How To Communicate Science to a Polarized US Audience

Prescott writes "Given the divisions in the US around subjects like evolution and climate change, scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public. Speakers at the recent AAAS meeting talked about how scientific information is delivered to and understood by a public that interprets it via personal beliefs, religious and otherwise. 'The talks were organized by Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communications who is a proponent of the framing of science, in which communications techniques borrowed from the political realm are applied to promote scientific understanding. As such, a number of speakers advocated specific frames for publicly controversial scientific issues. Unfortunately, the use of those frames appears likely to generate controversy within the scientific community, and several speakers noted that science faces challenges that go well beyond communicating knowledge to the public. There were some hints of a way forward that might work for both the scientific community and the public, but the challenges appear significant.'"

Comments

How?

[geek42]

Use small words.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Meoward]

Agreed. Don't say "you're as dense as a Pomeranian" when "as a dog" will do.

My little how-to

[sokoban]

When communicating with a highly polarized audience, I harken back to my days studying freshman chemistry and the old saying that "like dissolves like".

Therefore, communicating with a highly polar audience requires a highly polar solvent. I find that ethanol works wonders in that regard.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[MightyMartian]

Precisely. Newton didn't care that the Catholic Church became angry when he said the earth is Not the center of the universe.

He just spoke the truth and passed on the knowledge to anyone who would listen.

Perhaps we should have some forum on transmitting accurate historical information to a deeply confused audience.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a somewhat non-conformist Anglican, living in the Enlightenment era, he likely wouldn't have given a flying one *what* the Catholic Church thought.

However, he possibly *did* care that somebody didn't even do the fundamental research to be able to distinguish between himself and Galileo.

Maybe not the best example

[Guppy]

Don't say "you're as dense as a Pomeranian" when "as a dog" will do. In all fairness, I'd like to point out the overall density of Pomeranians is pretty low, as they are mostly comprised of Foof, with only a small core of actual Dog.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[hal2814]

Did Netwon give up when the Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?! Hell no! And it ain't over now because when the going gets tough.... ...uh... ...the tough get going! Who's with me? What the fuck happened to the scientists I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to talk science to a polarized US audience, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[rlp]

Newton didn't care that the Catholic Church became angry when he said the earth is Not the center of the universe.

No, Newton said that Leibniz was not the center of the universe.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Dareth]

What kind of idiot would drink something that was harmful them just because it was sweet and tasted good?!?
*POP* Damn this Coca Cola is good, gotta get my fix of this...
Okay, back to my rant... I mean really, that has to be the definition of stupid!

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Kelz]

But its so much EASIER to just call them stupid.