Do you want to know what I really think about "framing science?" You do? Good. I'll tell you. Here's the problem with framing science. The problem with framing science is ...
It's either a trivial concept to which an entire academic career should not be devoted, or it's a corrupting influence that threatens everything for which science should stand.
Much has been made of the apparent failure of the champion of framing science, commuications expert and ScienceBlogger Matt Nisbet, to explain the idea in sufficient detail to the satisfy most of the rest of the Science Blogs community. The recent flap over the expulsion of PZ Myers from a screening the anti-evolution documentary propaganda film Expelled!, and Matt's paradoxical re-framing of the incident as a victory for the film's producers, has led to much vitriol, and exposed the dark side our little corner of the blogosphere. None of which bothers me.
And yet I found I could not avoid thinking a great deal about this "framing science" idea. After all, Matt has repeatedly used the failure of the scientific community to convince the public at large of the merits of evolution, the climate crisis and other important issues as evidence of the need to better frame our arguments. That's a thesis deserves some attention.
So I went back and re-read manyof his posts, and those on the subject by his fellow ScienceBlogger Chris Mooney, and the essay he and Dietram Scheufele wrote in The Scientist, explaining why we need to apply the lessons of modern communications studies to communicating science. They define frames as "interpretative schema" that help audiences understand something. Frames "simplify complex issues by lending greater importance to certain considerations and arguments over others."
To me, that kind of description doesn't stray far from what any decent journalist will recognize as a successful way to tell a story. What Matt calls a frame, I would call an "angle." This is not proverbial brain surgery or rocket science. It's common sense.
Of course you appeal to your audience's sensibilities. If you're talking to politicians, you "frame" your argument in political terms. If you're talking to fundamentalist Christians, you play up traditional moral themes. If you're talking to bankers, you emphasize return on investment. Among the first things a journalist learns is to write for the reader/viewer/listener. You tell your reader why it is the story is important and how it will affect them. You "frame" the story according to their interests. Perhaps it is no coincidence that among 75 or so ScienceBloggers the biggest defender, aside from a communications theorist, is a journalist.
And if that's all framing is, it's hardly worth worrying about. If, however, framing is something more consequential (the alternative hypothesis, to use a scienfific term), if learning how to frame properly requires training and expertise, and its study is worthy of the awarding of PhDs, then what are we actually talking about?
In this context, the notion that framing can "simplify complex issues by lending greater importance to certain considerations and arguments over others" becomes less benign. And I suspect this explains the hostility that framing generates among the rest of the ScienceBloggers, most of whom are trained as scientists.
Science does embrace simplicity over unnecessary complexity, insofar as parsimony is a useful tool. But scientists are not trained to simplify as an exercise in communications. And they are certainly not trained to emphasize certain elements of their studies at the expense of others just to suit the biases of an audience. (Well, maybe an audience that's reviewing a grant application...) They are trained to do the precise opposite: prioritize according to genuine importance, regardless of who's paying attention.
Indeed, the whole point of science is the pursuit of objectivity, is it not? Framing, by contrast, seems to embrace subjectivity.
So to the scientist, if framing is anything of consequence, then it's contrary to good science. I don't think anyone objects to dressing up science to attract attention. To many scientists, anything more substantial amount to "spin."
I know Matt and other framing fans have tried to distinguish spin from framing. He and Scheufele write that
"Despite what are critics of our suggestions argue, framing does not mean engaging in false spin, as many opponent of science have done in the past.
But note the qualifier of "false," implying that there is an acceptable, truthful variety available for our use. And that's what scare many of us. At the end of the day, many scientists reject the notion of spin of any form interfering with the presentation of their work. "It's bad enough that journalists filter every science story through an 'angle,'" says the scientists. "Please don't ask us to make things worse by compounding the distortion."
So there you have it. The problem with framing science in a nutshell. Triviality or anathema.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the real value of framing lies somewhere between. If so, it's up the Matt and Chris and other framing fans to supply the nuances.
- Log in to post comments
Excellently sums up my own opinion much better than I managed. :)
If something significant about "framing" has been missed the promoters of "framing" need to get out there and show what was missed, why it is important and how in practice it works, preferably with a practical demonstration.
In other words, don't tell others why they're wrong, show them how you are right.
Matt, mini-Matt and Sheril should pool their framing knowledge and write a book that will convince thousands of Fundamentalist Creationists to give up on a literal interpretation of Genesis and embrace evolution. They need to develop a record of positive accomplishment to establish that they really do have expertise in framing. Until then, I will continue to believe that Nisbet is a self-promoter who is trying to build himself up by tearing down others of substantially more accomplishment than himself.
Ironic: PZ Myers gets expelled from a movie titled Expelled.
More ironic: Framing expert Mark Nisbet frames his comments such that the wrath of the blogosphere descends on his head.
Not ironic: Rain on your wedding day.
Well said!
I've been doing some of my own thinking on this, and I think you have expressed another aspect of my thoughts.
What/who do people think of when someone bills himself as a "communications expert"? My first thoughts are: advertising agent, PR flack, "spokesperson" (in the sense of spinmeister), pundit (in the sense of the self-appointed expert), propagandist, and various other roles that have a definite negative image. The people who are most known for using "framing" are from those same groups, and especially those from the far right who have to use framing because they don't have facts on their side.
Why should scientists want to adopt a technique that they already have a negative image of?
It's probably better to let journalists pick the angle and make it relevant to a general audience than to risk scientific credibility.
Framing if effective is propaganda. No use arguing for benign use of a disreputable tool.
I think the problem is worse than that -- it seems to me that framing, at least as promoted by Nisbet, implicitly does away with worrying about communicating any notion of truth or falsity to begin with. The whole point seems to be that the public is incapable of engaging in critical thinking and objective reasoning, and so instead of emphasizing notions of truth, we are to promote political interests. Once you go down that road, you lose pretty much the only real weapon to convince people that an alternate frame is actually wrong. For example, how can the abuses of tobacco company "research" be communicated as actual abuses, and not just a "competing frame", if we don't care that the public actually understand how to assess evidence and research methods? How can we say that what the tobacco companies did is wrong, unless we are willing to say that there is a right way to do science?
Framing is viewed by many scientists through a very negative frame. Therefore, the proponents of framing themselves suck at framing, to the extent that they wish to marshal the support and participation of scientists.
'Framing' has always reminded me of an old joke.
The writer and the editor are crawling across the desert after their plane crashed, parched, almost hopeless, in the burning sun.
They crest a dune and see a tiny oasis.
They crawl down to it and there's a little pool of water between the trees.
As the writer, having crawled up to the edge, is about to dip his face in to drink, a stream of odorous yellow liquid arcs over his shoulder and splashes into the pool.
He turns, incredulous, and looks at the editor who is urinating into it and gasps "What are you _doing_?"
And the editor replies, "I'm improving it."
I think there is some merit to "framing" or "spin" or whatever you want to call it, with regard to the kind of confrontational dialogs that we often see when people such as PZ take on ID apologists head-on. Certainly biologists have the right to vigorously and systematically debate the logic of ID proponents, and this kind of dialog may have had important positive outcomes in such instances as the Dover case. But when it comes to convincing the very large group of people who are both deeply religious and mostly oblivious to the concepts of modern biology and science, this kind of confrontational, vigorous point-by-point debate is mostly ineffective. I may be wrong, but I think the trends in public opinion back up the notion that in spite of winning in the courts, evolution is losing the wider debate. There are very few public figures working hard to find a better way to communicate to the masses on this issue, and what I see at ScienceBlogs is knee-jerk attacks on anyone who even suggests that scientist try to engage the deeply religious on their own turf. That's a shame.
Excellent post. I'd like to make a subsidiary point.
The mere fact that messages can be tailored in this fashion does not in itself determine the message that must be sent. It's that old bugbear, the distinction between is questions and ought questions. One could choose to "frame" the statements that, for example, atheists can be moral people, the Bible is a collection of fables written and edited by people, and even that atheism is the natural and parsimonious deduction from the known facts of science. I suspect that the self-designated evangelists of "framing science" would object to seeing these statements made in the public arena (I tried to write them in order of increasing offensiveness), but even so, these statements can be tailored to specific audiences using "interpretive schema".
And, after all that, rhetoric can only take you so far, as David Brin pointed out after "framing" had made a big splash in political discussion circles:
Frame, angle, perspective, point of view, take -- all it means is that how you look at something determines what you see.
For someone this is news to, Wowie-zowie! For the rest of us, Well, duh!
No, the reaction is to the suggestion that scientists are only allowed to engage the deeply religious on the religious' own turf, and if the scientists are not interested in doing so, they are bad for science, and should shut up.
"(Scientists) are trained to do the precise opposite: prioritize according to genuine importance, regardless of who's paying attention."
Careful of your own self-laudatory biases. To the contrary, I'd argue the scientist naturally "frames" issues according to a personal worldview about what's important. Or to put it differently, the scientist is trained to to prioritize things according to what s/he (and the professional peer group) thinks is important.
Scientists inescapably do this all the time, and not just when communicating with grant committees. E.g., when deciding what line of research to pursue over others, how to contextualize specific results in a larger framework, how to hypothesize a reasonable extension of a certain result so as to plan or target a new avenue of research, and of course whether to professionally pursue one scientific field over another.
Tulse nails it. Framing sensu Nisbet is precisely bullshit sensu Frankfurt.
Exactly right. The best frame is the science itself. Of course, you should write it up for your audience so that scientists get the rigor they need and lay people get the gist of it they need (assuming they're interested).
Beyond that, framing is, quite literally, nonsense.
As a person who stands astride both worlds by holding degrees in both Communication and Biology (seriously) and soon to be High School Biology teacher, communicating an idea is never scientific. Science Experts might recognize the presence of Communication Experts and what they might have to offer on the matter of eloquence. No, not PR spin doctors, but the reams of PHD'd researchers who use methodologies (It is true, with peer reviewed journals and everything!) to study exactly topics like "framing."
One model, from Bell Labs no less, suggested a feedback loop of communication which, at best, elicits meaning from the person you are trying to communicate with rather than dumping information upon them and expecting them to "get it." Clearly, dumping truckloads of logical, reasonable facts and evidence on Creationists does not work. We've all been there. Rather consider "eliciting meaning" as a method of framing.
Ideal scientific communication, as well as it can actually exist, is only effective with other trained scientists. If you expect others to communicate a scientific message to non-scientists, then expect to be unhappy with the results.
To repeat something I mentioned in a comment elsewhere, you only have to teach a few semesters of non-majors biology to develop a certain attitude about Com majors...
Throughout all this, I have tended to side with PZ & Co. Nisbet has handled this terribly. However, I definitely see his point. As a physician, and one with a background in research, I see both sides of the coin. Objectivity and even outright rejection of concepts such as "framing" are essential to the scientific mission. However, at the end of the day, I have to explain to my patients what I am doing and why. I have to make them understand the importance of a treatment, or why they should keep taking a medicine that they (incorrectly) think caused some side effect. My next patient, for example, is a hypertensive diabetic who is refusing to take his blood pressure meds (a diuretic and an ACE inhibitor) because he thinks it was the reason he developed an astrocytoma. My discussion with him will be grounded in science, but it will be framed such that a) he understands, and b) he chooses to do what is best for his health (i.e., take his meds).
So framing is important if we are going to encourage the everyday application of science in the non-scientific world. "Framing" a medical journal article is dishonest and unethical. "Framing" a conversation with a patient is necessary.
Still, how you get a PhD in "framing" is beyond me...
I am watching what Mooney has to say in his attempt (I cannot resist) to re-frame framing.
He has started on a fairly good note, by admitting attempts to sell framing to ScienceBloggers have failed, although he does keep insisting that the feedback he gets when he does live presentations is much more favot one commentator has explained that Mooney maybe getting falurable. At leasse feedback if he relies on what people who attend his seminars say at the time.
But like James, I remain to be convinced that framing is either not stating the "bleeding" obvious or an attempt not just to change HOW science is communicated but rather WHAT is communicated.
@Jim G:
That's not contrary at all. He said scientists are trained to be objective, not that they always are.
And anyway, it seems to me that the framers and the rest of science both recognize that we're all still a bunch of dumb apes with biases and superstitions. The difference is that framers try to exploit those biases, whereas scientists strive to overcome them whenever they are observed.
Sven DiMilo,
Your insult is simply uncalled for and I don't see what I said to earn it. I sincerely hope you keep this attitude to yourself when it comes to your students.
Another issue I have with framing is that to date it seems that the only frames that are mentioned as those that pertain to the US.
Now the US has issues with regards science communications that other developed countries do not seem to have. You only have to look at the levels of acceptance of climate change and evolution in Western Europe compared with the US to see that there does seem to be problems with either understanding science, or rejection of science, in the US.
However that does not mean that communicating science is unimportant outside the US (and in fact it may suggest that science communication in Western Europe is better than in the US) and those promoting framing need to recognise that. Not least because many of the scientists most prominent in communicating science in the US are also the most prominent in Western Europe. Asking Dawkins to keep quiet over evolution in favour of Ken Miller may help in the US, although seriously doubt it. However if that means that science communication is damaged elsewhere then is that really a price worth paying ?
Well said, and I'd also like to second PhysioProf's comments. If someone who is purporting to be an expert on the subject of "writing for your audience" (something I learnt pretty damned quickly in a 4-day course on technical writting) can't write about "framing" in the correct frame for scientists, then they suck at writing for their audience and cannot be considered experts.
Observe. Report. Take another angle. Repeat.
And they are certainly not trained to emphasize certain elements of their studies at the expense of others just to suit the biases of an audience. (Well, maybe an audience that's reviewing a grant application...) They are trained to do the precise opposite: prioritize according to genuine importance, regardless of who's paying attention.... So to the scientist, if framing is anything of consequence, then it's contrary to good science.
This arguments assumes (but tacitly acknowledges the untruth of the idea) that there is concensus with regard to the goal(s) of science. Insofar as scientists frame or spin their work for grant review committees, they are trained in (or at least practice) framing. It seems very likely to me that at least some grants don't get funded precisely because there is disagreement about what constituted "genuine importance" and "good science".
I think I understand the idea of 'framing' in communication but maybe what we're missing is understanding 'communication'. I've always thought that communication was a 2 way street; that both parties involved in the 'communication' had a vested interest. One had an idea and the other was interested in hearing that idea. Obviously, the best way to communicate is for the speaker to put that idea in terms that the listener can best understand.
But we don't have 'communication' in the area of 'Expelled!'. We have monologues. Framing only helps when the person you're speaking to has an interest in hearing what you have to say. So far, I don't see that on the creationist/ID side of things. they already know what is and what isn't. They're not looking to test anything. The testing phase is over, they are simply interested in enlarging the number of folks who believe as they do or at least pushing their particular belief on the rest of the world.
Framing is fine if there is genuine communication, but how do we get people to abandon their monologues?
A highly respected mule trainer agreed to take on a newly married couple's animal to train it for work on their farm. A few days later the farmer, passing by the stables, was horrified to see his mule sitting on its haunches, forelegs braced, blood running down its forehead and the mule trainer standing in front of it with a stout piece of fence rail.
"What kind of abuse is this?", the farmer cried as he ran over, "I thought you were going to train my mule, not beat it!"
Replied the mule trainer, "I haven't started the training yet, I have to get his attention first.".
How we go about getting the attention of the creationists/IDer's I think is the question. Or how do we get the attention of the vast group who seem to be silent or undecided? It would seem we need a discussion of tactics rather than framing. Once people trapped in dogma are willing to entertain another explanation or point of view, THEN we can worry how best to frame our discussions of the science.
A framing genius, or a CARNIE, paints a hook on the wall and persuades some children to to toss some hoops at the hook in the hopes of winning a giant teddy bear.
The framing genius/carnie then collects "real money" from the children who continually struggle to toss their hoops onto THE HOOK - as in carnival.
An inquiring scientist, who believes in a real world that can be accurately labeled & described, analyzes the artfully "painted" HOOK and claims that the game is distorted, fraudulent, and fixed.
The framer/carnie screams scientific prejudice, uncertainty, emotional commitment, the joy of trying, and failure to keep an open mind.
MORAL: "If your mind is completely open, it is empty."
Well put. And I find it fascinating that Nisbet is so lousy at framing his own damn arguments for framing. He'd be a lot more convincing if... well, if he were more convincing. Telling other people who are more or less on your side that they're framing things wrong and need to knock it off is a classic example of botched framing.
It's not that I think the very concept of framing is ridiculous. If you're trying to convince someone of something, of course you should tailor your arguments in terms that they'll find welcoming.
The problem, I think (well, one of the problems), is that Nisbet is making assumptions about PZ and others' intended audience that I think are unwarranted. You use different tactics when you're trying to diplomatically persuade someone to change their mind than you do when you're trying to draw attention to your ideas, put pressure on people in power, and inspire people who already agree with you to take action. This dichotomy -- diplomatic versus confrontational -- has existed within every major movement for social change that I can think of... and I've never understood why it gets seen as an unresolvable difference. Both methods work together better than either one will work alone.
Scientists don't indulge in framing in order to get the statements about the experimental data as precise as humanly possible???
Scientists don't do their damndest with their brains and their language to frame the problem and thus frame the best solution to that problem???
UNCERTAINTY by David Lindley discusses in detail the well documented agonies between the passionate expounders of two diametrically opposed versions of quantum reality, and the resulting Copenhagen interpretation of complementarity.
Trying to get their language as close to the experimental facts as possible drove the most intelligent quantum scientists into linguistic agonies, false starts, and tears.
Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, Schrodinger, et al spent years trying to formulate the most precise and descriptive language of what the experimental "facts" demanded.
It was then and it remains today that the experimental facts about the real world set the limits and ultimately determined what they could say about the reality that they professed to have discovered.
What in the name of objective reality as accepted by the scientific community sets the limits to the framing foo-foo and flaunted flexibility and maximized uncertainties of the framing geniuses?
TomH says:
"Framing only helps when the person you're speaking to has an interest in hearing what you have to say. So far, I don't see that on the creationist/ID side of things. they already know what is and what isn't. They're not looking to test anything. The testing phase is over, they are simply interested in enlarging the number of folks who believe as they do or at least pushing their particular belief on the rest of the world."
I can imagine a conservative Christian making exactly the same criticism of scientists and other agnostics/atheists. The fact is that both sides are completely opposed to considering the point of view of the other, which is exactly why it is so important for biologists to seek a "frame" (for lack of a better word) that engages creationists in listening to evolutionary ideas. If they want to have an impact on the masses, that is.
If science bloggers/commenters are only interested in picking on Nisbet/Mooney or pointing out how any half-wit can learn how to effectively communicate in a four-day workshop, then carry on...
What this should tell people is that it's not a communication problem at all. Scientists in the US are not inherently worse at communicating (or "framing") science than those elsewhere. The problem is endemic to the US character. There is a huge strain of anti-intellectualism in the country. Scientists are easily dismissed by the public at large for the same reasons that bright students are bullied in high school. Which is why framing is such a bad idea. You want respect from the American public at large? Than try less "please listen to me" and more "shut up, you're an idiot".
Eric wrote:
Is this what you see as "framing science" ? Considering the point of view of the anti-scientist's as being equal to the scientists ? The journalist's opinion is equal to the scientist's published empirical result?
Do you really think that the christian fundamentalists give one flying f*ck about what the actual evidence is regarding evolution, or science in general? Do you really think that the catholic fundamentalist priests who recently - using unprecedented heavy handed tactics against the UK government ( and, incidentally, against the largely non-catholic electorate ) gave one flying f*ck about the realities of embryo research?
The "Framing" of science concept - and Nisbett's version in particular - fails for one simple reason: it assumes that the better-funded opponents of science are honest. It presumes that their concerns are matters of fact when they are, in fact, matters of a badly-placed faith. Nisbett has reached a wrong conclusion because he is both terrible a terrible communicator, and a terrible communicator basing his assumption upon a false belief.
"What this should tell people is that it's not a communication problem at all. Scientists in the US are not inherently worse at communicating (or "framing") science than those elsewhere. The problem is endemic to the US character. There is a huge strain of anti-intellectualism in the country. Scientists are easily dismissed by the public at large for the same reasons that bright students are bullied in high school. Which is why framing is such a bad idea. You want respect from the American public at large? Than try less "please listen to me" and more "shut up, you're an idiot"."
I suspect there are large amount of truth in this.
To give an example, a couple of years the BBC ran a series that asked viewers to vote for the greatest ever Britain. The winner was Churchill, which while not my choice is reasonable. Princess Diana was in the top ten, which shows there is an insane element amongst the British public. What is important to my point is that there were two scientists in the top ten, Darwin and Newton. I cannot disagree with that! I can remember at the time wondering if the same exercise was carried out in the US if a single scientist would make into the top ten. Maybe Feynmann, but I am not convinced of that. The impression I get from the US is that science does not form part of the folklore (for want of a better term) of the country, whereas part of British identity is in what British scientists have achieved. Whilst probably not being able to give a very cogent explanation of what they did, most Brits seem to have some kind of national pride in their countries scientific heritage. From what I can tell many other countries in Western Europe have similar sentiments.
It seems to me that the notion of "communication" is being conflated with the notion of "persuasion". Most practicing academic scientists have a lot of practice with communicating their field -- it's called "teaching". As I understand it, Nisbet isn't really concerned with communicating science, but with driving public policy in certain directions through persuasion. Given that his primary concern seems to be getting action on global warming, the goal of persuading real progress is laudable. But it should be clear that what he's doing isn't really "communication".
TomH: "How we go about getting the attention of the creationists/IDer's I think is the question."
It's tough, and one technique won't work in all circumstances. Best of all is to get them young, before their minds are set in cement, and IMO schools suck at making science and math interesting. Kids should get a bonus if they can point out a mistake a teacher makes or an error in a textbook, rather than being stamped into cookie-cutter uniformity by rote learning.
For the adult ID/Creationist, perhaps the best method is to mock the hell out of them and the shills/frauds that lead the movement, then point out calmly and with evidence why their views are wrong. If they are liars, frauds or ignorant, call them on it. They may actually decide to try looking at evidence.
The leaders have a disproportionate influence as in any branch of human endeavor, and have the most invested psychologically and financially in their world view. There will always be someone willing to gather a flock to fleece, so picking away at the flock is probably more likely to succeed than going at the leaders. That's why I see the open atheist campaign as useful - it moves the Overton Window, making it possible for the deeply religious to at least consider other points of view as acceptable.
Note that I am not saying or advocating that one must take the ID crowd right to an atheist perspective - trying that would likely be counterproductive in most cases. Getting people to look at some of the evidence that the universe is really big and really old - that might be a first step, then get them to look at the consequences if they accept that.
I assure you there is plenty of anti-intellectualism and irrationalism east of the pond, but I agree there are real US/western Europe differences. Partly, I think these are secondary to the greater religiosity in the US; and that in turn may be at least in part a kind of cultural "founder effect" - the original settlers in what is now the US included a large component who considered opportunity to practise their particular brand of Christianity sufficient reason to uproot themselves and move to a savage wilderness where half of them were likely to be dead within a year.
Armchair:
If our only goal is to communicate loudly that scientists are right and creationists are wrong, then I think we have very successfully accomplished this goal.
If, however, our goal is to convince the average creationist to consider the notion that evolution might be an appropriate description for the origin and development of species, then I think we are failing miserably.
I haven't really followed Nesbit's recent writings very closely, but I doubt even he is suggesting that we placate creationists by admitting they were right all along. But I think the main points are (a) that shouting down creationists is having limited success at achieving the second goal I stated above; and (b) perhaps we should be seeking another way of communicating the ideas of evolution that conservative Christians might be more willing to listen to. Obviously that is a difficult challenge, but I don't see much willingness among the community here to even take it up.
Science is competing for public support. We have to market science.
It is a mistake to presume the superior product will win by default. To do so is to falsely presume that the public inherently prefers science. Humans are, well, human and subject to all manner of perceptual and judgement errors. Given the choice between easy to understand promises of miracles and instant knowledge of life and everything ("God") vs. complicated explanations that are always subject to change, many will choose the easy way.
Scientists often make the mistake of presuming everyone is logical and rational. The problem is that people make "rational" choices based on what the believe to be true, and what they believe to be true is based on inculcation and what is most appealing.
Someone posted in one of these threads that science always wins in the end. One only need look at Iran or our own falling scientific literacy to see that to be false.
We have to market science. Framing is just a part of marketing, a more detailed way of contemplating an "angle," as the OP described. Marketing is not a bad thing, letting irrationality win is.
(PS, Nisbet sucks at marketing and his ideas should be ignored until he can prove that he is actually capable of understanding marketing and influencing people in a positive way, which will most likely not occur until the Golden Age of Pig Flight,)
"that shouting down creationists is having limited success"Well we haven't actually been shouting all that long, have we? In fact scientists have calmly explained their point of view for a long time. In textbooks, on TV specials such as "Cosmos", on networks like the Discovery Channel. I'm all for more of that. But that's not the whole fight anymore. There is shouting coming from the other side. Things like:- Darwinism is responsible for the Holocaust- Big Science is stifling intellectual creativity- Teach the controversyThese are lies being perpetrated on the public. They need to be denounced as such.
I actually agree that 'framing' is important, but in the sense that James notes: knowing your audience. My problem with Nisbett is that he is so incredibly bad at communicating and representing science, which is exacerbated by his attitude that the only person qualified to talk science to the media is Nisbett himself along with his sidekick Mooney (more on him later). If Nisbett is such an effective communicator then why is it that he can't clearly and concisely explain the benefits of his approach to framing. I haven't even seen him articulate that much.
As for Mooney, I have a good deal of respect for him and think he genuinely is trying to do good but is just going about it in a rather ham handed way. His posts this week have been much better in explicating his position while allowing for a discussion of points of contention.
"At the end of the day, many scientists reject the notion of spin of any form interfering with the presentation of their work. "It's bad enough that journalists filter every science story through an 'angle,'" says the scientists. "Please don't ask us to make things worse by compounding the distortion. So there you have it. The problem with framing science in a nutshell.""
I've thought of 'framing', 'spin', or angle, for science as a matter of using your knowledge of your audience to _minimize_ the distortions and misunderstandings.
Nisbet's most recent labeling for marketing his framing product is revealing in its pompous gradiosity.
Advertising an upcoming lecture at George Mason U. by Nisbet on April, 3rd from Nisbet's website today;
Professor Matthew Nisbet, School of Communication, American University
"Framing Science: The New Paradigm in Public Engagement"
Anybody who would dare state that he has; "THE NEW PARADIGM IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT." exposes himself in public and succeeds in unequivically framing his professed "framing science" as juvenile anti-science.
Not the mandatory "a new paradigm;" or even a more workable approach; but THE NEW PARADIGM.
NISBET HAS "THE" INFALLIBLE METHOD AND YOU HAD BETTER GET DOWN WITH NISBET OR BE LOST FOREVER.
Nisbet shows that he hasn't the foggiest notion about what science is, or how to go about doing science, or how anybody
should do science.
NISBET'S HEAD IS EXPANDING, BUT ITS CONTENTS ARE SHRINKING.
Do the names Stephen Hawking or Sir Arthur C. Clarke come to mind? Some have been quite successful at framing science. Maybe we need more of that. Not that any of that would convince someone who's mind is already made up!
Hawking is a great science communicator, but that is not the same as framing -- the goal of framing (as far as I can tell) seems to be persuasion, and not just conveying information in a way that is understandable.
If there is a better denunciation of all that framing stands for, I don't know about it.
Here is Mark Danner in our mother tongue - without any doubletalk;
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174791/mark_danner_the_age_of_rhetoric
Are there techniques that successfully punch through confirmation bias and communicate factual results to an unwilling audience?
This critique of Nisbet seems to take for granted a certain picture of the objectivity of science that I'm not sure holds in light of the critiques of Kuhn, Lakatos, Quine, Feyerabend, Latour and Woolgar, the strong programme in the sociology of science, Laudan, etc. It seems to me that Philip Kitcher gets much of the picture right in his book, The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. As a side benefit, that book has a great chapter about Darwin and the defeat of creationism in science.
"To me, that kind of description doesn't stray far from what any decent journalist will recognize as a successful way to tell a story. What Matt calls a frame, I would call an "angle." This is not proverbial brain surgery or rocket science. It's common sense.
Of course you appeal to your audience's sensibilities. If you're talking to politicians, you "frame" your argument in political terms. If you're talking to fundamentalist Christians, you play up traditional moral themes. If you're talking to bankers, you emphasize return on investment. Among the first things a journalist learns is to write for the reader/viewer/listener."
I think there's a complication here.
Your audience isn't always a homogenous set like politicians or fundamentalist Christians or bankers - and I think the kind of audience Nisbet is talking about almost never is. He's talking about reaching out to the public at large so that it won't get pissed off by atheists and vote Republican, right? He's talking about people in general.
Well, it's very hard to figure out how to explain things to people in general. Very hard indeed. Just for one thing it's very hard to know how easy to make things in order not to make people feel stupid while at the same time not making things so easy that (perhaps different) people will feel insulted. It's a constant balancing act and it's all guesswork - and the truth is, there's no way to appeal to everyone. It can't be done. It's sensible to try to be accessible, but it's also sensible to realize that it's an imprecise skill.
I, for one, think it's better to aim a little high rather than too low - but lots of people disagree with me.
Ophelia, are you familiar with E. T. Jaynes simple but strategically powerful magnum opus, PROBABILITY THEORY -THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE?
Following the insightful lead of LaPlace almost two hundred years ago, Jaynes carefully lays out a distinctly modern calculus of probabilities without a shred of bamboozle.
In a recent review of the book Tommaso Toffoli, following Galileo, appropriately named Jaynes labor of love for scientific inference and inference in general as - HONESTY IN INFERENCE.
Ironically much of Jaynes's work concerns communication theory before & after Shannon.
Nisbet is a journeyman framer with severe brain damage.
He is also a genuine anti-intellectual.
When he cavalierly preaches anti-science, he just makes himself out to be totally unschooled in genuine science.
Jim Lippard, the best knockout punch to the doubletalking mouths of the "sociology of science" poseurs is HIGHER SUPERSTITION by biologist, Paul Gross & mathematician, Norman Levitt.
Two years ago to the month I suggested HIGHER SUPERSTITION to Matt Nisbet as an antidote to some of the mealy mouthings about framing as a science that Nisbet was advocating on Mooney's blog.
Nisbet responded that Gross & Levitt had it all wrong, but the real article for deep analysis was to be found in the literary ramblings of poor bewildered Dorothy Nelkin.
Ayyup, it can always get worse.
Gerald: I am largely unsympathetic to the sociology of science folks, but they are right about one thing, which is that there are social aspects of science that have an effect on science as practiced and science as an institution. These aspects sometimes result scientists going astray in various ways--scientific fraud, clinging to dogma, rejecting anomalies and critical work, etc. Where they go wrong is in making outlandish claims that these aspects explain everything, and go so far as to suggest that the underlying reality studied by scientists plays no role, for which Gross and Levitt rightly criticize them. The Kitcher book seems to me to find the right middle ground--a scientific realism, but not a naive scientific realism.
How does one pronounce "Hrynyshyn"? Is it like "Rinyshine"?
And wasn't there a place in Gulliver's Travels that was similar?
The 'Island of Doubt' makes a nice refuge from the 'Sea of Turmoil' wrt 'framing'.
comment to Matt Penfold: most ordinary Americans never heard of Richie Feynman, but they may have a vague idea that Einstein revised Newton in some way. Our sainted dead scientists are Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison and maybe A.G. Bell, technicians all.
I agree with Eric
Journalist will write with an angle in mind. Scientists need to learn how to control that angle. If you don't spin the explanations and outcomes -- ignorant anti-science people will.
Hi Heather:
I was kidding. Of course I take all individual students as they come to me. Sorry to have offended.
That said, I have seen no evidence that Dr. Nisbet knows anything about science.
ROTFLMAO! :-D
That's unfortunately a good frame. So good it hurts. :-D
In other words, it's a culture shock. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, scientists are from Missouri... Nisbet is not from Missouri.
Or at least a parody of it, LOL. For example, the Austrian media declare every Nobel Prize winner of Austrian -- even Pre-World-War-I Austrian -- ancestry an Austrian, even if they did all their research in the USA or Canada, not to mention spent almost all of their life there. :-)