I haven't had time to see it yet, but Henry Farell did a longish book review-type interview with me on Bloggingheads.tv which has just gone up. Among other thrills, you get to see the inside of my apartment.
Seriously, though, I hope you'll check it out, Henry is a very smart guy and asked some penetrating questions. They should give him his own version of Fresh Air with Terry Gross.
We also talked about (gasp) framing. Anyways, it's all here. I'm still trying to figure out how to paste in the video segments, so hopefully I'll do that soon enough.
- Log in to post comments
You want to create "dinglelinks". Go to the forums, diavlogs and the first subject is "Sticky: How to link to a point in time within a diavlog". It will tell you how to link to a specific point in the diavlog.
Chris --
That diavlog was excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Afterwards, I followed the links to your HuffPo posts, and from there, found your talk with Matthew Nisbet ("Speaking Science 2.0") on YouTube. All good stuff.
I didn't pay much attention to the furor created when you first put forth your ideas on "framing," although I was aware of the tempest itself. I'm glad you did the appearance on BH.tv, to give me a second chance to learn about your ideas.
I have to say that I still have a a little residual queasiness about these framing ideas. I come from a scientific background, and I am one of those people who proselytizes the ideals of the scientific method, not to mention the need for more science education.
However, after seeing your interview with Henry Farrell and watching the YouTube'd talk, I must say that your overall argument has convinced me. I guess I'd put my acquiescence this way: this is one of those cases where the ends really do justify the means. So, I'm not completely happy, but I'm on board.
One part of your argument in the framing arena that I still don't buy: your disparagement of Richard Dawkins and his in-your-face approach. I take your point that not all audiences are best won over by calling their religious beliefs stupid, I agree there is some danger in letting religious fundamentalists equate science with the boogeyman of a hidden agenda to impose atheism, and I would certainly not say that Dawkins's approach should be the only one. However, I believe Dawkins has done two important things that contribute to the overall goal to get the general public shifted over to our way of thinking.
First, by taking a proud and extreme stance, Dawkins has shifted the boundaries of the debate. This makes it easier to sell the approach that you advocate. Without him, your approach would be seen by the MSM and the general public as more on the fringe. Now you get to paint it as the middle ground.
Second, Dawkins crystallized and clarified the vague thoughts that I and many of my friends already possessed. He made a lot of us feel less unaccepted in the current political climate in the U.S., dominated as it has been by extreme religious views. It is often said that trying to organize atheists is like herding cats. Dawkins has at least opened up a can of tuna, and if we're still not yet running as a herd, we're now starting to sniff in the same direction.
You make a point about trying to keep separate the agendas of reducing religious dominance and increasing scientific awareness. I agree with this, in a pragmatic political sense. But I continue to believe that the two remain closely connected -- it's really just advocating a more rational approach to solving problems.
Anyway, thanks again for doing BH.tv. I look forward to reading your books, and of course, more of your blog.