Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Newton said the Earth was not the center of the Universe?
You are not confusing him with Copernicus, by any chance?
I don't think that the whole evolution versus creationism business is as big a deal as you think. It's more a result of a minority of vocal activists attempting to hijack the system to fit their agenda. It gets a lot of media play because they make a lot of noise, but it's hardly a widespread attack on America's school systems.
Besides, the system does tend to be self correcting - a little bit of embarrassment goes a long way.
Precisely. Newton didn't care that the Catholic Church became angry when he said the earth is Not the center of the universe.
First, Newton lived in Protestant England. He didn't have to care about the Pope. Second, Newton did care a lot about the opinion of others, which is why his Alchemical and mystical writings were hidden for so long.
We get a Sagan once a generation, and to remain above the fray he had to go so far as refusing to denounce astrolog
Uhh, Sagan did denouce astrology. He devoted a part of his Cosmos series to it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515801214674828336&q=sagan+astrology&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
I have to agree with you there. It really doesn't matter all that much whether the public schools teach evolution or not...there are very few teachers in these schools who are remotely qualified to teach just about any subject. I would put more of the blame on the educational establishment—particularly the NEA (National Education Associaton) than on the parents. They've been brainwashed into believing that it's solely the State's prerogative to educate their kids.
That's why we home-schooled our youngest daughter. Yes, both my wife and I are Christians, so I guess we're unqualified "religious nuts" in your view. We did teach her Biology, including the standard scientific accounts of evolution. I communicated to her my opinion that faith in divine creation isn't at odds with science in this (or any) regard. After all, God could will evolution to take place, could he not? (I understand this is similar to the Catholic Church's official opinion on the subject.) In any case, it's probably too late for you to call the cops and have her taken away from us...she's almost 18 now, and Junior at the University of Texas (Dallas).
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Well, come to Northern Europe and you can see for yourself what it's like.
It's so easy to forget how incredibly secular we are here, and how incredibly religious the rest of the world are in comparison. However, all studies show that people are becoming more and more secular. Religiosity drops ~10% per generation, you in the US are just a few generations behind us in Europe, but you'll be at our position soon, and then you won't really have this problem anymore.
maybe you should check this : http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/22/floating-toxic-plast.html out. ...)
(TWICE the size of texas
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The chemical reactions that lead to the oceans releasing CO2 may (or may not) be endothermic; that has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Did you never have a science lab where you worked with compressed gases? If you open up a tank of compressed CO2, the tank gets colder, because heat is absorbed in the expansion of the gas. (Safety hint, kids: this is why you never huff nitrous directly from the tank, it'll freeze your lungs.) That has nothing to do with CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.
We put the brakes on ozone depletion before it got really bad; still, there is evidence that ozone loss has increased skin cancer in the most affected regions, and is having an impact on wildlife.
Thank you for so completely illustrating the problem. You seem to be so locked into your loathing of "voting Democrat" and your odd notion that "freedom" means that you get to pollute the planet and destroy resources that don't belong to you, that you've created a reality distortion field around yourself.
Before we can communicate science to people like you, we'd have to cure this pathogenic political condition. I'm not sure it can be done.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
because once someone is taught bafflegab, it requires so much more effort to educate them in real science.
Dear Sir,
As a bafflegabbist with twenty years of experience in the field, I feel I must take offense at your derision of bafflegabbery. I can assure you that it is a sound science, the rigor of which rivals that of phrenology, homeopathy, and sociology. Quite contrary to your implication, students of bafflegab are well prepared to embark on careers in "real science," including such diverse fields as dowsing, astral studies, and string theory. Many have been quite successful in the upper echelons of government.
Finally, your comments clearly indicate your ignorance of bafflegabbery, and of the debt you owe to the astonishing advances by those toiling daily to further our knowledge of the subject. Where do you think perpetual motion was developed? It certainly did not come from the creatures dwelling in the hollow Earth, although I will admit they helped a great deal with cold fusion. The technological advances due to bafflegabs the world over cannot be denied, and I think our disproof of special relativity speaks for itself.
I hope that you will reconsider your bigoted, vile position on baffelgab. It would be a shame if the Illuminati had to destroy you with their orbiting lasers.
Sincerely,
Dr. Magnus Sungam, PhD
University of The High Desert