Washington Post Article Underscores Need for Framing Science

Hi Chris.

From you: "We need a carefully applied understanding of how humans make up their minds on complicated subjects--and how hard it is to change them."

I'm wondering what you mean by "carefully applied understanding".

I'm also interested in know whether you think Dawkins, PZ, Hitchens, etc...do not that it is hard to change peoples minds (especially religious minds!) or that they have no understading about how humans make up their minds on complicated subjects. I think they do.

Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Free Speech for Climate Scientists - Free Conference Call

Wednesday, September 12th, 6:00 - 7:00 PM eastern.

Featuring Rick Piltz, Director of Climate Science Watch and federal climate science whistleblower,
& Tarek Maasarani, GAP staff Attorney and co-author of Atmosphere of Pressure and Redacting the Science of Climate Change.

To register for this call, email Richard Kim-Solloway at richards@whistleblower.org
To listen to our previous calls, visit http://www.whistleblower.org/template/page.cfm?page_id=188

Background: As the second category 5 hurricane in as many weeks devastates Central America - the first time two such severe storms have made landfall in one season since 1886 - attention has sharply returned to questions over the imminent threat posed by climate change.

But while scientific opinion has reached a strong consensus on the seriousness of the changes and the role of human emissions in causing them, scientists working for Agencies like NASA have reported having their views suppressed and altered by appointees with no scientific training and a brief to promote the policies of the Bush Administration.

In 2005, GAP helped Rick Piltz - then a senior staffer in the U.S Climate Change Science Program - blow the whistle on the White House's improper editing and censorship of scientific reports on global warming intended for the public and Congress.

GAP helped Rick release two major reports to The New York Times that documented the actual hand-editing by Chief of Staff Philip Cooney - a lawyer and former climate team leader with the American Petroleum Institute - thereby launching a media frenzy that resulted in the resignation of the "former" lobbyist, who left to work for ExxonMobil.

With Piltz' leadership GAP has launched Climate Science Watch, a GAP program that reaches out to scientists, helps them fight off censorship, and brings to light the continued politicization of environmental science. He is also featured in the award-winning documentary, Everything's Cool.

GAP also represented Dr. James Hansen, one of the world's top climate scientists, who blew the whistle on NASA's attempts to silence him. Hansen's disclosures led GAP Staff Attorney, Tarek Massarani, to conduct a year-long investigation that found objectionable and possibly illegal restrictions on the communication of scientific information to the media.

His findings, summarized in Redacting the Science of Climate Change, included examples of the delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying of interviews, as well as the delay, denial, and inappropriate editing of press releases.

GAP also released a joint Atmosphere of Pressure report with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that combined GAP's investigative reporting and legal analysis with the results of a UCS survey of federal climate scientists. The reports received broad national attention and have already been presented in testimony at two congressional oversight hearings.

It doesn't seem like Dawkins & PZ have a good understanding of how humans make up their minds on complex subjects. I like what they're doing, but they're not helping change minds, IMO.

What are they doing? They think and talk about atheism and evolution and the silliness of ID. They build a "school of thought" where existing atheists can find a home and learn how to talk about their views. With this, they probably help some atheists come out of the closet.

Changing minds is a more delicate art than standing on a soapbox and shouting about how one is superior to one's chosen target of outrage. Such shouting might give a brief warm feeling to the speaker and supporters, but what's heard by others is the shouting and what's seen is the desire to denigrate others. Not very persuasive, IMO.

The work of changing minds happens somewhere else, where people's faces aren't purple and where there are no bulging neck veins.

Changing minds requires some trust and real communication, not polemics. When's the last time you got even your best friends to agree with you by shouting at them or saying they're stupid?

I suspect they are changing some minds. Not everyone receives information exactly the same way.

In any case, I think they do understand the human mind.

Is there a rule that says that any discussion of framing must lead to a discussion of Dawkins? :-)

I'm not so certain that incremental denialism isn't a symptom as well of a domino fear...give in to accepting one fact and fall prey to your whole identity being swept away with it. Friends tell me, after they're well into their cups, that if they accept evolution or global warming that it will be necessary to subsequently deny the existence of God. Their fear is very real I have to say.

i'm amazed at the traction that nisbet, mooney and the other "new social marketers" (aka science framers) have been getting on this topic... this focus on the "consumer" and how difficult it is to change minds and ultimately behaviors is not news... look, i'm a reasonably intelligent person with access to plenty of information on risks of diabetes, heart disease, and other avoidable health threats... yet i'm overweight, don't exercise enough, and won't turn down an extra serving of bacon... i know the facts... it's changing behavior or attitude that's difficult... nothing revolutionary here even if we apply to id, athiesm, hiv-aids denialists, or a flurry of other issues... it's all marketing...

philip kotler and gerald zaltman realized in the 1970's that the same marketing principles that were being used to sell products to consumers could be used to "sell" ideas, attitudes and behaviors.... kotler and andreasen define social marketing as "differing from other areas of marketing only with respect to the objectives of the marketer and his or her organization. Social marketing seeks to influence social behaviors not to benefit the marketer, but to benefit the target audience and the general society..."

consider organ donation... up until perhaps the early 1990's, organ donors were hard to come by... people knew rationally that upon their deaths, their no longer needed organs could help others... yet people took those organs to the grave with them... why? a variety of reasons... fear of harvest before death, religious restrictions, the idea of being "carved to pieces" post mortem... many families prefer not to discuss death and organ donation because the topic is unpleasant... who knows how long the list could go on?... the reality is that the behavior to NOT donate organs is changing... is it a landslide of behavior change? certainly not... people still die on organ donor waiting lists... but change is happening...

what was the catalyst? certainly there was a push of information and awareness building but mostly it was public discussion... it was OK to talk about donating your organs... the environment loosened enough and a tipping point was reached...

with all due respect, i disagree with mark above and the general nisbet/mooney discounting of what dawkins, hitchins, pz and others are contributing to the "loosening of the environment" around atheism ... do the individuals they point to polarize? of course... but to say they are just helping closet athiests feel safe is missing a big part... they are also stretching the boundaries of the playing field... will we ever shift the perceptions of zealots? i think not... nor will we see hasidic jews standing in line to donate their organs upon their deaths...

but in addition to the polemics, the alleged "new athiests" are allowing for more public discussion and debate than i've ever seen before in my 43 years... i have no evidence but a gut feeling that their contributions are allowing not only for the "converted" to go public (which is important), but also for tentative minds to see reason...

"even if we apply to id

I think we need to retitle evolutionary biology as, hmm, "Evolutionary Generated Origins", or EGO for short, which would make it, of course, a battle beween ID and EGO.

[/silliness]

Does the Post article favor framing? It's one of those pieces that, when you're finished with it, leaves you wondering what the heck the original study really said. The author offers ripped-from-the headlines examples which he then admits have nothing to do with the study he is describing.

The main conclusions of the article (not the study -- still wondering!) are: First, that debunking is hard but essential, and second, that you should state what is true instead of what is "not" true, because people tend to forget the "not," and, third, that repetition is important.

I'm afraid I don't see how this supports more than the smallest part of Nisbet's conjectures. Perhaps this Intersection entry is a hint for Sciblog posters to stop writing "framing is not the solution," because it reinforces "framing is the solution."

It just highlights the lack of critical thinking in the general populace.
'Framing' may have some uses when dealing with many in this category but for those that prefer evidence based decision making it tends to fall flat on its two faces (look at the response to the subject on Scienceblogs).
The ultimate solution is to teach critical thinking skills from an early age.
Indeed should it be elevated to a subject in itself ?
The 4 Rs. Reading, Riting, Rithmatic and Rationalism.

I haven't commented one way or the other on framing before, because I really don't see the big deal here.

Framing--and "spinning"--are both examples of skillful communication, whatever we think of the intent of the communicator.

As a writer, I gear my writing to my selected audience. I have a particular purpose. In my children's writing (click my name), that is to educate and often to provoke the readers to think about something for the first time or in a new way.

So I tailor my writing to connect with my readers, choose my words and my style carefully, and decide what factual material to include to make my point and accomplish my purpose.

If I do it well, that's simply good writing.

If my purpose were more explicitly to persuade rather than to educate, it might be called framing. If my purpose were to convince my audience to buy something or vote in a particular way, it might be called "spinning," especially if I cherry-pick my facts and conveniently ignore easily accessible other facts that might persuade them in another direction.

But in the end, what's the difference between "framing," "spinning," and effective communication, except for a hint of deception in "framing" and a strong sense of deception in "spinning"?

Am I missing something?

It's a fundamental misunderstanding to view framing as partial lying, on the way downhill to "spin."

Framing is working with your audience to ensure that they can hear an acccurate message.

The ScienceBlogs clan seems to be mostly members of the "rationalist" subset of people who enjoy a "just the facts" approach and find anything else threatening and scary.

Mark Powell:

Framing is working with your audience to ensure that they can hear an accurate message.

Thanks for your comment.

I disagree about the word "accurate." Framing is often used to make it more likely that the audience gets the framer's message, which may be accurate or not, depending on the framer's intent.

But if I accept your definition, I'm still not sure what the big deal is. For effective communication of any kind, the communicator needs to start by taking the audience's needs and characteristics into account.

Mark Powell said: "Framing is working with your audience to ensure that they can hear an accurate message."

Sure that's an inherent part of it, but framing is really about wording your message so that a specific audience is sympathetic towards it.

And this is where deception can sneak in. Because framing in this context says that it's OK for scientists to tell the public that (for example) they should take action to prevent a cute, fuzzy animal from going extinct; when in reality the scientists know that the more important endangered animal is the blood sucking insect that feeds off of the cute, fuzzy animal. That is deceptive, but allowed under the banner of framing.

Fred,

I agree with you. Framing is just a "spun" word for spinning.

Progressive ideologues have attempted to co-opt science much as conservatives have attempted to co-opt religion. Both are venal pretenses.

Conservatives choose a restrictive subset of religious principles that comport with their world view. Progressives hold up a hollow vestige of science that is more clearly identified as a subset of scientific theories that reflect their priorities.

Both groups reject, often violently, other subsets of the two that don't reinforce their core beliefs.

Lance:
Framing is just a "spun" word for spinning.

That statement goes a bit farther than I would go with this discussion. Still, it is a useful way to "frame" framing.

I see both "framing" and "spin" as techniques for persuasion, but their current usage has a very different connotation.

Framing is actually a venerable old term, as in "framing your argument" to connect with your readers. In my book writing, I don't look for a frame, but I always look for a narrative thread that can carry my readers through, even in the reference book you'll find by clicking my name.

But the way some people are using the term, it is beginning to take on the flavor of spin, as if the two are spoiling in the same refrigerator.

Spin is a newer term, with a generally negative connotation because of sleazy politics.

For me, the issue is communicating well. I hope my motives are not suspect, whether I choose a narrative thread or create a frame to convey my ideas.

At least that's the way I'm spinning this :)