communication
jstemwedel | April 23, 2009In this post, it's time to pull back from the specific kinds of dialogue blockers we've been examining (here, here, here, here, here, and here) to start to consider other ways we might get around them. Here, I want to start with some insightful remarks from a friend of mine, philosopher Vance Ricks:
When you describe "dialogue" in that post, it sounds as though you're mostly focusing on communication between A and B. One wrinkle in the animal research case (and many ethical cases generally) is that A and B aren't just (not) talking to each other; they're talking to each other AND to an…
jstemwedel | April 22, 2009So far in this series, we've talked about ways that attempts to have a dialogue about animal research can be frustrated by inability to agree on a shared set of facts as a staring point or by unclarity about the positions people are trying to put forward. Today's featured impediment to dialogue has less to do with the mechanics of laying out and engaging with a clear argument and more to do with reasons people might be fearful even to voice their positions:
Ignoring the impact of the tactics used to advance a position.
The philosopher Kant made a famous statement that he who wills an end…
jstemwedel | April 21, 2009Today we discuss an impediment to dialogue about animals in research that seems to have a special power to get people talking past each other rather than actually engaging with each other:
Imprecision about the positions being staked out.
Specifically, here, the issue is whether the people trying to have a dialogue are being precise in laying out the relevant philosophical positions about animals -- the position they hold, the position they're arguing against, the other positions that might be viable options.
Why is imprecision about your philosophical position a dialogue blocker? It tends…
jstemwedel | April 20, 2009As we continue our look at ways that attempted dialogues about the use of animals in research run off the rails, let's take up one more kind of substantial disagreement about the facts. Today's featured impediment:
Disagreement about whether animals used in research experience discomfort, distress, pain, or torture.
This disagreement at least points to a patch of common ground shared by the people disagreeing: that it would be a bad thing for animals to suffer. If one party to the discussion accepts the premise that animal suffering is of no consequence, that party won't waste time haggling…
jstemwedel | April 19, 2009As with yesterday's dialogue blocker (the question of whether animal research is necessary for scientific and medical advancement), today's impediment is another substantial disagreement about the facts. A productive dialogue requires some kind of common ground between its participants, including some shared premises about the current state of affairs. One feature of the current state of affairs is the set of laws and regulations that cover animal use -- but these laws and regulations are a regular source of disagreement:
Current animal welfare regulations are not restrictive enough/are too…
jstemwedel | April 18, 2009Today we continue our look at the reasons that attempts to have a dialogue about the use of animals in scientific research routinely run aground.
Dialogue, you'll remember, involves the participants in the dialogue offering not just their views but also something like their reasons for holding those views. In addition, in a real dialogue, participants engage seriously with each other's positions. Serious engagement doesn't necessitate that one of the positions on offer ends up persuading everyone in the dialogue, but everyone is supposed to be open to considering each view -- and open to…
jstemwedel | April 17, 2009In a post last month about an animal rights group targeting a researcher's car with an incendiary device, I closed by expressing my profound pessimism at the prospects of having a serious dialogue about animal rights:
As a philosophical position, the case for animal rights is not completely empty or indefensible. However, as it's being propagated "in the wild", as it were, the case for animal rights is being made with lies and intimidation. Among rational people, this is a bad way to make a case for your position. Thus, it seems to me, people arguing in good faith for the animal rights…
grrlscientist | April 16, 2009tags: bacteria, microbiology, TEDTalks, science, streaming video
This interesting video is a TEDTalk. TED -- for Technology, Entertainment, Design -- talks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. They are a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give "the talk of their lives" in 18 minutes. In this TEDTalk, Bonnie Bassler discovered that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning…
jstemwedel | April 15, 2009A bunch of people (including Bora) have pointed me to Clay Shirky's take on #amazonfail. While I'm not in agreement with Shirky's analysis that Twitter users mobilized an angry mob on the basis of a false theory (and now that mob is having a hard time backing down), there are some interesting ideas in his post that I think merit consideration. So, let's consider them.
Shirky starts by considering how sentiments were running on the Twittersphere Sunday evening, when Amazon still hadn't put out a statement about what was going on, and how those sentiments didn't ratchet down much by the time…
evolvingthoughts | April 7, 2009Well, it may be the case that science reporting is dying in English speaking publishing, but it looks like in Brazil, they are still able to do it. I was just interviewed online (good use of the technology) by a reporter from this site, Pesquisa FAPESP. If you do Portuguese, go check it out.
jstemwedel | March 31, 2009In a pair of earlier posts, I looked at the ethical principles Matthew C. Nisbet says should be guiding the framing of science and at examples Nisbet discusses of ethical and unethical framing. Here, consider some lessons we might learn from the framing wars. I'm hopeful that we can gain insight about the folks interested in communicating science, about the various people with whom they're trying to communicate, and perhaps even about the approaches that might be useful (or counterproductive) in trying to sell scientists on the utility of the framing strategy.
This post is not so much a…
jstemwedel | March 30, 2009In my last post, I looked at a set of ethical principles Matt Nisbet asserts should be guiding the framing of science. In this post, I consider the examples Matt provides as the "DO" and "DON'T" pictures for the application of these guiding ethical principles.
First, Matt examines an example of framing done well:
In January 2008, the National Academies issued a revised edition of Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a report intentionally framed in a manner that would more effectively engage audiences who remain uncertain about evolution and its place in the public school curriculum. To…
jstemwedel | March 30, 2009If it's spring, it must be time for another round of posts trying to get clear on the framing strategies advocated by Matthew C. Nisbet, and on why these communications seem to be so controversial among scientists and science bloggers.
My past attempts to figure out what's up with framing can be found here:
Movie screening expulsion: whose hearts and minds are up for grabs?
Trying to understand framing.
Trying to understand framing (II): draw me a picture.
Trying to understand framing (III): the example of stem cell research.
Minor epiphany about framing.
The present post has been prompted…
jstemwedel | March 23, 2009Some commenters on my last post seem to be of the view that it is perfectly fine for scientists to pull numbers out of thin air to bolster their claims, at least under some circumstances.
I think it's a fair question to ask: In which circumstances are you comfortable giving scientists the go-ahead to make up their numbers?
One suggestion was that scientists ought to be "permitted to use ordinary language meanings of words and colloquialisms in their non-peer reviewed discourse" -- or at least, to do so in discussions on blogs. I take it this assumes that "ordinary language meanings of words…
jstemwedel | March 18, 2009Over at Neurotopia, SciCurious has a fabulous post on the question of who is a scientist. Her discussion really teases out a lot of important nuances, and I think her analysis is spot on.
I'm going to add my two cents simply to connect Sci's discussion with an issue I've pondered before: the boundaries (or lack thereof) between who we are and what we do.
When someone says, "I'm a scientist," at least in common usage, there is some ambiguity about what precisely he or she is asserting:
I'm employed as a scientist (or am qualified to be and am seeking such employment).
I've studied science.…
jstemwedel | February 13, 2009One of my correspondents told me about a situation that raised some interesting questions about both proper attribution of authorship in scientific papers and ethical interactions between mentor and mentee in a scientific training relationship. With my correspondent's permission, I'm sharing the case with you.
A graduate student, in chatting with a colleague in another lab, happened upon an idea for an experimental side project to do with that colleague. While the side project fell well outside the research agenda of this graduate student's research group, he first asked his advisor whether…
jstemwedel | February 12, 2009(It's worth noting, however, that this may also be useful advice for interactions with others offline.)
I don't know what's in your heart. I don't know what's in your mind. I don't have direct access to either of those (because I'm a distinct person from you), and if I did, you'd probably feel violated.
The only sensible data I have on what's in your heart and your mind when I'm interacting with you online is how you present yourself -- and your regard for others -- through your words.
Here's the thing: words are an imperfect tool for communication. There are lots of them, which makes it…
jstemwedel | January 17, 2009Some quick thoughts in response to the session led by PropterDoc and Sciencewoman.
In some sense, this is really just an extension of the problem of managing your public persona as you go through transitions in life.
Maybe it's something even deeper than that. Maybe it's a piece of the project of deciding who you are and what kind of person to be.
How we present ourselves to other people leaves traces. Our interactions with others create components of the environments that other people live in and respond to. Our words have consequences, and so do the moments where we are silent.
Now, we…
jstemwedel | January 14, 2009Around these parts, folks sometimes get het up about issues like scientific literacy (or lack thereof) in the general public, public interest (or lack thereof) in matters scientific, and whether scientists have the chops to communicate information clearly to non-scientists.
It's worth remembering that a large group of non-scientists are kids, and that they are actively sucking information from wherever they can get it -- parents, teachers, television, internet, even books.
Ahh, books. We like books. Books can get kids interested and excited about a topic even in the absence of an adult…
jstemwedel | December 31, 2008
He defended the views he expressed in many of his radio programs and said that, because he consulted for so many drugmakers at once, he had no particular bias.
"These companies compete with each other and cancel each other out," he said.
The New York Times on psychiatrist and former radio host, Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, whose NPR program "The Infinite Mind" was cancelled after it was discovered that Goodwin failed to disclose more than $1 million in income received for giving marketing lectures for drugmakers.
Dr. Goodwin seems a little unclear on the concept of conflict of interest.
It…