Framing Science
cmooney | April 15, 2007
Once again, I can't keep up with all the latest reactions to Nisbet-Mooney. There are just too many of them (over 160 comments at PZ's blog alone; and even my own blog is pushing 40 right now). I'm in Australia prepping a series of talks, and that's the top priority at the moment.
However I'd like to make one major comment:
There's a somewhat disingenuous critique circulating out there, which is that we don't give any specifics, or even that we don't back up our argument with data. On the contrary, the Science article was amply referenced, and Matt and I have been continually elaborating on…
clock | April 14, 2007Brilliant! Brilliant! Why didn't I think of this?
A post on Anomalous Data connects the Framing Science debate to the recent Joshua Bell experiment (check some more good bloggy reactions to it).
If you are not familiar with the story (follow the links): Joshua Bell played violin in a subway station and almost nobody stopped to listen or to give him money.
Saw Lady explains exactly why - no framing!
In the experiment/stunt, Bell deliberately played at a wrong place (in the hall where everyone walks through, not at the platform where people wait for trains), at a wrong time (morning rush hour…
cmooney | April 14, 2007
It has begun--especially with this post from PZ. He is ticked at us for our Washington Post piece. Oddly, PZ goes through much of the article but not the specific response to him:
There will always be a small audience of science enthusiasts who have a deep interest in the "mechanisms and evidence" of evolution, just as there will always be an audience for criticism of religion. But these messages are unlikely to reach a wider public, and even if they do they will probably be ignored or, in the case of atheistic attacks on religion, backfire.
Nisbet has what I think is a really stellar inline…
cmooney | April 14, 2007Following the Science piece, there has been a great need for Nisbet and I to expand upon our arguments regarding "framing." Matt did so the other day on NPR, and now we have a joint piece in the latest Washington Post outlook section that goes further.
In the Post, we focus on one of the most obvious examples of badly framing the defense of evolution--tying it to criticism of religion. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent example in this regard, and we single him out accordingly. I want to emphasize that I grew up on Dawkins' books; they really helped me figure out who I am. But…
clock | April 14, 2007Matt Nisbet analyses George Will and Chris Mooney responds to some more recent discussions.
Matt talks about framing on NPR (listen here) and now they both have an article published in the Washington Post.
Also, check out some older articles by Matt and Chris, including this one on CSI and this one in CJR.
With this, I will stop adding new links to blogospheric discussion at the bottom of this post (my first - and uber-long one - on the topic) and will start with a clean slate. But you go and check them, as discussions in the comments are still going on at some of those linked blogs.…
cmooney | April 13, 2007
Matt Nisbet has just done a segment with NPR's "On the Media" about our "Framing Science" article in Science. At Matt's blog, he notes that this is just the first of many instances in which we'll be starting to elaborate on the arguments advanced in our (necessarily brief) Science piece.
In any event, I'm psyched not only that Matt did a great job on the air, but that it's possible to embed the program right here, YouTube-style:
Meanwhile, I just crossed the Pacific for the first time in my young life: I'm currently blogging from the Sydney airport as I wait for my plane to Melbourne, where…
clock | April 13, 2007Truth, All the Truth, and Nothing but the Truth.
You are all familiar with the phrase. It actually figures prominently (though unspoken until now) in this whole discussion about framing science.
Nobody - absolutely nobody - ever suggests that anything but The Truth should be used when communicating science or communicating about science.
The wisdom of framing is that 'All the Truth' can be omitted, as too much information puts off the target audience in some cases, and is thus counterproductive.
The self-styled Defenders Of The Truth insist that a) 'All The Truth' should never be omitted,…
cmooney | April 12, 2007
There have been a lot of oddities when it comes to the reception of our Science piece.
One is how many people can't even correctly spell Nisbet's name.
Another is the seemingly dismissive attitude towards much communication research. Perhaps the best comment on this phenomenon came from Chad Orzel:
...the people who are most adamant about Nisbet and Mooney being way off base are the people who are most outraged whenever somebody with an engineering degree dares to say something stupid about biology.
The irony here is that this framing business is exactly Nisbet's area of expertise.
Now,…
clock | April 11, 2007As you know, the last several days saw quite a flurry of blog posts about framing science. I posted my thoughts here and I keep updating my post with links to all the new posts as they show up (except the expected drivel by William Dembski, some minor creaitonists and Lubos Motl). Some of the other bloggers ignored my post, many linked to it without comment, and many linked to it with positive commentary - with two exceptions.
One was Larry Moran (who probably skimmed it quickly, found what he did not like in it with his own frame of mind at the time, and used it as a starting point to…
cmooney | April 11, 2007
I am pleased to say that Science has made our much-discussed article available by author referral. So for those who haven't read it yet, now you can.
Here's the trick: You've gotta go to Matt Nisbet's blog to do so. Then click the link on the left margin.
Meanwhile, of course there have been tons of new reactions. I'll recommend Simon Donner's in particular.
Finally, I've noticed several bloggers spelling Matt Nisbet's name wrong. Talk about lame...
clock | April 10, 2007As you may have noticed, there is a vigorous debate going on in the blogosphere about framing science (all the links to all the relevant posts can be found if you click on that link).
For the uninitiated, this may look as a big dust-up and bar-brawl, but that is how blogosphere works, ya know, thesis + anthithesis and all. Dialectics, that's the word I was looking for! Does not mean that Larry Moran and I will refuse to have a beer with each other when he comes to Chapel Hill next time!
The sheer quantity of responses, the passion, and the high quality of most posts, thoughtful and…
cmooney | April 9, 2007
I gotta confess--I can't keep up any more with all the reactions on the "framing science" front. The latest is from Gavin Schmidt, who has a really thoughtful item on how this plays out in real time for a scientist who has to go before the media.
Perhaps my all time fav post so far is from Orac, and if you read it I think you'll see why.
Meanwhile, Nisbet has a round-up post, as does Coturnix. They may have missed the most recent stuff, though, so also check out Cognitive Daily and Uncertain Principles.
I'm in Utah today giving a talk, so I may not be able to follow the debate in as much…
cmooney | April 8, 2007PZ Myers says he likes the concept framing "less and less." He wants to know why we're beating up on scientists, when there's so much wrong with the media and the public in terms of how they approach and use scientific information.
I just posted a long reply to his blog, and will reproduce it below the jump:
Hi PZ,
Just for the record, I think I've done as much as anyone to criticize bad reporting on science, going back several years:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp
So has my colleague Nisbet; here we are defending evolution in the face of bad reporting:
http://www.cjr.…
cmooney | April 7, 2007
Our piece in Science has prompted many responses; my colleague Matt Nisbet has a pretty comprehensive rundown of what we'd heard as of yesterday, with some inline replies. Of course, a lot more has cropped up since then, including from Bora, James Hrynyshyn, and Mike the Mad Biologist, among others.
Bora and Mike are in general agreement with us, so I direct you there for great discussions that amplify what's already been said. As for those who are in disagreement, after the jump I'll elaborate on a few responses by Matt, and add a few points of my own, by replying to Carl Zimmer, PZ Myers,…
clock | April 6, 2007My SciBlings Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet just published an article in 'Science' (which, considering its topic is, ironically, behind the subscription wall, but you can check the short press release) about "Framing Science"
Carl Zimmer, PZ Myers, Mike Dunford (also check the comments here), John Fleck, Larry Moran, Dietram Scheufele, Kristina Chew, Randy Olson, James Hrynyshyn, Paul Sunstone and Alan Boyle have, so far, responded and their responses (and the comment threads) are worth your time to read. Chris and Matt respond to some of them. Matt has more in-depth explanations here, here and…
cmooney | April 6, 2007Today I asked Randy Olson, the documentarian behind the wonderful Flock of Dodos, what he thought of the recent article by Matt Nisbet and myself in Science. I did this because along with my conversations with Matt, watching Olson's Flock of Dodos was one of the catalytic events that got me obsessed with the science communication problem. I'm now posting in full Randy's reaction to our piece:
Nisbet and Mooney are taking on the odious job of being the messengers of the new era for the world of science with their excellent essay in Science this week. I'm afraid they will be greeted with…
cmooney | April 6, 2007
The responses are rolling in to our Science piece. At least as I write this, particularly thoughtful and in-depth ones have come from PZ Myers, Carl Zimmer, Alan Boyle, and Mike Dunford, among others. There have also been some more dismissive responses, which appear to miss our distinction between "spin" (which is indeed misleading) and "framing" (which is unavoidable in any form of communication), or which assert without proof that more traditional forms of science communication (the so-called "popular science" model) have been effective, even though traditional science media do not reach…
cmooney | April 5, 2007
As a journalist who reports frequently on science, I never expected to be publishing in the literature. But tomorrow I will actually have a paper in the Policy Forum section of the latest issue of Science (April 6). To be sure, this wouldn't have come about if I hadn't had a co-author who's a real (social) scientist--our fellow Scienceblogger Matthew Nisbet, author of "Framing Science." And indeed, that's what the article is about: Nisbet and I are advising scientists to start to actively "frame" their knowledge, especially on hot-button issues like evolution, global warming, embryonic stem…
cmooney | March 9, 2007I was deeply heartened that my post on the IPCC communication failure from a while back prompted valuable commentary on this blog. One comment in particular was so useful and constructive that I'm reproducing it in its entirety here as a way of prompting further discussion.
I had written that when it comes to communicating the urgency of addressing climate change, "We all have a great deal more to do...and the clock is ticking." This prompted a lengthy comment from "hmd," who enumerated, in detail, the various snags and roadblocks that prevent the scientific community (broadly conceived) from…
cmooney | March 6, 2007Perhaps only scientists could be such a bunch of media naifs that they would release a pivotally important report--one so significant that it only comes out once every five years--on a Friday.
But that and other failings, combined with well-known pathologies of the media itself, collectively helped to ensure that the latest policymakers' summary from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF) made only a minor blip on the public's radar screen. Matthew Nisbet now has the definitive take on how and why this massive communication breakdown occurred--a breakdown that is all the more…