comes from Matt's own choice of topic. He's going to be discussing, "The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science," which is an interesting topic, but not one where Matt's got a heck of a lot of credibility as an objective, detached observer. It's a topic where he's very clearly expressed views that people who are part of "The New Atheism" do not - at all - agree with. That's the point when people start to look at Matt's panel and wonder where the hell the "New Atheist" is.
Matt doesn't think that this is all that big a deal:
Given that the panel is about science communication and not about promoting atheism, I didn't think it was necessary to invite a New Atheist to be on the panel.
Moreover, the paper I am presenting is not a criticism of New Atheism but rather an analysis of how it is portrayed in the media and the implications for how the wider public perceives science, scientists, and science-related issues.
Like Jason, I think he's wrong. Matt's views on the "New Atheism" are reasonably well known, and he makes no particular effort to hide them. In fact, an hour and a half before he wrote the comment about not presenting a criticism of "New Atheism," he referred to Paul's blog, in a comment left there, as, "an ideological safe zone for your preferred brand of Don Imus atheism." I do have to admit that was a good line. It's both clever and enchantingly nasty. What it isn't is a remark that inspires a sense of confidence in Matt's potential as a neutral party when it comes to describing what he refers to as "the New Atheism."
Since Nisbet has also argued that:
Everything we know from social science research on attitude formation and beliefs predicts that the communication strategy of the New Atheist noise machine will only further alienate moderately religious Americans, the very same publics who might otherwise agree with secularists on many social issues.
it doesn't appear that his attack on Paul's blog was a one-time snark attack. It seems to be a firmly held view. His repeated use of the denigrating term "noise machine" reinforces that perspective.
Under the circumstances, it seems like it would be appropriate for him to either have a contrasting view present or talk about something else. The current arrangement seems designed to yield a discussion that's nowhere near as well balanced, inclusive, or fair as it could - and should - be.
- Log in to post comments
Jason's views on the "New Atheism" are reasonably well known, and he makes no particular effort to hide them.
Should be Matt's views...
I think you meant that Matthew's views are well known. Except for that, great post!
Matt Nisbet's comments on PZ's blog come across as not simply poorly argued, but annoyingly whiny. The charge PZ makes against him is straightforward and compelling. Mr. Nisbet chooses to answer with a veritable Porky Pig variety of "b-b-b-buts".
Much as I enjoy your blog, and rarely as I choose to comment here or anywhere, the idea you are mainly on Mr. Nisbet's side here argues against your ability to see past your rathers. The reasons you list above are less than compelling. Indeed, they are disappointing.
Sorry to unavoibly imply emotional bias, but is this some "he's my bud" thing?
I look forward to better from you.
Kurt, Jason: fixed the error. Thanks for pointing it out.
darwinfinch: What on earth is there anywhere in my post that could possibly give you the idea that I'm somehow on Matt's side on this argument? You did read the post, yes?
"Matt Nisbet's comments on PZ's blog come across as not simply poorly argued, but annoyingly whiny."
Setting aside the horribly erroneous characterization of Mike's post in the rest of your comment, well said. Matt's pathetic attempt to explain away the obvious fact that his panel is an echo chamber for his preconceived notions on science and religion approaches obscuritanism. That, along with his bargain basement comparisons of PZ to odious pundits, goes a long way in shredding his credibility.
Count me me as another one of the Chamberlainers who think that Nisbet is dead wrong this time. PZ already mentioned something like this in one of his comments, but imagine if he was host a panel talk at an AAAS meeting on religion and science and he only invited Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett--people would rightly be skeptical about the objectivity of such an event. How is what Nisbet is doing any different?
I was wondering that myself. I suspect preconceived notions.
Also how much are the 'new atheists' like the 'old atheists'? And by old I mean 19th century such as Edward Aveling (just considering the science and the atheism). See Edward B. Aveling: The People's Darwin by Suzanne Paylor. Admittedly she is writing from the time of today's current controversies which will color her interpretation.
I must admit that PZ does manage to hit Nisbet's hot buttons even if he just describes it as 'chumming' the waters, and, Nisbet should have included a 'new atheist' on the panel if he is going to attack 'new atheists'. New atheist scientists, theistic scientists, and don't rock the religion boat atheistic scientists are all suppose to be on the same side as far as the goal of educating people about science; it is the means that are in question. Perhaps Nisbet expects plenty of 'new atheists' in the audience to act as a counterbalance.
My abject apologies. I did read the post sveral times, butI seem to have swapped names somewhere early on, at the "When Matt and Paul's..." point, I think.
Odd slip on my part, and quite an embarrassing thing to have to apologize for. Still, I entirely do apologize, and happily, since it means I retain my former level of respect and appreciation for your blog work.
Mike,
I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. As a focus on the communication of science to religious publics, the panel is balanced and well rounded. Apparently the review committee at AAAS thought so as well.
The criteria for selecting participants was either professional success in engaging religious audiences or scholars who are conducting research on how religious Americans perceive areas of science.
I do not see how either personal or philosophical critiques of religion are relevant to a panel about science communication, or for that matter, why they would be relevant at a major science conference.
In terms of my own research contribution to the panel, figuring out the messages about science and religion that have been portrayed in the media over the past 20 years and what might be different about the last 4 years is an important first step in analyzing how perceptions of science may or may not be shifting in society.
The next step is to match this media content data with survey data measuring exposure and attention to such messages. This is a basic research method used across different types of media effects studies. This first study is not a critique of New Atheism's philosophy or the personal opinions of its' leaders. Rather it's a descriptive analysis of historical trends in media coverage.
As someone who tracks the field, as far as I know, I am the only one actually conducting research on this topic. Many people have expressed their opinion on the matter. Others have called for data. That's what I am seeking to gather.
Like any social scientist studying society I have my own personal opinions on things. However, I will let my presentation at the conference and any subsequent papers stand on their merits and ultimately the judgment of editors and reviewers.
Moreover, the panel is scheduled for 6 presentations across 180 minutes, leaving plenty of time for Q&A. Attendees can discuss my presentation or others.
They can even offer their personal opinions about religion, but again, that would be off topic.
Darwinfish,
What you call whiny, I call holding PZ, who is a professor and a scientist, accountable for repeated distortions of my arguments and motivations.
For example, PZ has called Chris Mooney and I "snake oil salesmen" and he has even endorsed the outrageous speculation that Chris Mooney and I might be creationists.
Besides these personal attacks, he has taken a serious argument originally published at Science and he has consistently twisted and selectively quoted our ideas to stir reactions and confuse his readers. Most recently, he claims that the panel accepted at AAAS is a recommendation to muzzle the godless.
Specific examples of PZ's distortions or personal attacks:
1. Reaction to our WPost article, where in his post he compares us to snake oil salesmen.
2. Another follow up where he compares our Science article to "a pious Discovery Institute press release," and where he endorses for his readers a Greg Laden post, where Laden insinuates that we might be covert creationists.
Laden writes outrageously: "Somebody please tell me I'm right about this! I don't want Nisbet and Mooney to pull off the latex masks and expose themselves as Discovery Institute Interns who have infiltrated the blogospheric discussion on science education."
3. Follow up comments at my blog where he offers his spin on my professional expertise and motives, reposted at his own blog:
5. Another follow up post where he distorts our argument as "atheists must surrender."
6. Finally, his most recent post where he claims that the forthcoming AAAS panel is about promoting the "recommendation to muzzle the godless." Of course it has nothing to do with that, as I explain in the discussion thread and at this blog.
Ah, hell, not this argument again. At least now I know not to click on any SB articles with the word "atheism" in the title or exerpt for the forseeable future. And if I see anyone using the idiotic "Chamberlain" analogy again, I think I'm going to barf.
Yeah, I'm totally sick of the whole thing.
The problem is Matthew, that you are not a impartial observer. You made your conclusion a long time ago, and have since then just been looking for data to support it.
I am sure that's not what you intend to do, and probably not how you feel it yourself, but I have yet to see you present even one argument against your own conclusion. That's a big red flag.
This panel sounds like it suffers from the same problem. The fact that you can't see that, shows how entrenched you've become.
Another big problem I've seen is that you seldom back up your points with data. You claim that "New Atheists" turn religious people away from science, but so far you haven't been able to document this effect. The polls you've referred to in the past, doesn't document this - they just show how people perceive the connection/contrast between science and religion.
I think there is much merit to you and Mooney's idea of framing, though it suffers from a nationalistic bias, but you seen obsessed with getting "New Atheists" to shut up, rather than talk about framing. That's bad communication, since it turns many people away from the whole concept.
Well said.
The problem I have with Matt Nisbett is that he either cannot or will not understand that issues the "new atheists" raise go beyond his parochial view of the world. Nisbett's main concern seems to be preventing the teaching of creationism/ID as science in US public schools. A laudable aim and one I don't think the "new atheists" will disagree with. What Nisbett fails to address is that the "new atheism" addresses issues beyond that. For example here in the UK the teaching of creationism/ID in state funded schools is not really an issue. What is an issue is the increase in the number of religious schools that are getting state funding. Given that the main religions/denominations to benefit from this funding are Anglican and Catholic schools it is hard to see who the "moderates" are the "new atheists" will antagonise in opposing these schools.
When I made this point to Nisbett he was honest and admitted his concern was with the creationism/ID issue in US public schools. That is but one of the issues the "new atheists" have with religion and until Nisbett understands that I see no reason for anyone to listen to his pathetic bleatings.
Kristjan,
Contrary to what PZ repeatedly claims at his blog, as a fellow atheist, I have never called for censorship, for muzzling, for New Atheists to shut up, or for New Atheists to go in "in a dark closet."
I have, however, called attention to what past research and theory would predict are the consequences of the New Atheist rhetoric for public perceptions of science. Chris Mooney has also done so, see this discussion of a Pew survey analysis:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/08/i_fought_god_and_god_won.p…
We are not alone in offering reservations about the impact of the movement, as you can read in transcripts or articles posted at my blog highlighting the arguments of Carol Tavris, Phil Kitcher, and Michael Shermer. In his interview with Bill Moyers, EO Wilson offers similar reservations, as does Paul Kurtz in this weekend's interview at Point of Inquiry. At some point, I will have partial transcripts to post.
These reservations have called my attention to an interesting research question and the need to gather data to see if expectations are valid. As I said, I believe I am the only one actually researching the topic.
The I guess it was someone else using your name, who wrote this at Pure Pedantry.
[emphasis added]
Those are your own words Matthew. Sure sounds like to me that you want to silence the New Atheists, such as Dawkins.
And unlike what you appear to think, many of us who read PZ don't just accept what he says blindly. I have participated in this debate from the start (as you know, since you've commented on my blog), and I have reached my conclusions on my own.
Kristjan,
At that comment thread post, while writing quickly, I will admit "silencing" was a poor choice of words, since I obviously do not support censorship.
However, what I do support, and what I meant at that comment, was that we need to think about alternative and more effective paths for promoting science and for promoting atheism.
I reference PZ, since going back to our original Science essay, across several posts he has repeatedly distorted my arguments, claiming for example, that our article argued for "putting atheists in a dark closet."
To be fair, there is a big difference in speaking of silencing a "Noise Machine" and silencing atheists altogether. The former suggests shutting up a stream of nonsense, e.g. caricatures of theists as "little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys," while the latter implies stifling useful criticism.
JJ, the problem is that the people that Nisbet refer to with the phrase "atheist noise machine" are considered useful critics by many. Which is why quite a few of us objected to Matthew's use of the phrase.
Matthew,
I am glad to hear that you don't support censorship, but there are many other less drastic measures of silencing people. One of them is marginalizing or demonizing them, which you would seem more open towards. I am here, of course referring to your rather inflammatory comparisons to Ann Coulter and Don Imus, as well as your use of such phrases as "Atheist Noise Machine".
I don't think you would get any of us to object to that objective. However, it has yet to be demonstrated that the paths you're talking about are more effective. To the rest of us, they sound like the paths used for generations with little effect.
Rather, it seems to many of us, it's the "Atheist Noise Machine" that has been most effective, in effect changing the whole US debate to one more open towards atheism.
This I say as an outside observer, whose knowledge on the subject comes partly from blogs, but mostly from mainstream US media.
As I've argued before, I think the entire debate is somewhat misplaced, as it won't change the fundamental problem in the US - science illiteracy. Until this is addressed, which among other things means ensuring sound science teaching, without interference from religious groups, then the state of affair won't change in the US.
People like Dawkins have a role to play in this, as do less outspoken atheists, moderate religious people, and even some strongly religious people. However, stepping towards a higher science literacy won't happen by trying to frame science in religious terms - this is the sort of thing that leads to biology teachers to fear teaching evolution, lest they offend some of their students. That sort of nonsense has to stop.
This review in Science (.pdf) seems relevant to the subject at hand.
On the surface, this backs up Nisbet's ideas, but in my opinion, it also makes it clear that there will be no progress until the very foundation of the US society has changed. As long as peoples' "common sense" is grounded in religion, and as long as religious people are seemed as trustworthy sources in scientific questions, then nothing will change. This is the problem that people like Dawkins tries to address.
I do read PZ regularly, but I've also taken a few swipes at his harshness toward the moderately religious. Even so, I have to say that the most damning evidence against Nisbet's claims of impartiality come straight out of his own comments. Oh wait, he's here, so let me address him directly:
Matt Nisbet, despite your weak disavowal of the infamous "silencing" comment, most of your arguments seem to boil down to the old saws about PZ &co. being "too confrontational". That was bullshit in the women's suffrage movement, it was bullshit in the (racial) civil rights movement, it was bullshit in the gay-rights movement, it was bullshit in all the anti-war movements since at least Vietnam, and it's still bullshit in the atheist-awareness movement. I
IIRC, it was Sun Tzu who said that sometimes, a test of strength is a necessary prelude to meaningful negotiations. That's what is happening here -- there will be no genuine concession to atheism until it becomes universally clear that atheists are not "confused and ignorant", not "converts-in-waiting", and not even "just another (enemy) religion". If we abandon our core position and its defenders, religionists are free to redefine the atheists as apostates or heretics, begging for recognition from the faithful.
Bluntly: If you think your "framing" techniques are so useful and important that they can outperform the brilliant work of the "hardliners", then let's see you use them to persuade your opponents within science. Better yet, let's see you turn your methods towards squelching creationist outbreaks and religious persecution.
So far, all I've seen is you trying to publically undercut the efforts of your betters.
One of Nisbet's underlying beliefs seems to be that ordinary folks will listen to a 2 hour debate, or skim through "The God Delusion", and take home little more than "science is against religion"...that's all their little schemas can tolerate. If scientists wish to promote awareness of AGW, or keep creationism out of the classroom, or whatever, they've got to offer up simple, repeated messages that don't tweak religious sensibilities.
I've got lots of problems with the above. Even assuming it's correct, the framing approach seems to apply only to narrow, short-term goals. We already live in a society where mentioning statistics on TV means you'll never be invited back, and here scientists are being asked to dumb down their arguments even further. Teaching dumbness in order to save the world from AGW?
Unfortunately (meant sincerely), the framing thing seems to be imploding, at least on SB. Nisbet refers to PZ's blog as an "echo chamber", PZ's initial mild critique of framing as a "hatchet job", and casts aspersions on those who choose not to post under their given names. In chastising posters for the use of "fuck", he types "f_____". When prodded, he tells folks to check out the peer-reviewed literature...but his own SB page offers next to nothing in that regard.
Those who might otherwise find some wisdom in the notion of framing, or wish to investigate further, now find themselves in the unpleasant position of siding with a thin-skinned whiner. What kind of "framing" is that?
So long as they hadn't automatically cancelled out any and all success they may have had by, say, being a 'new atheist.'
David,
As I pointed out over at PZ's space, you can't persuade everyone and I have given up trying to do so with PZ.
Moreover, as I wrote in our reply to the letters at Science, framing is not an all powerful tool, nor is it about persuasion. Rather, as the research shows, framing works through a process of activation.
What this means is that framing is effective at triggering support among people who latently agree with your principles but might not otherwise recognize the relevance of your principles to their existing worldview or interests. Framing is also effective at engaging people who might otherwise not be attentive to an issue.
The stem cell debate is a leading example of how framing works through activation rather than persuasion:
Instead of complaining that religious Americans are stupid or irrational for opposing stem cell funding, groups like the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research have redefined the issue around the shared values of social progress and economic development.
As a result, over the past five years, support has grown nearly 20% among Catholics and mainline Protestants to strong majority levels. The reason is that many moderately religious Americans now recognize how funding for stem cell research is directly relevant to values that they care about.
However, not everyone can be activated by framing, especially those who hold a particularly strong ideology and who have opinion leaders offering a separate set of frames. In the stem cell debate, for example, a majority of Evangelicals still remain opposed to research.
So how does this relate to convincing PZ and many of his readers of my arguments?
Across his posts on framing, as an opinion leader and skilled polemicist, PZ has consistently distorted our suggestions to fit with his preferred ideology and the ideology of many of his readers.
For the record, I earlier posted a detailed comment highlighting many of PZ's specific distortions. Perhaps because of the embedded links, it was held for moderation by Mike. If posted, as you will see, given PZ's sophomoric attacks, I do believe my comparison to Don Imus is justified.
At this point, rather than convince PZ, the only thing I aim to do is to hold him accountable for past and future distortions and attacks.
(Note: Before critics use it as a distraction, if Mike can dig out the moderated comment, you will notice I skipped a number in the detailed points. So goes the world of comment threads ;-))
@David Harmon: Exceptional post; right on the mark.
Kristjan Wager: "As long as peoples' "common sense" is grounded in religion"
This is backwards. Religion is rooted in so-called "common sense." Actually, to be more accurate, it is grounded in our intuition, but with enough minimally counterintuitive stuff to be memorable, but that's quibbling in this case.
Notice that you got Mooney and Nisbet backwards. They said "nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense ..." not "common sense has the advantages of being both grounded in nonscientific ideologies ..."
"and as long as religious people are seemed as trustworthy sources in scientific questions, then nothing will change. This is the problem that people like Dawkins tries to address."
And how is he addressing it? Is he doing anything to gain the trust of religious people? Is he reaching out to show that atheists aren't the nasty monsters that the religious think they are? Hardly. He is, however, encouraging the religious to circle their wagons, though.
David Harmon: "there will be no genuine concession to atheism until it becomes universally clear that atheists are not "'confused and ignorant', not 'converts-in-waiting', and not even 'just another (enemy) religion'"
Well, let's see now. "Confused and ignorant"? Oh, boy. Dawkins certainly provides ammunition for those who want to show atheists as such. "Just another (enemy) religion"? We already have the term "fundamentalist atheist," and while the term is technically an oxymoron, the New Atheists mirror some of the fundies' traits. They have the strong in-group/out-group dynamic of fundies, including the tendency to distort the out-group's views. "Converts-in-waiting"? Well, one out of three ain't bad.
Prof. Nisbet...can you provide any convincing evidence that the 20% shift in stem cell attitudes is demonstrably due to correct framing, as opposed to other forces?
Well, let's see now. "Confused and ignorant"? Oh, boy. Dawkins certainly provides ammunition for those who want to show atheists as such. "Just another (enemy) religion"? We already have the term "fundamentalist atheist," and while the term is technically an oxymoron, the New Atheists mirror some of the fundies' traits. They have the strong in-group/out-group dynamic of fundies, including the tendency to distort the out-group's views. "Converts-in-waiting"? Well, one out of three ain't bad.
J.J.
That was so asinine as to make me nauseous.
Let's pause and see you back up some of those assertions.
"Dawkins certainly provides ammunition for those who want to show atheists as [confused and ignorant.]" And how, precisely, does he do that? When has he ever shown himself - in debates, speeches, or literature - to be anything other than concise, well-informed, and articulate? This isn't a rhetorical question: you made the paragraph of inflammatory assertions, so start linking.
"Just another (enemy) religion"? We already have the term "fundamentalist atheist," and while the term is technically an oxymoron, the New Atheists mirror some of the fundies' traits. "
"Fundamentalist atheist" does not make the new atheists a 'new' religion; it is, in fact, people like PZ that have most vociferously attacked the people that would propose the bandying about of such a term. It is, in case you forgot, a term that was coined *by* an atheist apologist that was trying to cast aspersions on the more vocal among us. A man quite like Nisbet, actually.
"They have the strong in-group/out-group dynamic of fundies, including the tendency to distort the out-group's views."
All social groups have this; especially minority groups in hostile cultures. Are you being disingenuous, or are you just that ignorant?
James Stein: "Dawkins certainly provides ammunition for those who want to show atheists as [confused and ignorant.]" And how, precisely, does he do that?"
By being sloppy in places. I've blogged on some of them, FWIW: http://merkdorp.blogspot.com/2007/02/review-of-god-delusion-tgd-conclus…
As you can tell from the review, I've grown less kind to Dawkins over the months.
James Stein: "It is, in case you forgot, a term that was coined *by* an atheist apologist that was trying to cast aspersions on the more vocal among us."
Are you kidding? The term "fundamentalist atheist" was hass been around a looooong time, well before the so-called New Atheists came on the scene. I'm not even sure if anyone knows when it first was used.
Me: "They have the strong in-group/out-group dynamic of fundies, including the tendency to distort the out-group's views."
James Stein: "All social groups have this; especially minority groups in hostile cultures."
Quibble: All social groups have an in-group/out-group dynamic of some sort, but not necessarily a strong one.
You are certainly correct that the dynamic I mentioned is hardly unique to fundamentalists. That said, when anti-religious partisans share that dynamic with religious fundamentalists, it is tempting to think of them as the mirror image of fundies, and lo and behold, that is what has happened in practice.
BTW, there is a review of The God Delusion that thumbnails what I mean about Dawkins providing ammunition for those who want to argue that he offers ammunition for those who want to show atheists as confused and ignorant:
There is more linkage in the review itself, and I left out the bits where he bashes other reviewers of Dawkins and some other stuff.
It had so many links that it went into the junk folder and I didn't get a notification that it was being held. It's now published, and can be found well up the thread. (I really need to add that code to put numbers on comments, but don't have the time right now.)
"it went into the junk folder"
......ahem
The trouble with being a scientist is that you are trained to be a pedantic bore when it comes to the details of things. PZ took a fairly neutral approach to the original Science piece, it was only when the Matt started launching personal attacks in the WaPo article that he, not surprisingly, took offence to the framers stance. Its this sort of inattention to key details of this debate, the ad hominem and schoolyard insults and most importantly the lack of data to back up his assertions that the New Atheists are having such a negative effect on public consciousness, that is gives the framers such a bad reputation.
One good thing that Matt has done is to make me realize that when someone says "I am an atheist too" it doesn't mean he is in any way on my side. Joe Stalin was also an atheist but I suspect he too would probably prefer me 'silenced'.
In my opinion,
What about, they are both wrong?
Their untrue premise is that the general public can follow either argument. The public, who are not skilled listeners nor readers like persons in colleges, can follow neither of the advocated approaches.
What the public can follow is the ethos. There is not much that can be done for a presenter's totality itself, but, as we know when we are clean and neat, there are some incidental helps for us with others.
In beginning persuasion, what people want is acknowledgment, just as when you go to a party and meet everyone, and, if you are wise, not miss anyone (is this framing?). Your ethos is like your shadow and goes with you. Once you have the people's attention, you can talk, and at that time your ethos is over half of what you present to them.
In this context of ethos, there is no way you guys are going to come across as average joes, you are not. Do not try it, I would say. People do favor honesty and forthrightness. Even if for now they don't agree, they are on the way to being persuaded, their mind is open. Framing, if detected by the listener, condescends to the less capable of understanding, and, if detected, speaks to a closed, because offended, mind.
Then, what about having honesty and forthrightness in framing, tell what you are doing? This is barely possible, if at all. It is a rhetorical skill that requires years of practice. Even if you succeed, the question lingers, what else are you framing?
The art of persuasion is like any art, there are levels of skill. But a --bumbling-- honesty is among the highest levels. The thought goes something like this in the hearer's mind, "Come on, ____, you can do it."
MartinC,
Sorry. There's not a single personal attack in the WPost article. We did bring up PZ's original concern and responded cordially and respectfully.
On my own blog, I have barely ever even mentioned PZ in any posts [search "PZ Myers"]. We have exchanged comments at my blog, but from my end, it has always been respectful and in the spirit of serious minded debate.
It's only with PZ's latest distortion relative to the AAAS panel that I decided it was time to hold him accountable for his misleading attacks.
In pointing out these distortions, I think it's a fair comparison to single him out as the Don Imus of scienceblogs.com.
To be frank, from the beginning I have not been able to understand his knee jerk reactions and just how hysterical his rhetoric has been in discussing articles published at serious outlets such as Science and the Sunday opinion section of the Washington Post.
Here's how we address PZ at the Washington Post. It's far short of a personal attack and instead portrays an academic seriousness:
We made a similar argument in a recent commentary article published by the journal Science. While many agreed with our perspective, some took a more critical tone. Indeed, those most piqued by our argument tended (like Dawkins) to be strong defenders of evolution who are also critical of religious belief.
Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota at Morris, wrote on his blog, Pharyngula, that if he took our advice, "I'd end up giving fluff talks that play up economic advantages and how evolution contributes to medicine . . . and I'd never talk about mechanisms and evidence again. That sounds like a formula for disaster to me -- it turns scientists into guys with suits who have opinions, and puts us in competition with lawyers and bureaucrats in the media." Myers also accused us of appeasing religion.
Yet he misses the point. There will always be a small audience of science enthusiasts who have a deep interest in the "mechanisms and evidence" of evolution, just as there will always be an audience for criticism of religion. But these messages are unlikely to reach a wider public, and even if they do they will probably be ignored or, in the case of atheistic attacks on religion, backfire.
-->End quote.
So where is the personal attack? All we did was bring up PZ's argument and then provide a counter argument.
Are you talking about "personally attacking" Dawkins at the Washington Post? That didn't happen either.
In fact we wrote that we admired his books and didn't enjoy singling him out. We then drew attention to our conclusion that his current communication efforts and messages about religion are not helpful when engaging the public on matters of science. In this, we did not argue for "muzzling" or censorship, as PZ spun the op-ed.
We are entitled to our conclusions, just like Dawkins is entitled to his personal opinions about religion. In the context of social science research, raising theory-based reservations about the impact of his current rhetorical style falls well short of a personal attack.
(As I've noted elsewhere, these specific theories include cognitive dissonance and framing.)
If you believe that raising such reservations do indeed amount to "personal attacks," you might as well put Michael Shermer, Phil Kitcher, Paul Kurtz, Carol Tavris, and many other respected atheists in the same boat as "personally attacking" Dawkins and other New Atheists.
I'm surprised just how thin skinned some New Atheists appear to be. If you are going to dish it out in books, media interviews, and at places like Pharygula, you have to be ready for serious minded criticism and reservations from others.
And if you are talking about blog posts titled "the New Atheist Noise Machine," where I simply quote transcripts with interviews of people like Kitcher, Tavris, Shermer...Please!
PZ goes well beyond such rhetoric in at least 5 posts a day, not to mention that well before I coined that phrase, he was already referring to us as "snake oil salesman" while endorsing insinuations that we were creationists.
Ngong,
This journal article I published in 2005 lays out the theory, the data, and the analysis on how selective interpretations in the media drive support among moderately religious Americans. Subsequent polling data at Pew and Gallup back up the conclusions of the journal study:
Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 90-112.
On subsequent polling data, see this online column I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer:
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/stem-cell/2007.html
Btw, I can't help but noticing, that starting with our original Science article, we have been the only ones bringing any data or evidence about communication effects or public opinion to this debate.
As far as I am aware, I am also the only participant in the debate actually publishing in research journals on the topic, or gathering data on how science and religion is portrayed in the media.
If you want more data, take a look at the copy of our slides posted at the NY Academy of Sciences site and listen to the online audio of our discussion. (Google Nisbet New York Academy of Sciences.)
Indeed, what we are arguing for is a scientific understanding of the public and communication, something ironically that people like PZ appears to oppose and prefers to distort.
Ngong,
You wrote:
One of Nisbet's underlying beliefs seems to be that ordinary folks will listen to a 2 hour debate, or skim through "The God Delusion", and take home little more than "science is against religion"...that's all their little schemas can tolerate.
-->End quoted material.
Actually, I have never said that and I don't assume it. Dawkins book has sold a little less than a 1 million copies of God Delusion in the US. There are 300 million adults in the country. The people buying God Delusion have a motivation and an interest in reading criticism of religion. This is how media selectivity works. Through his book directly he is reaching and mobilizing an audience of like minded others. Great!
But how does his message and that of other New Atheists translate in the wider media and public arena? The contexts where the vast and otherwise non-attentive public will be reached?
This vast public will not even look at the book or sit through a two hour lecture. Instead, their only exposure will be brief glimpses of a magazine cover with the title "God vs. Science," a snippet viewed while flipping through cable news, or something overheard at church or in casual conversation.
In those cases, the fleeting heuristic will be that science=atheism, and that science is against their core values, no matter how moderately religious they might be. That might be Dawkins et al.'s personal opinion, and they have a right to express it, but it is by no means a consensus view in science.
Matthew, you don't see the following statement about Dawkins as a personal attack?
"he stands as a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public."
As you know Dawkins is Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in Oxford in the UK, not the USA.
I suggest you try comparing the poll results for the publics acceptance of evolution in the UK compared to your own country before you start calling him a failure.
Who exactly is the equivalent in the USA ?
Kenneth Miller?
Considering the same poll results, would you consider him a success?
MartinC,
The WPOST article is not a personal attack. Unlike PZ's insinuations against us, we don't call him names. We don't distort his arguments. We don't allege anything about his motives.
We simply take his statements and communication efforts and contextualize them with what we know about media influence and public opinion, drawing out the implications for how the wider public might perceive the political debate over teaching evolution.
As for the UK: We were explicitly writing for a U.S. national newspaper, talking about science communication in the U.S. Of course, context and audience matters when thinking about the influence of Dawkins' message and how he is received. Yet as a U.S. based communication researcher, my focus has been and continues to be the reception and influence of the New Atheist message on a U.S. public.
It would be interesting to eventually do a comparative study and analysis with the UK, but right now, given limited resources, I have more than enough data to gather just analyzing the US context.
Btw, as he would probably tell you, the honorary title of Dawkins' endowed chair has nothing to do with his scientific expertise relative to understanding media influence or public opinion.
That last post is from me, not MartinC.
Given Nisbet's disastrous attempts to make the ScienceBlogs community receptive to his message, and the many occasions when he's seemingly gone out of his way to offend and alienate readers here, it would seem his professional title has nothing to do with his understanding media influence or public opinion - or as the case may be, his lack of understanding.
I'd never even heard of Don Imus before this debate over the past few days. Looking up his article in Wikipedia, I see that he is a well-known shock jock in the US. Fine. I think using such terminology as "Don Imus atheist" just demonstrates how parochial Matt's thinking is (as well as being inaccurate and (now I understand it) offensive). This forum is an international one, not confined to narrow American issues and cultural referents. Until Matt gets that, he won't get the New Atheism.
That said, I'm actually kind of on his side with the specific issue being debated in this thread. If the panel is going to address a quite narrow topic, perhaps its members are appropriate. The proof of that will be in how they actually conduct themselves. Also, I don't think it's a terrible thing that he's giving a paper on a phenomenon that he's opposed to. That happens all the time. It's unfortunate that there's not a voice somewhere on the program putting the other side of the story, but it's not obvious to me that it was Matt's responsibility to arrange this.
My take on it all is that many things have to be done to address the range of concerns that some of us have, which include, but are not limited to, the threats to science teaching in the US (and the various consequences that this can have for our own countries). Some of the things that have to be done may not be totally consistent, but no one gets to demand that his or her role take priority. Life just is messy sometimes.
If Matt can find ways to address his issues without demanding that the New Atheists be silenced, and without using abusive language such as "noise machine" and "Don Imus atheism", then he is doing useful work. I assume that he thinks that the New Atheists, with their broader attack on the pretensions of religion, are muddying the waters for him. Well, perhaps they are to an extent. But what they are trying to do is legitimate and needed. Sometimes you can't have everything your own way and have to pursue your own issues in an environment that is less than ideal.
When PZ Myers writes stuff such as, "Their [the 'appeasers'] strategy is to toady up to creationists and fencesitters and pious twits and ignorant theologians and little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys, and hope that mewling softly will win them over," describing him as a Don Imus atheist is understandable at the very least. Furthermore, considering that Myers basically accused those who disagree with him of being wimps, in contrast to his own "brass knuckles" approach, it is no surprise that rhetorical brass knuckles get directed back at him. Whether that attempt at turnabout is wise, it is hardly unexpected.
As far as I am aware, I am also the only participant in the debate actually publishing in research journals on the topic, or gathering data on how science and religion is portrayed in the media.
Without any intention of condescension, this isn't hard science, which is the background of most of the blogmeisters at SB. It's about polling folks as they walk out of a lecture, or seeing how children resolve "cognitive dissonance" in a laboratory setting, and then projecting the results onto society as a whole.
I just skimmed the CSICOP piece. Which paragraph is supposed to convince me that "framing" has worked wonders in changing opinions on stem cells, as opposed to Bush's declining popularity (Bush -> stupid guy who opposes stem cells -> stem cells might not be bad), or some other factors?
The people buying God Delusion have a motivation and an interest in reading criticism of religion. This is how media selectivity works. Through his book directly he is reaching and mobilizing an audience of like minded others.
I've heard the book is flying off the shelves in the Bible belt...perhaps it's a "know thine enemy" thing ( http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118247644823044329.html ).
Here's a "low-information cue" via Dawkins: it's OK to consider atheism and rationalism.
Richard Dawkins and others see the promotion of evidence and rational thought as an overarching solution to AGW, stem cell controversy, terrorism, etc. You want to focus on short term manipulation of public attitudes on specific issues. You ask that Dawkins alter his spiel. He doesn't ask that of you.
JJ Ramsey...in PZ's quote, I perceive good humor and colorful language, something hugely lacking in the opposition. As a mellow agnostic, I should be turned off by PZ's spiel...but just keep coming back for more.
As I pointed out over at PZ's space, you can't persuade everyone and I have given up trying to do so with PZ.
And since you can't "persuade" him, you've no need to be civil to him, right? Sorry dude, it's not just the potential converts you need to get along with -- it's also fellow travellers in the movement.
Russell Blackford summed up another thing that had been bothering me: Sometimes you can't have everything your own way and have to pursue your own issues in an environment that is less than ideal.
I would add: Any strategy that depends on everybody else doing as you say is a non-viable strategy. Irritating as he sometimes is, PZ is in fact engaging with a fair number of moderate religious types on his blog, and he's not half so hostile to them as you are to him, a fellow atheist. And frankly, I'd bet he's turned a lot more kids onto science, and even helped more readers to escape from religion. He's certainly produced many good, solid, essays explaining an assortment of biological concepts and more fundamental themes. See, for example, his classic "The Proper Reverence Due Those Who Have Gone Before", overshadowing the "Big Book" image of the Bible with a visceral image of the immensity of evolutionary time. Now, that's persuasion!
Again, if your framing strategies are any good, use them to prove your point by doing something useful. How about writing some more effective science textbooks, or at least helping to get some decent ones into state standards? Or, you could write a textbook that lays out good science, while using your techniques to make it acceptable to the school boards etc. If you can come back here and tell us "I helped convince the SomeState Regents to show AIG the door and adopt this solid science book", then I think you'll get a helluva lot more respect.
Again, if your framing strategies are any good, use them to prove your point by doing something useful.
Note that that is exactly what Dawkins has done, by setting up a charity that atheists can donate to. This is, presumably, a good example of correct "framing". Dawkin's "error" is that he occasionally says something a bit nasty or insulting, and I guess this mathematically negates all the good he has done.
Al Gore is also a subject of Nisbet's critique. His mistake is catastrophism, which can be twisted by folks like Imhofe. Correct framing means that Gore must emphasize the moral aspect of AGW. Yet Gore DOES that repeatedly, even pounding the podium, in "Inconvenient Truth". And even with the prime example of catastrophism in the film, the shutdown of the Gulf Stream about 10,000 years ago, Gore assures viewers that such a scenario is currently impossible. His error is merely that he opens a door for quotes to be taken out of context. It seems like Nisbet asks more of Gore than is humanly possible.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this one.
matt, perhaps it would help if you showed exactly who DOES agree with you, and why.
they seem to be in extremely short supply, even on your own blog.
so rather than get all defensive and reactionary (something your supposed to be against, right?), why don't you simply point out who and what exactly supports your proposals, and why.
consider it kind of like a secondary thesis defense.
surely you wouldn't start calling critics in your thesis defense ridiculous names and comparing them to cult personalities, instead of addressing their criticisms, right?
ya better get used to it, and grow a thicker skin too; you picked a doozy of a field to get yourself into.
On my own blog, I have barely ever even mentioned PZ in any posts [search "PZ Myers"]. We have exchanged comments at my blog, but from my end, it has always been respectful and in the spirit of serious minded debate.
whoa. one might think you are developing denial as a defense mechanism.
I do not see how either personal or philosophical critiques of religion are relevant to a panel about science communication, or for that matter, why they would be relevant at a major science conference.
for the thousandth time, Matt, that wasn't Paul's point in ANY of his criticisms of your approach.
you are putting up a classic strawman in place of what PZ is saying.
I'm getting more worried about you by the day.
For example, PZ has called Chris Mooney and I "snake oil salesmen" and he has even endorsed the outrageous speculation that Chris Mooney and I might be creationists.
was that before or after you compared him to Ann Coulter?
Jeebus, man, you just spent 10 minutes working up a reactionary defense to namecalling that you would have far better spent actually responding to the actual criticisms of the direction in communication you are suggesting.
why not directly address the issues raised in his initial response to your paper that he posted, for example?
what i see is you responding to what the media quoted paul as saying, instead of addressing any substantive criticisms made.
or do you somehow think there were no substantive criticisms made, in either the response to your paper, or to the issue of the panel?
'cause that would make me even more worried about you.
Nisbet:
Given these words:
it is not at all surprising you alienated many who admire Dawkins' advocacy of atheism. You claimed, without evidence, that Dawkins was helping the spread of an abhorrently wrong idea. PZ is both an ardent defender of evolution, and an admirer of Richard Dawkins.
Here's a lovely quote on framing:
It can mean to spin science, but it doesn't necessarily mean to spin science in false ways (from "pointofinquiry.com")
Doesn't necessarily?
Why the furor? Scientists, of all people, hate being asked to tweak the truth.
was that before or after you compared him to Ann Coulter?
It's...the combined power of framing techniques + negative advertising!
Ichthyic,
Again, for the record, as a way to hold him accountable for continued and consistent distortions, the first time I have directly criticized PZ was as of three days ago.
As for commenters at this thread or over at my blog, my rough count estimates at dozen or so people contributing to the great majority of 100 + comments.
Given that:
1. Opinion intensity and ideology is what accounts for most participation in the blogosphere generally--including at Scienceblogs when it comes specifically to the topic of religion...
2...and that most of the traffic that flows through this blog community is by way of PZ's space...
3..and that a great majority of his readers are likely to be fans of Dawkins and PZ and share their views on religion...
4...it is not surprising that given the nature of my arguments, and the consistent spin that PZ has put on them, that many commenters posting in this thread and at my blog disagree with the arguments.
Obviously there are exceptions, but that appears to me to be what is driving the nature of discourse.
4...it is not surprising that given the nature of my arguments, and the consistent spin that PZ has put on them, that many commenters posting in this thread and at my blog disagree with the arguments.
Obviously there are exceptions, but that appears to me to be what is driving the nature of discourse.
Have you considered the option that your arguments just are unconvincing to a large group of people? I certainly haven't found any merit in any of your arguments against "New Atheists"*. The same cannot be said of your arguments for framing, though they get drowned out by your criticism of people like Dawkins.
*Given the fact that you haven't provided any evidence for the harm caused by these people, I think it is not an unreasonable stance, though you of course disagree.
ngong: "JJ Ramsey...in PZ's quote, I perceive good humor and colorful language"
Colorful language, yes. But good humor? The humor is biting, and it caricatures his adversaries in a way that makes them easier to hate.
Well, it's hard figure out which site to comment to, but I like Mike's more even-handed approach, and Matt seems to be amazingly following and responding to comments on all threads.
I really think PZ is blowing this whole thing out of proportion to rattle some cages. Noone seems to acknowledge the facts when Matt states them, so I'll give it a try:
Matt put together a panel discussion for the AAAS annual meeting in February on "Communicating Science in a Religious America". All of the talks involve people who deal with religious audiences when communicating their particular research. Of the six talks, there will be one talk by Matt on "The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science". The whole session is not on Atheism. Matt's talk is simply an analysis on how the New Atheists (often scientists), by assertively trying to bring Atheism into the public realm again, have impacted the public image of science. So Matt's talk isn't even specifically about what the New Atheists are saying, but rather how it's received by the general public.
Should Matt have a vocal atheist on the panel? That's up to him, but that would have meant adding a second paper on Atheism, at the exclusion of one of the other topics being discussed. Sure, Matt could have let a more vocal atheist give a presentation on the New Atheists and their attempts to communicate atheism to religious audiences, but that would mean giving up HIS OWN TALK in HIS OWN SESSION. Since he took the time to propose and organize the session, I think he should be allowed to give the talk on his particular research.
Now if anyone wants to question the quality of his research or the validity of his conclusions, feel free to do so. But don't question the panel discussion itself. As he has said, if you want something different, propose your own session to the AAAS and organize it. Really. There's a link to do just that on the AAAS meeting website.
Of course, all of this chattering could just be a ploy to hype PZ's and Nisbet's upcoming public debate on framing...
"New Atheists."
Forgive my ignorance here, but...who coined this phrase? And what is the definition?
Is there perhaps a link?
Thanks.
Again, for the record, as a way to hold him accountable for continued and consistent distortions, the first time I have directly criticized PZ was as of three days ago.
again, for the record, this does not address anything substantive in his criticisms, nor those of Mike or others who have voiced similar substantive criticisms. Instead, it, for the record, merely defelects analysis of your position onto the very thing you say you want to avoid.
as far as the first time you criticized PZ being only 3 days ago... are you sure you want to stick to that, for the record?
when did you compare him to Ann Coulter, for example?
As for commenters at this thread or over at my blog, my rough count estimates at dozen or so people contributing to the great majority of 100 + comments.
uh, thanks for proving my point. where are your defenders in this? why aren't they sticking up for you when you fail to defend your own proposals from direct criticism, and instead lapse into claims of everyone (?) distorting your work?
1. Opinion intensity and ideology is what accounts for most participation in the blogosphere generally--including at Scienceblogs when it comes specifically to the topic of religion...
then why do you blog? at what point do you consider your own conclusions here when you think about the best ways to communicate?
2...and that most of the traffic that flows through this blog community is by way of PZ's space...
well, then, if most of the traffic flows through PZ's blog, and you label the lot as "Don-Imus style New Atheists", that's not saying much for your general audience, is it.
or are you assuming the "silent majority" is on your side in this? If so, you might want to rethink that.
3..and that a great majority of his readers are likely to be fans of Dawkins and PZ and share their views on religion...
but not all, and by assumption you seem to think that being a fan of PZ OR Dawkins defacto will mean they don't agree with your proposals.
again, while completely irrational in your assumptions, it would explain why you chose to have such a narrow panel, yes?
4...it is not surprising that given the nature of my arguments, and the consistent spin that PZ has put on them, that many commenters posting in this thread and at my blog disagree with the arguments.
so it's our fault you choose to address the spin instead of the substance? Is that how you chose to defend your thesis, as well?
You still have the chance to address the substantive arguments presented here, in PZ's response to your paper, and in the general response to the approach such as that discussed in Sean Caroll's posts.
to assume that anybody who disagrees with your approach is merely relying on "spin" assumes that they never read your paper, don't have legitimate gripes with your approach, and don't represent any part of the scientific community.
all false assumptions in many cases.
Obviously there are exceptions, but that appears to me to be what is driving the nature of discourse.
indeed; so why aren't you addressing the exceptions instead of kowtowing to those who you think are merely responding to "spin"?
seriously, your response to this so far does not speak well of your ability to address criticism, and suggests you take a deep breath before plunging into the pool of public opinion, 'cause brother, that's the diving board you are standing on.
you aren't standing on any data, yet. so really, all you CAN address is opinion.
Get on with it already, and stop all this nonsense.
...focusing again on this:
Obviously there are exceptions, but that appears to me to be what is driving the nature of discourse.
I think you would quickly find that you yourself can drive the nature of the discourse, if you would focus on why your approach might work, what the functional criticisms (and there are) of your approach are, and how you intend to address them both at this panel discussion and in the future.
you still haven't done that yet, because by your admission, you consider the legitimate criticisms nothing but "spin".
labeling them such does not address them; in fact, it's exactly how the creationists "defend" their position.
isn't that the whole point of what you are trying to do? Aren't you supposed to be "framing" discussions on terms to promote BETTER communication?
Is this incident going to be your supporting evidence for your cause?
I sure hope not.
Harry Abernathy
totally OT...
Harry, if you don't mind me asking, do you have a son named Kyle by any chance?
He assisted me on a research project in Mexico once upon a time.
Ichthyic...
To reply: I have no son named Kyle. I do have an 18-month old named Colin, but he's never been to Mexico. I don't mind you asking though; there are not many Abernathys out there in the academic world.