Presently there are few words as divisive among science bloggers as "framing," and at this point it appears that the concept of framing itself has been "mis-framed." The concept has always been a bit nebulous to me, but I'm definitely concerned by the recent formulation of framing being proposed by Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet. Over the past two weeks a series of posts and articles have been generated by the pair advocating that scientists (and other figures in the public associated with science) stop picking at creationism, global climate change denialism, etc. Now hot off the heels of the latest blog controversy involving PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, Nisbet has recommended that Al Gore disengage himself from any kind of partisan politics in order to gain more acceptance from conservatives. This sounds a bit more like "muzzling" than "framing" to me...
Gore, of course, is best known for the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a film that gained global climate change more publicity but did polarize some people. (Also, it's influence is waning as I doubt that anyone is regularly watching or discussing the film outside of what impact it did or didn't have. Something else has to come along and re-energize the discourse on global climate change.) This is partly because of Gore's political career, but more directly that the film expressed Gore's frustration that he won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election but did not become president. Although these segments were short, they were a bit out of place, perhaps irking viewers that were already unsympathetic. Still, Al Gore is probably the most identifiable person actively involved in trying to educate the public about global climate change.
Despite Gore's involvement in a "non-partisan" issue, though, republicans have failed to get involved. I specifically put "non-partisan" in quotes because even though global climate change is a reality that affects everyone on the planet, it appears to me that many people that deny that it's occurring view it as a concern of liberals, not being able to lose its political baggage. There are some republicans who do agree that global climate change has been caused by humans, and at least a few evangelical religious groups concerned with ecological stewardship; if conservatives are to be reached it's probably going to require at least some effort from people in their own camp.
Putting this in context of the framing controversy, I think that most science bloggers are appalled by the suggestion that we should all try to become as "moderate" as possible, and if we can't then we should simply keep quiet. Is there any guarantee that non-controversial figures are going to do anything except be non-threatening? If anything, I think a diversity of voices are required and Gore's involvement in raising awareness of global climate change should not constrain him to talking about only that topic in a way that doesn't upset anyone. In fact, Gore just recently spoke in favor of allowing same-sex marriages, an issue that is even more likely to make conservatives frustrated with him. Is he not allowed to have an opinion for fear of hurting "the cause"?
The fact of the matter is that other people, especially on the conservative side of the spectrum, need to become involved in this issue. I don't see Gore ever being able to shed his political associations (nor should he), and I'm puzzled as to why the focus of Mooney and Nisbet has been on telling people what not to say in a rather condescending fashion. Again, as was said by MarkCC, they have failed to properly frame their own argument to scientists, and at least point it seems that everyone is simply talking past each other. The most recent approach has been nearly universally panned by science bloggers, but it seems that their brand of science communication is moving in a new direction with little heed to the criticism.
- Log in to post comments
The simple truth is that people are giving way too much benefit-of-the-doubt to Mooney and Nisbet, and are over-politely hesitating to see them as they are. Mooney and Nisbet want PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins to shut up because Mooney and Nisbet are anti-science creationists seeking to disingenuously muddy the waters. They are like the crackpots with PhDs that creationists trumpet as "scientists who reject evolution". This is what their purpose and tactic in "framing" is -- they are looking for a way to undermine scientific discourse and advance their right-wing agenda without having to engage in any sort of actual substantive argument, because they know they'd lose pathetically if they did. They are hypocrites and liars of the first order and they get too much credit and too much respect around these parts. They should be taken for what they are and confronted accordingly; every time they try to peddle their mendacious and duplicitous agenda they should be taken to task by the honest people of science who make this site. Neither one of them has any business maintaining a "science" blog, they should be turfed out of here and left to find a home on WorldNutDaily or somewhere else where their sort congregates.
Ben is completely off-base here.
Also, I think that this "framing" debate is out of hand. Is there not a place for both types of strategies in progressing reasonable policies and worldviews. Dawkins and PZ have done a great service to promoting intelligent and reasonable dissections of the pitfalls of superstition and unscientific, illogical positions. On the other hand, Nisbet and Mooney recognize that another front must be fought, because some tactics just wont work on everybody. "Framing" is a calculated tactic at promoting reason and science, that works better at getting some points across to certain types of audiences.
There shouldn't be a New Atheism vs. "Framing" debate or anything else that Brian mentioned. There is room for both tactics to promote the same ends -- dialogue that is based in reason and logic rather than tradition, superstition, and authority.
Hey Ben-
seeing as this is a Science Blog:
Prove it.
"This is what their purpose and tactic in "framing" is -- they are looking for a way to undermine scientific discourse and advance their right-wing agenda without having to engage in any sort of actual substantive argument"
Prove 1, they are trying to undermine scientific discourse; 2, they have a right-wing agenda.
I agree with those who think our best tactic in dealing with creationists is to use facts to ridicule them; I don't think you're helping.
Mooney and Nisbet aren't right-wing operatives at all ... they are more akin to the Clintons. Constantly triangulating, spinning, doing damage-control, and "massaging" the message so it fits within the context of yesterday's focus group research. The problem is I really don't have a good idea, from them, of what their message is. Is their message pro-science, or is it to further the debate about how to talk about science?
I didn't jump into this whole framing thing last year when it blew up because I was too busy. I understand now when I read posts by those who were involved then and what a cluster#$ck it has become.
Nisbet's latest on what he thinks Gore should or should not do is so perplexing and obtuse that I couldn't even finish it.
If these guys want to speak for scientists, they better start reaching out to those they claim (wish) to speak for ... scientists. This one is not convinced.
I can't look into the minds of Mooney and Nisbet (thankfully), but I can judge them by their actions and words. And, consistently, what they do is snipe and cavil against people who are engaged in actual science and offer succor to those who loathe and fear it. There is no doubt, for example, that Richard Dawkins is one of the most eminent and brilliant evolutionary biologists working today. Regardless of how you feel about his polemicism, he is a scientist whose views on this subject are indispensible and who has an enormous amount to contribute to any understanding of it.
So what does Nisbet say? He says: shut up, Dawkins. Your views on evolutionary biology are not welcome. He does not say "Dawkins is wrong because of X" or "I disagree with Dawkins because of Y". He says Dawkins should shut up and that his views should be hidden or dismissed, obstensibly for fear of offending or frightening some imaginary member of the public who could be brought around to accepting aspects of scientific truth if it is stealthily presented to him in a certain way and has certain parts that Nisbet imagines to be disagreeable sanitised or disguised.
How can that be construed as anything other than antipathetic to science and a scientific understanding? It is as demeaning to scientists to suggest that their work can and should be cherry-picked and edited as it is insulting to the public to say that they need protection from unpalatable truths.
Now, it's possible that Nisbet *isn't* a right-wing idealogue and it's possible that he *isn't* ill-disposed towards science. But to my mind he acts and speaks like he is.
Y'all are just jealous because Matt and Chris have great hair.
Of course there is. The problem is that Nisbet doesn't seem to agree with that ("Dawkins and PZ need to lay low [...] Let others play the role of communicator [...] Dawkins and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and individuals [...] Lay low and let others do the talking [...] it's time to let other people be the messengers for science"). I'd be happy to "let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend", because I think that is the strongest (and most realistic) way to proceed. I'm suspicious that there's no "there" there in Nisbet's formulation of framing, but hey, more power to him if he's successful. But he has told those who don't agree with his approach to shut up, and that has pissed people off (you'd think a communications expert might have anticipated that...).
I still don't understand exactly what framing is supposed to be any more than I did at the science blogging conference. At this point, I am reluctant to use the word "framing" at all unless I am talking about photographs.
I still don't understand exactly what framing is supposed to be any more than I did at the science blogging conference.
Mark Chu-Carroll's explanation is pretty simple and good (the first link in the post). He uses "style" to describe it; I tend to use "connotation" or "baggage". The point is; it's inherent in communication; it's something that happens whether you try to use it or not. You can use it dishonestly (as we see conservatives and creationists/IDers typically do) or you can do it honestly. Another short, easy to see explanation is on George Lakoff's site; he's the guy who brought it to most people's attention.
And BTW, I don't find the idea of "so and so should shut up" being any part of framing really. It's just a call for them to shut up; and the call in this case by Nisbet and Mooney is really stupid. I mean it's like the two O's version of stupid. They should think less about framing, which I agree they do horribly, and more about Overton Windows.
It seems that the "framers" want individuals to have only one "cause". So if you are for science you can't also be for atheism or if you are for reducing greenhouse emissions you can't be for gay marriage. People are not that simplistic - organizations maybe - but not individuals. Suggesting that we should compartmentalize our lives even more seems counterproductive.