PZ Myers has this to say about the YouTube video of our "Speaking Science 2.0" talk:
I tried to watch that video. I even made it to the 20 minute mark before I gave up. Please, oh please, I need some substance in order to keep me going through an hour-long lecture.
I'm going to try not to get annoyed or snippy about this. Instead, I'll "frame" my response this way: It's funny that others don't share this perspective, isn't it?
We have given the talk so far to two serious groups populated by many, many scientists: At the Stowers Institute in Kansas City, and at the annual meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. I also delivered a version to a group of very serious scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne, Australia. In all cases, the audiences seemed very engaged, stayed to the end, and no one complained of lack of "substance."
In fact, Scienceblogs' own Jason Rosenhouse was at one of the talks and, although critical of some of what we say, commented thusly:
They make a number of persuasive points, and I certainly agree with their basic thesis. Scientists definitely need to be savvier in dealing with the media than they historically have been. But I'm still a little suspicious of some of their suggestions about evolution specifically. A bit too much "Lay off the religion!" for my taste.
It was nice having a chance to talk to them in person, however. If they're coming anywhere near you, I recommend going to some effort to see the presentation.
There are also some reactions here from some folks who watched the talk on YouTube and seem to have really appreciated it.
So, c'mon, PZ. You've ripped the "framing science" concept based upon brief essay-style presentations of it. Now we've gone all out and produced a much more thorough presentation--one that covers, in depth, the concept of framing; evolution; stem cell research; global warming; hurricanes; and then closes by presenting policy solutions--and you won't engage.
I'm disappointed by this, but I also know you're a thoughtful guy. So I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt here and ask you again to engage with our arguments as we have now chosen--comprehensively--to present them.
P.S.: Admittedly, the PowerPoint slides--all 70 something of them--are not visible in the current YouTube video of the talk. We are *trying* to make the slides of the talk publicly available as soon as we can, because they are data rich and full of "substance." Still, there's already enough there with the YouTube video to get a strong sense of what we're suggesting.
P.P.S.: I've also made two other major "framing science" critics, Greg Laden and Larry Moran, aware of the YouTube version of the talk. Greg Laden was kind enough to post it and says he'll wait for the slides. I haven't seen anything yet from Moran.
UPDATE: Larry Moran watched the video which I appreciate. He's not swayed. He claims we haven't gotten what critics are saying, but of course, if he's calling framing spin still, he hasn't gotten what we are saying. That's too bad. Larry's right about one thing: Our argument is aimed at a U.S. audience, and so maybe it seems a bit odd to him as he's from Canada. Still, the same principles of framing would apply to other countries....
P.P.P.S.: ScienceBlogs has been kind enough to run banner ads (targeted only for NYC area visitors) about our next talk, which is on Monday at the New York Academy of Sciences. Cool, huh? It looks like this:
- Log in to post comments
I absolutely want to spend the time on this. I'm hoping for the version with the power points, and at the moment I'm teaching an intensive all-day-seminar kind of class plus helping with a construction project on weekends, etc so it will be a few days (towards the end of next week).
I agree, as one of the people asking for "it" I'm going to watch "it" and it will be fun to see how it all turns out. I'll probably post some comments, and I'll let you know.
Hey, maybe I'll make a video of myself watching and reacting to your presentation....
Wait a minute, this is contrary to the spirit of framing! You're blaming the audience (me) rather than trying to find a frame that will connect to my values!
Asking for a reasoned response to (and engagement with) our arguments doesn't appeal to your values? Aren't *we* the rationalists and Enlightenment defenders and all that good stuff over here at ScienceBlogs?
Jeez if I can't even speak to you, PZ, I am really screwed...;>
Some people just won't want to listen, regardless of the topic. Whether PZ is part of that crowd may or may not be true. Maybe he's frustrated by all of his opponents rhetorical dodges that he's exercising some of his own.
I've already sent you a longer response by email. I'm sympathetic to your cause of improving science communication, but I'm just not finding much direct applicability yet.
"Wait a minute, this is contrary to the spirit of framing!"
PZ Myers has a very good point. Also witness the Coturnix-Moran flare-ups over framing. Maybe this isn't an indictment of framing so much as Mooney, Nisbet, and Coturnix's clumsiness in applying it. However, I think the notion of "framing" itself is part of the problem, one not unrelated to Lakoff's undeserved status as a political guru. (On the other hand, Myers and Moran can be willfully blinkered about concepts they've already dismissed.)
I wonder if it's foolhardy to attempt to state succinctly the core arguments for and against framing science. Probably, so here goes:
Framing: The best way to talk about science to non-scientists is to extract accurately the core results of a scientific subject and present them in a comfortable context. This builds trust and acceptance, encourages listening, and minimizes the impact of ideological or other filters. This approach is especially important when policy implications exist, because that's when it's hardest to get people to listen to and understand science.
Against framing: The right way to talk about science to non-scientists is to display science including assumptions, evidence and uncertainty. This is much like talking to scientists, except understanding can be encouraged by helpful examples, translation of jargon, and engaging presentation. This approach is especially important when policy implications exist, because including any opinions or spin casts doubt on the reliability of the science.
If I have them wrong, perhaps somebody smarter on these subjects will do a better job of stating the essential framing pro and con?
Mark,
That's an interesting way of putting it. I would broadly agree.
PZ--You say you haven't found anything of direct applicability, but of course, you also say you didn't watch past minute 20.
So you didn't see presumably how framing is directly applicable to--and in fact explains--the victory that science has achieved on embryonic stem cell research. Nisbet spends about 10 minutes outlining that.
Also of direct applicability is our list of policy proposals...but I guess you didn't get to that either.