We have a social trend in this country that is sloshing back in forth in the past few months. It is the question of whether you are allowed to criticize the movement you are part of (or at least share the same goals with).
As expected, a number of evolutionists expressed dismay and even hinted at disloyalty on my part for turning a critical eye towards fellow members of my group. Even such esteemed authorities as P.Z. Myers groused over why I felt the need to be critical of people who are just trying to do their job.
And then, in a similar manner, Carl Safina weighed in on my comments on this blog in our opening seafood debate, hinting I was somehow disloyal to environmentalism by criticizing ocean conservationists for their poor communication skills.
But now we can see a similar trend at the larger societal scale today as Cindy Sheehan gives up on her role as lead public figure for the anti-war movement in an essay titled Good Riddance Attention Whore on the Daily Kos. She sadly tells of how the Left embraced her wholeheartedly so long as she said the exact words they wanted to hear. But as soon as she began speaking critically of both ends of the spectrum, the Left turned on her with equal viciousness.
And now, guess what. Michael Moore has gone and made a film that the critics are basically saying is "not a Michael Moore film." His new movie Sicko is being heaped with praise (
I guess all I can say is that there is a psychology to the art of "persuasion." And part of it consists of creating a voice that is at least perceived as being relatively fair minded. And for people who are caught in the middle of an issue, still trying to make up their minds, it is THAT voice that they are likely to actually listen to. Not to the obviously one-sided rants that seem to glut the airwaves these days.
So congratulations to Michael Moore (he deserves great honors for the strength of his voice), condolences to Cindy Sheehan (she had good intentions), and for everyone out there searching or irregularities in people's agendas, know that there is a long term value in seeking a spirit of fairness, even if it doesn't sound 100% like the music you like to hear.
Cindy Sheehan, an American activist,
lost her son Casey Sheehan in the Iraq War.
- Log in to post comments
I have a hard time agreeing with anyone who viciously criticizes Cindy Sheehan for the fact I believe that it has taken a lot of strength and courage to do what she has done. She lost a lot and she went on to do something she believed in giving a great deal of focus to it, and I believe she did it with honour and class even if our politics are not the same.
The problem that Michael Moore offers is slightly different. Yes, he criticizes Democrats and Republicans but that does not mean that Sicko is fair and balanced and for that I look towards Cuba. In espousing the virtue of that system he does not show us the Cuban system, he shows us the Cuban system the Cuban government wants outsiders to see.
One of the things I think people are beginning to learn about mass communication is that it takes simplification which inevitably brings with it a lot of minor errors that have to be overlooked. All the major scientists that have evaluated the Al Gore movie have said there are lots of minor flaws in it, BUT on the whole, it is very solid.
I haven't seen Sicko yet, but its sounding like the same situation. Some Canadians are complaining that he painted an overly-rosy picture of their health system, but nobody is denying that in terms of the big picture, his message is accurate that its a lot better than the U.S. system (or lack of a system). Also, its sounding like there is widespread agreement that Cuba has a decent healthcare system -- not perfect, but again, better than what the U.S. has to offer.
This is the communication dynamic that scientists face. They can stick to their insistence on 100% accuracy, but if they do they will be obligated to attack important large scale communications efforts like the Al Gore movie. You can't have it both ways. And I think this is part of the point that Nisbet and Mooney were making which enraged so many people. There is a real world out there to be dealt with.
Randy:
It is actually the case that simplification (and it's loss of information) happens not only in communication but in doing science itself (as a scientist I'm sure you very aware of this ... I'm making an aside here to the audience).
Since good science requires simplification that is less costly or harmful than random, good science communication should be a mode scientists can shift to fairly easily. This is in stark contrast to some of the social sciences where simplification is impossible, because the main focus is on "unpacking" rather than finding central themes and general principles.
A modern search engine of the Megaupload web is available for everybody- if you want to download some music, films or software just get the link and download from http://megauploadfiles.com/ -everything is simple!
I think people differ greatly on this issue. For example, if it were completely unidentifiable as my own, I would have no problem with a picture of my naked ass being posted on the Internet. Others would be absolutely horrified by the prospect.
This is in stark contrast to some of the social sciences where simplification is impossible, because the main focus is on "unpacking" rather than finding central themes and general principles