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

Science of Political Agenda?

[Simple-Simmian]

Science needs to talk about science and not political agendas.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Superstition is alive and well in the modern world. People across the globe pray to ghosts and spirits on a daily basis.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[ChromeAeonium]

Newton != Galileo. I know they looked a lot alike, but trust me, they were different people.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[UncHellMatt]

Well, the information may in fact be pervasive, however getting someone to look at it, accept it or even be willing to discuss it is another matter altogether.

Case in point, I met someone who was a die hard "believer" who was attempting to get me to "believe". Yes, he actually believed (or so he claimed) that the world was created by a god about 6000 years ago. He said that the tools used today to carbon date objects were "flawed" and that "scientists simply made machines that looked like they did something [he didn't get it when I asked if they go "PING!"... go figure], but all they did was churn out answers the scientists want", and that mankind couldn't measure the speed of light (after I'd pointed out that we could easily find objects in the sky well over 6k light years away, and if they were in fact several million/billion light years away, how could the light be reaching us if the universe were only 6k years old?). I explained that he himself could measure the speed of light with rather simply tools, and suggested he look into the methods used by folks like Armand Fizeau. Needless to say, the guy just said "No, I don't need to. It's all in the Bible."

What I'm getting at is that you can't communicate to some people, regardless of how good your data is, your evidence, or your argument. If a person flat out refuses to hear counter to their belief because of "faith", there is nothing you can do. Faith is, after all, accepting something as fact which observation and evidence prove to be false.

"If a person walks on water, they'll sink."

"No, the Bible said Christ did."

"OK, if a person can, and you've got faith, the Charles is right over there. Knock yourself out."

"I'm not Christ!"

"No shit. You're no Einstein, either."

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Kandenshi]

If I had mod points I might be tempted to mod you funny =\

Science has a stranglehold on the modern mind?
And yet, horoscopes/astrology/tarot cards are all read by uncounted millions every day, and a not insignificant number of those people believe them. Not just reading them for a laugh, but because the fact that they're a Scorpio means that they'll have certain events happen to them, and should react in a certain way. People believe in spirits, and luck(most especially when gambling, but other times as well)

I think that people nowadays have a greater appreciation for science than they did 4000 years ago... But it's ignored for many many things.

And the pattern of thinking nowadays is permanent? Rather arrogant don't you think? We're just one decade out of how many? Why should our way of thinking about the universe be expected to last any longer than others? Our ancestors probably thought that their's would be eternal too. I think that the scientific method is the best way to arrive at progressively closer approximations of Truth... but who are you to say it'll endure, unchanging, as the dominant method of thinking forever?

Still, as I said I hope the scientific method will stay.
* Kandenshi knocks on wood for luck!

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Russ Nelson]

How can science avoid talking about political agendas when most research funding comes from the political arena? That would kinda point to the solution to THAT problem, now wouldn't it? Separation of science and state would seem to be a requirement. It's worked great for religion, speech, the press, assembly, &etc.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Metasquares]

Skepticism based on lack of evidence or falsifiability (or any of the idea's own merits) is a different beast from skepticism based on personal convictions. The problem most people seem to have with string theory is that it is not falsifiable - no one has any religious or political stake in the question of whether the universe is made of tiny vibrating strings. Evolution is different because many people believe it incompatible with creationism, although some argue on the basis of the idea itself.

I have no problem with either form of personal skepticism (though I find it slightly foolish to believe things that run contrary to a great deal of evidence or to reject ideas that show evidence of validity) - believe what you wish. The problem is that many of our scientific policies are being dictated by people who have no knowledge of the underlying issues (and have no wish to use that knowledge to make sound decisions), which could lead us down a road to the era you spoke of - particularly if combined with the anti-intellectualism that seems to pop up every couple of decades or so in the public.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[kellyb9]

It's always important when communicating to recognize and understand your audience regardless of how stupid it might seem.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Metasquares]

Trying to ascribe meaning to things seems more in the realm of philosophy than science, though. Science tends to answer the "how" more than the "why".

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[amRadioHed]

Correction, accepting something as fact despite a lack of evidence is faith. Accepting something as fact despite evidence to the contrary is foolishness.

Too many Christians can't get that right but one of those traits the Bible commends while the other is harshly criticized.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[MightyMartian]

I think it's important to note that superstitions, folklore and myth have evolved along with science. Pseudo-science, whether its Creationist, magnetic therapies, copper bracelets or feng-shui, all invoke a common marketing trick, using scientific or at least "sciencey" sounding language. People are impressed by words like "ionic", "probiotic", "irreducibly complex", "energy field", "regenerative" and so forth, so I'd say the problem here is that a lot of very skillful marketers in crap science have done an excellent job of confusing the issue. It's a lot harder to "unteach" someone bullshit than it is teach them properly to begin with. That's why attempts by various levels of government to undermine science education for their own religiously and politically motivated ends is so disturbing, because once someone is taught bafflegab, it requires so much more effort to educate them in real science.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[MightyMartian]

The modern scientific mindset is very fatalistic and nihilistic, and that is a real problem that needs to be dealt with if we are all going to come together and have frank and sane discussions about how we run our lives.

How is it fatalistic or nihilistic. Science is a tool, a means of understanding the universe.

I'll tell you what's fatalistic; the theology of your average Evangelical Christian. As to nihilism, science is distinctly anti-nihilistic. Those who invoke nihilistic arguments tend to be those fighting against science. The most common refrain of any given Creationist is "you weren't there back then so how could you know?", which is pure epistemological nihilism.

Scientists may get fatalistic when, for instance, they see industrial plants pumping toxic goos into fish-bearing streams, but that's a consequence of understanding that pumping poisons into our environment has very real consequences not only for the poor old fish, but for us humans as well. Of course, the scientist will usually have an answer too, which involves finding other technologies and stopping pumping toxic goo.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Joe the Lesser]

Superstition is alive and well in the modern world. People across the globe pray on a daily basis.

Fixed that for you. /ducks

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[flaming error]

I just modded up a whole bunch of comments and now I'm going to lose them all. Sorry folks.

I generally think this post is spot on. Humanity has been religious since prehistory, and that suggests there is some kind of evolutionary benefit to it. Presumably it offers some practical advice on living one's life.

But I disagree here:
  > there is just as much need for the scientific community to acknowledge that
  > there are things that science cannot answer as there is for the religious community
  > to stop interpreting things in such a literal and close-minded fashion.

Religion and Science clash when they try to do each others' jobs. If there's a question to which current science doesn't have an answer, and we let religion answer it for us, then once science does figure out the answer, the religious will of course reject it.

Science should be wide open to all curiosity, humble enough to know its limitations, and bold enough to say what it knows. Religion should provide pathways for philosophy, service, and self-improvement. Using religion to fill in science's blanks just sets us up for these social disasters we've seen time after time.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[polar red]

well, sir, if YOU say the AAAS and the NAS are wrong on Global warming, I believe you, because well ... who would EVER believe a large organization of professional scientists above some dude/girl on /.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[ShieldW0lf]

How is it fatalistic or nihilistic. Science is a tool, a means of understanding the universe.

It is nihilistic because it has an inherent skepticism about all ideas. If an idea cannot be deconstructed and reproduced within the scientific method, it is considered without value. But the value of an idea doesn't spring from its inherent truth, but from the utility to which the idea can be put to use when you embrace it. If embracing a bunch of nonsense as gospel makes you survive, reproduce and thrive where others who reject it as nonsense do not, then the nonsense has more value than "the truth". A zealot derives a great deal of power and utility from his embrace of nonsense. So do salespeople, police officers and soldiers. This is where the crux of the divide lies, and where concepts of science and faith can be brought together and measured against each other.

There is something lacking in the world, that we do not have a framework by which we can acknowledge and weigh these conflicting aspects of the human experience against each other and make judgments as to their value and pick up and discard such ideas as tools instead of making them part of our identities and attacking anyone who devalues "who we are".

Sorry if that came out rather muddled, but it's hard to even find the words to talk about these concepts...

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Dr. Manhattan]

If an idea cannot be deconstructed and reproduced within the scientific method, it is considered without value.

Um, no, it's considered not scientific. Big difference. You're confusing science with what is sometimes called 'scientism' (of which there are far fewer practitioners in reality than in the minds of those who use that term).

That book I recommended? "Evolution For Everyone" by David Sloan Wilson? It covers your point about utility, but he uses the terms "practical realism" (useful in the real world) and "factual realism" (actually true) to describe them. However, as he states, "It's not clear that we must sacrifice factual realism for practical realism." And, as we learn from studying evolution, what's adaptive (useful) in one context can become a major problem in other contexts. We're in a vastly different context from our stone age ancestors, for example.

I like how David Gerrold put it in one of his novels: "We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful."

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Red Flayer]

I'll bite.

Like how "CO2 causes man-made climate change", when, in fact, CO2, when the ocean...ya know...that 3/4 of the Earth's surface, spews CO2, it cools, not heats the surface air. It's an 'inconvenient truth', but is core to the problems with this, the world's biggest hoax.

Colling the atmosphere by venting of CO2 from ocean water is immaterial, since it does not change the net energy of the system (earth + atmosphere). In the long run, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would result in more energy, and hence higher temperatures, in the atmosphere. And even if it did matter, then it would still be idiotic to wantonly release CO2 in to the atmosphere, since that would shift the equilibrium of CO2... and more CO2 would remain dissolved in the ocean... hence less cooling effect.

But those lucky enough to survive that barrage had to also clear the acid rain, who, media types were convinced, would prevent children from playing outside, as early as 1980.

Maybe you are unaware that the reason acid rain is less of a problem now is precisely because of legislation enacted to prevent it? I visited lakes in the 80s in Wisconsin that could not support much life because of acidity from acid rain. We're damn lucky that it became a big enough issue that we took action.

And let's not forget that large, invisible barrier with a hole in it, by which sending money to Washington and voting Democratic was the only way to survive. The nearly world-class hoax of the ozone hole. Such a non-event.

Funny, it was a Republican administration that oversaw banning of CFCs. And also, a non-event because action was taken.

I think you're either trolling, or willfully ignorant. Any of the examples you mentioned would have become a real problem if action had not been taken. Your argument is not supported by your evidence -- it's refuted by your evidence. Never mind the 'vote Democratic' claptrap you've inserted that doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with your points.

For someone of a scientific bent, you're sorely lacking in logical thought.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[martyros]

In fact, the faith the Bible extols is never accepting something as fact despite a lack of evidence. Nor is it refusing to reason. No one is condemned in the Bible for not believing what they don't know. They're condemned for not believing what they do or could know, or in abandoning the knowledge that they have.

Have you ever seriously asked why people are willing to believe in Christianity over Evolution? The main reason, as far as I can tell is that belief in evolution has no perceived impact on their lives. Christianity gives them hope, comfort, healing, strength, a way to understand the world, a way to improve themselves and their life. They have direct, first-hand experience of this help to them. Evolution gives them none of that; worse, it tells them that there's no real hope at all: they're just animals, doing what animals do; there's no hope for anything other than this life, and no hope even for humanity in the long run. Given the choice between some insulting theoretical interpretation of the past which they've never had any personal experience with, and a life-giving present help and future hope they have had experience with, is it any wonder that they chose Christianity over evolution?

There are lots of intelligent Christians who don't believe that it's necessary to cho0se -- who believe that God created the world and that the Bible is God's word, but still believe in evolution as the basic way most species became the way they are. Those who do believe in evolution believe it because they themselves have some experience in it -- they've at least talked to scientists and studied geology, history, biology, and so on.

Until people attempting to persuade people about evolution realize where people who believe in Christianity are coming from, there's not much real hope of doing it. People like Dawkins seem to think that people believe in Christianity only because they don't know any better, and that if they just showed them evidence or asserted their authority as scientists, people should just accept what they say. But many people's faith in Christianity actually rests on a solid foundation of experience, evidence and reason (not at all "believing in somthing despite lack of evidence"), compared with which all the clever arguments about bones and canyons and radioactive stuff is just an illusion.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[dbrutus]

Almost universally, young earth creationists are not only obtuse about science but also about theology. The large majority of the two billion worldwide christians are apostolic, either Catholic (1.1B) or Orthodox (0.25B) neither of which particularly is science hostile. There are an awful lot of tiny splinter groups that people get worked up about though.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Rycross]

There certainly are people who you'll never be able to convince, ever. Those aren't the people you should care about. They've already closed off their minds. There are, however, a lot more people who are moderate with their beliefs, and will listen, if you present the evidence and arguments in a way that doesn't seem to belittle them.

Its far too common for people to go "You believe God created the earth? Well you're a drooling moron and here's why." If that person was a moderate, you just blew your chance. If that person was a fundamentalist, then he wouldn't have believed you anyway, but you still end up looking like an ass to the other moderates. And when you look like an ass to your audience, the other guy has a much much lower bar to reach for his message to get out.

I would say that a lot of the problems we have with fundamentalism and young earth creationism in America are simply because there are a lot of people out there who are belittling the other side. When that happens, all the YEC people have to say is, "Hey we just want our side heard too," and they already appear, to the common man, far more reasonable than people who have evidence, but are being dicks about it.

I think that things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster do far more to damage efforts than help it. And I think that the message would be far more effective if people said "We won't teach ID because it doesn't meet these standards of science," instead of what usually is said "We won't teach ID because you're just trying to push your religion." Both are accurate, but one comes off as accusatory, while the other one comes off as balanced.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[martyros]

FAITH - "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

I assume this is a definition that you got from some dictionary or other, though you don't cite it. If it was a good dictionary it probably listed other definitions; google "define:faith" and you'll see a few. But it is convenient to quote an unnamed dictionary as an authority to win your argument, instead of, oh, asking what I did mean by faith, and how I can say that the Bible doesn't espouse your definition.

Hmmmmm amazing you got modded up when you didn't touch on his comment. Instead you just said Christianity relies on reasoning.

I probably got modded up because:

• my post had something to do with the original article -- communicating evolution to conservative religious people, and
• it's something a lot of slashdotters don't think about: why exactly is it that people are so willing to put Christianity above Evolution? (That may be why it's more "interesting" than "insightful").

The quick-and-easy answers are too simplistic. I'm not a psychologist, but from what I've observed, nobody can sustain any activity without psychological reward; the more demanding the activity, the more powerful the reward needs to be. To attempt to do so only causes burnout and risks ending in a complete lack of interest. People must find great reward from Christianity to spend so much time and effort living according to its principles. It should be no surprise that when someone says to such a person, "Evolution means all that religious stuff is pointless", they say, "Well, this religious stuff seems pretty point-full to me; it must be Evolution that has the problem."

As for GGP, he merely stated something as a premise without attempting to justify it. I contradicted his premise. Seems about equal to me. If you want to know about Christianity, faith, evidence, and reasoning, I'm happy to discuss it.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[JavaRob]

In fact, the faith the Bible extols is never accepting something as fact despite a lack of evidence. Nor is it refusing to reason. No one is condemned in the Bible for not believing what they don't know. They're condemned for not believing what they do or could know, or in abandoning the knowledge that they have.

Er.. not so much.. but even when it does, that's all in the biblical context, in which God, Jesus, miracles, etc. are all fact. Sure, a few people can "reason" and "doubt" in the stories, as long as they soon realize those "facts" before long. But most stories focus on skipping over that "reasoning" step.

Didn't Jesus basically walk around healing only the people who *believed* he could heal them? "Thy faith hath made thee whole" and so on? Why would they have had any reason to believe some guy passing through town could work magic? They didn't. The lesson is, trust him blindly. That message -- have absolute, unquestioning faith, and you'll be able to do or get the impossible -- is pervasive. Why should the apostles have any reason to believe Jesus would survive in the story when he steps out of the boat in a storm? Any rational person would have said Jesus, WTF? But in the story, he tears into them for doubting him. That's the whole point. It's a consistent theme.

Yes, there are quotes that seem to argue for rational analysis, like "the truth shall set you free", but again, look at it in context; Jesus is *giving* them the "truth". They're supposed to take it directly from him without question, not test it. I'm sure there are places in the bible that pretend to push rational thought -- but the moral of those stories is that smarter people than you have questioned this, and found it true... saving you precious time and risky reasoning!

...belief in evolution has no perceived impact on their lives. Christianity gives them hope, comfort, healing, strength, a way to understand the world, a way to improve themselves and their life. They have direct, first-hand experience of this help to them.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

There is a concept underlying all of science that truth and understanding are valuable -- that in the long run, we will be better off knowing *more* as opposed to knowing *less*. That truth -- or as close as we can get to it -- is a good thing. You're saying that religious people rationally believe, "no, in this case I'm better off not knowing the truth"? I doubt you'll get many people agreeing with that one. They believe it IS the truth (...and that doubting it or probing too deeply is damaging their relationship with God).

Personally, I'm not constantly wading through existential despair. I do get awestruck now and again, though I wouldn't say it's a negative experience. I've had a lot of good fortune in my life, but some bad things have happened; it doesn't "test my faith", though, or make me worry that I'm not praying enough, or that my faith wasn't strong enough. I know that shit happens, I figure out as much as I can about the reasons for what happened, sort out my new situation, and I go from there. It's remarkably empowering, actually. I don't obsess over the problem, praying and hoping for a sign from God about what's the right thing to do. If I have to make a decision, I can spend that same time actually thinking about it (or clearing my head to let it "stew"), getting more information, or just reconciling myself to the idea that I've got to flip a coin, hope for the best, and move on.

I think perhaps it would help religious people to read more about to lead a fulfilling life without faith, and without just jumping into the hamster wheel of consumption (which I think many of them think is the only alternative). They need to understand that morality doesn't just go away or become "relative" without God, for instance. But.. they have to actively seek this out. If your head stays under the covers, you're safe from the boogie monster, but you

Better science fiction?

[CRCulver]

If we could have more realistic science fiction television and films (what happened to that planned movie of KSR's Red Mars ), then people might learn science principles through osmosis. Too bad now it's all sounds in space and warp speeds. People get a large part of their exposure to science the future of technology through what is essentially fantasy.

Re:Better science fiction?

[Alsee]

Well thank god we have an entire TV channel dedicated to Sci-Fi.
Sci-Fi Channel programming lineup:
Crossing Over with John Edwards
Celebrity Paranormal Project
Proof Positive: Evidence of the Paranormal
Ghost Hunters
Sightings
Destination Truth

Oh, and Wrestling.

Oh, and Mansquito.

-

Who exactly proposed this?

[arth1]

Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views? As far as I can tell, this would only benefit the religious as a marker for what they don't have to believe in or allow taught.

Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Who exactly proposed this?

[iluvcapra]

Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?

Most of the present conflicts that the AAAS is considering are not science versus non-science, but science versus a belief system wedded to scientism. I think they know they've really dropped the ball -- the real problem isn't that people don't know what acids and bases are, it's that they don't know why and they assume any system with big terminology and internal consistency is science, too.

Re:Who exactly proposed this?

[arth1]

You can't bridge the gap between two fundamentally opposed ideas. It's not like you can meet halfway and decide on half-truths both can live with.
I have to agree with professor Larry Moran here, commenting on Nisbet:

As we've seen during the framing debates on various blogs, Nisbet & Mooney seem to be incapable of making the distinction between explaining science and what you do with that knowledge. Evolutionists have done a good job of explaining evolution. If Nisbet & Mooney don't think this is true then I challenge them to come up with a better way of describing the science of evolutionary biology.

What they're upset about is the fact that a segment of the population doesn't buy the scientific explanation. That's true, but it doesn't matter how well you explain it to those people, they still won't accept it. They won't accept it even it's economically beneficial and leads to medical advances.

Why won't they accept it? Because it's against their religion. How do we change their minds? Part of the solution is to show them that their religion is false if it conflicts with science. This doesn't have anything to do with explaining the facts of science. It has to do with fighting superstition and anti-science attitudes.

Also see this blog.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better advise: don't be pretentious.

Poor scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the majority of Americans are so uneducated, that the poor scientists must fight primitivism.

That's just insane.

Kinda Simple

[explosivejared]

When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.

Also, avoid divisive figures. It's possible to talk about climatology without bringing up Al Gore, in fact we'd all probably be a little better off if we didn't. No disrespect to the man's scientific endeavors, but it's probably best to leave Richard Dawkins out of your discourse as well. Figures like Dawkins and Gore only add political, religious, and whatever other fires to already testy subjects. You have to stress the point that science isn't based on emotion and feeling. In short, keep it academic and logical. Don't use ad hominems or appeals to emotion.

Re:Kinda Simple

[jamie]

The problem with avoiding "divisive" figures is that anyone becomes "divisive" when the other side (i.e. the anti-scientific side) attacks them. Then any effort anyone makes to correct the record becomes part of the "controversy."

If you jettison anyone fighting for your side (i.e. science) as soon as they are attacked, you will very soon run out of smart people like Gore and Dawkins. We get a Sagan once a generation, and to remain above the fray he had to go so far as refusing to denounce astrology. That was his choice, but I think more smart people should denounce astrology, and other dumb things, and I will support them when they do, even if they get attacked.

Re:Kinda Simple

[immcintosh]

Nonsense, Dawkins is exceedingly smart. What he doesn't have is extensive training in the philosophy of religion, which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective. What Dawkins is, however, is an evolutionary biologist, so you can somewhat understand his ardor in fighting against anti-evolutionary religious zealotry.

Re:Kinda Simple

[iluvcapra]

When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.

I think the problem transcends the delivery; it think the message itself is a little broken. Scientists know what science is, they know the scientific method, they could write you a ten-page paper on the meaning of the word evidence. When they speak to lay people, it's clear that alot of lay people would be interested in what they have to say, but they don't know what science is; they just know scientists use big words and swing facts around like their pastors swing truths around. People aren't ignorant, and very few of them are religious zealots, and if you have superior knowledge you can talk down to most people without too much trouble (worked for centuries, after all), but scientists and lay people speak a different language.

Ask a hundred lay people what "falsifiable" means, or "fact", or "reasonable doubt" (important in many contexts), or "rationality". People aren't ignorant of science, they're ignorant of what it means to think abstractly and know something to be "true if and only if x".

Re:Kinda Simple

[Selfbain]

This is probably because he's come to the conclusion that simply defending is no longer enough.

Re:Kinda Simple

[Man On Pink Corner]

Unfortunately, most of his time now is dedicated to lame attacks against theism in general.

If I tried to tell you that Elvis Presley was going to return next week and rule the Earth for a thousand years, you'd laugh at me and call me crazy.

Well, that's "theism," and it's semantically indistinguishable from any other religious point of view. By mocking me, you would have just done exactly what you accuse Dawkins of doing. What would make you right, and him wrong?

It's 2008, and religious thought processes are hurting us badly, as a civilization. Isn't it time to call bullshit for what it is?

Re:Kinda Simple

[Scrameustache]

When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to. We're speaking to shrill jerks incapable of objectivity who take observed facts about reality as personal insults.

Re:Kinda Simple

[Scrameustache]

Nonsense, Dawkins is exceedingly smart. What he doesn't have is extensive training in the philosophy of religion, which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective. What Dawkins is, however, is an evolutionary biologist, so you can somewhat understand his ardor in fighting against anti-evolutionary religious zealotry.

Sorry, but if you start spouting off more nonsense than sense, you don't deserve the appelation "smart". If Dawkins had restricted himself to defending evolution, that would be fine. Unfortunately, most of his time now is dedicated to lame attacks against theism in general.

So, you're demonstrating that you aren't smart by saying spouting off nonsense about the man?

Re:Kinda Simple

[immcintosh]

Religion and science certainly are reconcilable, because their problem domains, you might say, are orthogonal when properly addressed. It's only when one encroaches onto the other's territory, so to speak, that they become otherwise. This, I think, really gets to the heart of the problem and, I'll agree with you, what I dislike about Dawkins.

You seem to be defining religion rather narrowly from the traditional Abrahamic mindset, and from that mindset religion often does conflict with science. Take a religion from the opposite end of the spectrum though, for example, Taoism. Taoism has much more in common with what you have called "Spiritualism" (a bad word to use considering that has distinct unscientific connotations; to be truthful it is not clear, from an academic standpoint, what the intended referent of "Spiritualism" is as you have used it). Keep in mind, of course, that Taoism is very much considered a religion, but it is also very much simply a celebration of mystery.

Now, I'll make one point about a very scientific concern where religion has weight and is not necessarily "at odds" with science--cosmology. To put it somewhat crudely, religion is as good an explanation as anything regarding the ultimate origin of existence. In fact, it is much stronger than many so-called "scientific" explanations (e.g. many-worlds theories which seek to account for the origin of existence, but ultimately only expand the problem domain by failing to deal with "ultimate existence" per se and simply considering a panoply of independent manifestations--begging the question as it were). To be simple, when one asks the question, "Where does it all, ultimately, come from?" or likewise "Why is there something rather than nothing?" there is nothing wrong or unscientific about saying "God," although you might hope for a fuller and more considered accounting of this answer. This is because the question itself, arguably, is outside the realm of science (a claim for which the argument is an entirely separate line of thought that I could expand on if you wish).

The problem you and Dawkins have is when religion attempts to dictate facts about the mundane world. How did such and such arise? What is the nature of this process over here? How does this object behave? These questions are fundamentally the domain of science--as are all questions regarding the operation of the universe. As such, these are the places where religion goes astray and becomes incompatible with science when it tries to assert its weight. It is important to note, however, that religion need not address these questions, and in fact many do not.

I'm brought back to the thought with which I opened this post: religion and science deal with fundamentally different problem domains. There are questions with which, given the very definition of science, science can not deal (think Godel's first incompleteness theorem as a logical illustration of how this can be the case). Likewise, there are questions with which faith has no business dealing.

Disclaimer: I am not religions, though I consider myself something of a student of these matters who enjoys some small smattering academic background in such studies. You might call me agnostic, although I don't know whether that's entirely accurate either.

And the Point Is?

[trongey]

Why do scientists think they need to communicate science to the general populace? Most of the audience doesn't care, and won't understand. Communicate to the people who can use the information. Make the information readily available to the people who want it. Let the rest deal with the things they're trained to handle.

Re:And the Point Is?

[wizardforce]

Why do scientists think they need to communicate science to the general populace?

an educated population is needed for future generations to advance science. Not only that but these same people are going to be making important decisions about our world- decisions that don't just affect them, but everyone around them. Do you really feel comfortable leaving important decisions about pollution, scientific education etc. to the scientifically ignorant?

Simple, really...

[pla]

scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public.

I consider this a non-issue. How do you explain science that may conflict with personal beliefs? "Welcome to wrongville, population: You. I'll give you a free bus ticket out, but if you don't want to ride, please feel free to go to the edge of a cliff and disbelieve in gravity".

Less irreverently... You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it".

Re:Simple, really...

[nebaz]

I wish I could consider this a non-issue. Unfortunately, people with these beliefs vote, and often elect people with these beliefs, who set policies and enact laws that affect the scientific community as a whole. Whether or not it concerns cutting off funding for scientific research, or mandating stupid policies at the local school board level, you can't just dismiss these people. They will affect your life, sooner or later.

Re:Simple, really...

[my_left_nut]

No doubt. But on the flip side those that believe in the scientific method over dogma also have a responsibility to facilitate the election of those who will encourage science over a particular flavor of dogma.

Science and dogma are necessarily at odds with each other, since both start out with different assumptions.

Dogma starts with an assertion that "we think this is the way it works, therefore it *must* be that way".

Science starts with the same edict: "we think this is the way it works", but instead of "it must be that way", it replaces it with "and you can feel free to provide an empirical counterexample of how it doesn't work that way, and we will add your information to the collective body of knowledge that explains reality".

Now, when you add the whole idea of "control" to the mix, that makes things interesting.

Science gives you knowledge, and an element of control over physical things. For example, I see that my barometer is decreasing, therefore I can carry an umbrella, and control that I don't get wet. Science can also give people control over other people, via drugs, weaponry, etc. Science can supply the 'what', but it doesn't supply the 'why', at least not directly.

Dogma, on the other hand gives the people who supply the edicts, or re-interpret ones that have been defined by others, the edict-writers, control over people's ideas, but no real control over the physical things. It's a fake kind of control - not based in reality. Dogma is easy, the edict-writers provide dogma that suits their purposes of control, and the edict-consumers get a warm fuzzy feeling in their tummies that they are in control of things and that they belong to something bigger than themselves. On the other hand, science is hard: you have to invent tools to get the data that explains reality - you have to think, you have to do real work.

For example, over a 1000 year period 2000-3000 years ago, a series of books are written, which for their time explained how to live for a society that did not have a rigorous scientific method. 2000 years later, the edict-writers find these books to have some good information on how to treat other human beings with respect, but lump it all in together with the other not-so-pertinent information contained there, and then interpret it in their own fashion, and place their own values on the information within, necessarily based on their notion of how they want the society to be, as well as a certain demogogery inherent in having a large pool of believers in their interpreted work.

They then say that the entire work is "infallible" since it was "inspired by God", so that if you buy the part that says "love your neighbor", you necessarily have to buy their interpretation of everything else there, including what to do when two people of the same sex want to marry, what to do with discarded embryos that can generate stem cells for already living *sentient* beings, etc.

The edict-writers probably partially believe their own interpretation, or at least they put on a good show for the edict-consumers. Mainly though, they use it to prop up their own power base, and in a rapidly degrading democracy, to garner support for their continued agenda. The dogma gets tweaked depending on the current needs of the edict-writers, and the edict-consumers follow lock-step in doing what they say for fear of divine retribution in the afterlife. Today's edict-writers might even be using the results of science to drive their interpretations (and hence their string-pulling of the edict-consumers), allowing themselves to gain an advantage.

It's seems to me that those two ways of looking at the world are irreconcilable. Science, when done properly, has no ulterior motives. Dogma, on the other hand, is full of them.

sad state of affairs.

[apodyopsis]

from the viewpoint of a UK reader, the best way to promote science in the US seems to be to pass it off as a wonderful invention of God.

I mean come on, intelligent design? evolution as a theory? velociraptors and children playing happily together? That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world. Except in the US.

Mod me to hell and back for all I care - thats what I think. Okay, my views may not be representative of society as a whole - but possibly /. will be as sympathetic an audience as I can find.

The mere fact that you can pack a room, for seven speakers on "Communicating Science in a Religious America." tell me that there is something wrong. These idiots want to have their cake and eat it - on one hand they want to rubbish scientific thinking and deny evolution on the other they want bluray discs, microwaves and nuclear tipped bombs. Get real.

From my viewpoint all religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous as each other - no matter what they preach, what religion they follow, what they wear or what country they come from. Sometimes the danger is more subtle then other times. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.

I'll exit my soapbox quietly and get my coat then.

Re:sad state of affairs.

[Langalf]

A good first step for scientists would be to not consider all Christians as fundamentalist wackos. The fundies are very vocal, but they do NOT represent the majority opinion, or the time-honored opinion. Ignore them and communicate with the reasonable people (Yes, there are reasonable religious people).

Re:sad state of affairs.

[Quiet_Desperation]

That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world If you assume the USA + Europe = The World and ignore the rest of it. And I don;t think I've heard anyone talk about velociraptors playing with children outside of jokes and few kooks.

Okay, my views may not be representative of society as a whole - but possibly /. will be as sympathetic an audience as I can find. I'm sorry, but that is bizarre. You know you're being unfair and painting a diverse nation with a broad stereotype brush, but instead of maybe modulating your attitude to one that's a bit healthier and more productive, you, by deliberate design, simply go somewhere that your bigoted view will be better accepted.

From my viewpoint all religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous as each other - no matter what they preach, what religion they follow, what they wear or what country they come from. Sometimes the danger is more subtle then other times. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that. I conclude you have no sense of scale.

And this is from a Christopher Hitchens fan who agree that "religion poisons everything."

Draw a rude picture of Jesus and post it. OK, now draw a rude picture of Mohammad.

Re:sad state of affairs.

[hondo77]

It would be nice if these reasonable Christians you refer to would actually raise their voices against the fundy whack-jobs and not let them dominate the religious conversation in the US. That way I could believe these reasonable people actually exist in the numbers you claim.

I think there's only one way:

[Descalzo]

There's only one way to talk science to a polarized audience:
Make it about the science only. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what makes you think that it is the way you think it is.

I think the real problem with, for example, talking about Global Climate Change, is that people don't discuss it as a scientific issue, but as a moral or political idea. If you're going to discuss science, discuss the science only, and then make sure everyone knows when you change the subject to politics or religion.

Re:I think there's only one way:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear! What polarizes people is when scientists and their publicists overstate their case to promote an agenda.
Of course the two biggest examples are evolution and global warming.
At least since Darwin there have been zealots who use the facts and theory of evolution to attack religion. That's not science.
Now because the real observations and best-fit models for global climate change don't attract enough attention, those who crave attention and funding give in to the temptation to "sex it up". What they have wrought isn't science either.
What I want as a lay consumer of science is an accessible presentation of researchers' findings, not their politics.

Re:I think there's only one way:

[King Louie]

You're almost entirely correct. In addition to sticking only to the scientific facts as they are known, it is important to admit what _isn't_ known, or the limits of the model or experiment being discussed. Many people are very jaded abut what they hear about research because of the long history of over-hyped or half-reported "scientific findings." Some of this is the press' fault for usually going for the sensational healine over the nuanced full picture, but it's not all their fault.

To take two examples:

Look at the "saccharin causes cancer" sensation of thirty yeas ago. Yes, saccharin is a carcinogen. But the levels required to induce cancer in mice was the equivalent of dringkning cases of diet soda every day. That was not how it was reported in the press. Once that word got out, people quit worrying about it and began to question whether the research was being accurately reported at all.

Also, look at the more current global warming controversy. Part of the reason people don't jump at what they hear from climatologists is based on past experience with over-hyped dangers (e.g., saccharin). But how often do we hear climatologists being very up-front about the limitations of the models their predictions are based on? This information is available to the public; when word gets out that the latest dire prediction was based on a model with certain limitations that were not admitted up-front in the initail wave of publicity, it gives the impression that only part of the truth is being presented.

Once I think you're hiding facts from me, you're going to have to work twice as hard to convince me of the truth of your argument. Credibility lost is very hard to regain. To restore the public's trust, scientists need to be up-front with all the facts and admit what it is they don't know.

Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so

[mcmonkey]

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

I hope the summary is wrong, cause it makes this guy sounds like an idiot. Communications techniques borrowed from the political realm will not help to promote scientific understanding, because those techniques were not designed to promote understanding.

Politicians don't want you to understand them. They want you to feel like they understand you. They want you to feel protected by them, or to feel afraid of the other guy. The last thing any politician wants is to promote understanding.

The feelings politicians target with their communications techniques have no place in science. If you feel the Earth is 6000 years old, science isn't going to try to make you feel understood, because science doesn't understand your feelings. If the science says our climate is warming, it doesn't matter if you're happy all those wacky liberals in California are facing 100 years of drought. Science doesn't care.

Can I have some of what he's smoking?

[mcmonkey]

it's not like we're moving into an era dominated by superstition

What's it like in your world? And can you beam me up? Cause down here on Earth, we're not moving into an era dominated by superstition; we're already there.

Are people really debating the science?

[mark_jabroni]

Many viewpoints that are portrayed as anti-science are nothing of the sort.

Many people, for example, accept global warming while at the same time relying on economic estimates that say guarding against global warming would be more expensive than dealing with it. For rejecting a "Manhattan Project" sized government response they are dubbed "anti-science" even though they accept the science.

Likewise, people that are opposed to stem-cell research on ethical grounds are called "anti-science". These people, again, do not doubt that the science they oppose is sound. They have moral objections that should be easier to understand than the science, but evidently aren't.

Scientists are people too

[Anonymous Coward]

They bring their political worldviews and bias to the research and interpretations just like the rest of us bring to our work. Science acknowledges this inherent bias with techniques like double blinding and control groups that seek to remove these biases.

Scientific consensus has a history of being wrong on many fronts at any given time. Given time, the scientific method gets it right, because it is constantly changing to fit new observations. But at times, people have had everything from bleedings to thyroid irradiation, to hysterectomies based on scientific consensus that is later proven incorrect.

The hot-button issues are hot buttons for a reason. I am an atheist and agree with Dawkins on the blind watchmakers and other facts of evolution point away from an intelligent creator, but I no longer believe science will ever prove atheists are correct. I now understand that spirituality is a response to a nihilistic, pointless existence. Some people will always fill that void with some form of religion no matter how much science may prove that point.

And the global warming crowd seems way too tied up in non-scientific anti-capitalism and irrational hydrocarbon and nuclear hatred. And too many of the supposed outcomes are projected towards total Armageddon and wrapped in Malthusian hysteria, and just reeks of religion.

Perhaps scientists need to spend more time looking in the mirror, and less time figuring out how to talk down to the proles.

Re:Scientists are people too

[Ambitwistor]

And the global warming crowd seems way too tied up in non-scientific anti-capitalism and irrational hydrocarbon and nuclear hatred. Are you still talking about scientists here? Because I seem to have missed the anti-capitalistic nuclear hatred in Geophysical Research Letters.

Well sorry Jack, but it's not a "non-issue"

[keineobachtubersie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_State_Board_of_Education

"On August 9, 2005, the Board approved a draft of science curriculum standards that mandated equal time for the theories of "evolution" and "intelligent design". This echoes a previous decision in Kansas. In 1999, the Board ruled that instruction about evolution, the age of the earth, and the origin of the universe was permitted, but not mandatory, and that those topics would not appear on state standardized tests. However, the Board reversed this decision February 14, 2001, ruling that instruction of all those topics was mandatory and that they would appear on standardized tests. On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe", [1] or what is known as "Methodological naturalism"

THAT makes it an issue.

http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/evolution-of-a-controversy-school-board-members-say-no-mas/

"You've heard the brewing haha. Four members of the Polk school board--Lofton, Kay Fields, Tim Harris and Hazel Sellers--were shocked, shocked!, when comments they made to a newspaper regarding the teaching of evolution ignited a firestorm of dismay and derision. What'd they say? Sample comment: "If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum. If [evolution] is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well." That's Lofton."

THAT makes it an issue.

"You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it"."

Nonsense. The purpose of this discussion isn't how to convince religious people that science disproves their religion, it's about how to "communicate" to a polarized audience. Communicate doesn't mean "convince".

You're not attempting to disprove anything, you're trying to disseminate accurate information in a way that a non scientist could understand.

Media exaggeration

[wsanders]

The role of religious fundamentalism in the US is exaggerated by the media, and the presence of an evil crackpot in the White House doesn't help.

The main reason science doesn't get taught effectively in the US is plain old laziness, apathy, and stupidity.

If the same proportion of secular parents gave a shit about their child's education as the proportion of religious nuts homeschooling their kids about how their grampa warn't no monkey this problem would largely be solved.

"The Truth" keeps changing

[starglider29a]

Factoring out Young Earth, and religious disavowal, there is another factor that taints "scientific truth" in the eyes of the public. They have seen how the "scientific truth" has changed. I'm not talking about that almost magical process of discovery, such as the discovery of dark matter/energy because of a supernova red-shift finding in the late 90's. That's science. That's life.

No, I'm talking about when a "new discovery is made" which counters previous scientific belief when it is clear that the previous scientists belonged to some pre-disposed school of thought! The most howling example I can think of off the top of my head is the late Gene Shoemaker's "discovery" that moon craters were caused by impact. Duh!

For his Ph.D. at Princeton (1960), Dr. Shoemaker conclusively showed that Barringer Meteor Crater, located near Winslow, Arizona, arose from a meteor impact. Shoemaker has done more than any other person to advance the idea that sudden geologic changes can arise from asteroid strikes and that asteroid strikes are common over geologic time periods. Previously, astroblemes were thought to be remnants of extinct volcanoes -- even on the Moon. -- Source

What about moon craters looked like volcanoes? But because the scientists were pre-disposed to Uniformitarianism, ignoring or rejecting Catastrophism as religious hogwash, they complete missed, ignored or re-engineered their observations to match their pre-disposition...

And people noticed! And they never forget. They don't consider that "good science", they consider it that science conformed to pre-disposition and bias. Once that trust is broken, it's hard to get it back. So when they hear "hard science" about Global Warming, they believe that the scientists are swayed by their agenda. And how can they determine if that sway is true or not?

Maybe we need some UberPanel, a Supreme Court of Science which renders rulings on the scientific validity of the findings. But, as we have seen, even Supreme Courts have their agendae. So what do we do? Does snopes.com cover this?

Communicating science to a national audience

[dillon_rinker]

How to communicate science to a national audience
1. Show the evidence.
. . . That's pretty much it.

How NOT to commmunicate science to a national audience
1. Tell the theory.
2. If people think "theory" = "guess", call them stupid.
3. Force children to learn that their parents' beliefs are wrong.
(The last step is essential if your goal is to NOT communicate science.)

Remember Ross Perot?

[Shivetya]

Many pundits made fun of his presentations but they worked because he didn't insult the audience.

I look at this issue this way.
1. Many of the people don't care, don't even try to inform them.
2. Don't insult the rest by assuming anything
3. Don't come at it from the angle that religious beliefs cloud their judgment, the approach I have seen from some anti-religious showed more ignorance than die-hard believers

The real questions, how to present this in school in an environment hostile to achievement? I think religions are the least of our problems with upcoming generations. The real problem is this idea that we cannot acknowledge the fact that some kids are genuinely better than others. Worse is getting past the idea that hard work really does pay off. I can't tell you how many kids won't put the effort forward because they are told it doesn't matter. Hell a school system which does not celebrate hard work is not going to do squat with science.

You were right in a way, keep the politicians away from science and the schools and the problem might solve itself. Politicians do as much if not more damage to the acceptance science than religious zealots... While one may not want it the other burdens it with too many requirements to overcome

Re:Science for the public?

[melikamp]

My point is that science cannot be "communicated", it has to be taught. You cannot "communicate" the theory of evolution and expect people to believe in it. We are talking about studying the matter for a year just to scratch the surface. It gets worse. Some things are just unbelievable, regardless of how many times you studied them and seen them work: even relatively old ideas like the nature of light and the Euler's formula.

Your, or anyone else's uneducated belief in evolution because of the scientific consensus or whatever, without a proper understanding of the science behind it, is clearly just what the enlightened crowd calls "faith", and IMO just as good (or bad, depending on how you look at it).

It's a social problem

[Bob-taro]

If slashdot is any indication of the communication skills and social expectations of scientists then I think the scientists might be the ones that need to develop an understanding -- of people. People are not always logical. Even technical people are influenced by emotion. I offer as evidence OS preference flame wars -- if we were purely logical we would just share FACTS regarding each OS and not get into flame wars (but it's just the OTHER people being illogical, right?).

In the context of this article, what is the goal of communication? It it just to convey information or to convince people or to persuade them to take some action? Whatever the goal is you need to realize that some people won't listen/agree/act and that doesn't necessarily make them idiots. Try to see if from their point of view: you hear some guy claiming to be very qualified saying something you don't quite understand that possibly conflicts with your world view. What are you going to do? Get your own Ph.D. and do your own research so you can see if the guy really knows what he's talking about? No, you've got your own life to live so you've just got to decide at the time -- Is this something I need to care about? Is this guy really qualified? Is he biased AGAINST what I believe in a way that would influence his interpretation of the facts? Is he being paid to say this? I'm sure most of you ask yourself these questions when you hear about research "proving" something you don't agree with (or "disproving" something you did agree with).

Re:Science consists of looking at the evidence...

[Belial6]

This is a good point, and one that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a perfect example. Al Gore "Framed" the subject. Also know as lying. This created a situation where the facts became irrelevant because one side of the discussion was holding up the movie as "proof", while the other side was pointing out the huge factual inaccuracies, or just plain stupidity of the content. Any actual scientific discussion got lost in the "framing".

"Good science"

[PaulG.1]

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. ...

A polarized public is to be expected, given the lack of good science.

Polarized?

[aquatone282]

WTF? 90% of us are just fine. It's the 10% of idiots on either side of any issue who won't STFU that are "polarized."

Let's not paint every American with the same brush

[Mariner28]

Let's not paint every American with the same brush - there's a hell of a lot of us whom are appalled at the state of things here...

Give the People What they Want

[toddhisattva]

This discrepancy, Miller suggested, is the result of a deep discomfort with the fact that evolution is grounded in the random occurrence of mutations. Fundamentally, people don't want to think they were the product of a chain of accidents. This is a problem with the Lawful Good character alignment ;-)

They need to feel embraced by Nature and Nature's God. Randomness and chaos scares them.

We should point out that each and every random mutation obeys the Laws of Chemistry and the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Mathematics as far as we know.

That mutations happen in accordance with Natural Laws.

Are the Laws of Chemistry random? No, they derive from the Laws of Physics. Are the Laws of Physics random? We do not know, many physicists say they seem "dialed in," so this question is still in the province of metaphysics, and far removed from questions regarding biological evolution. This should be taught in a way that does not smell of a passed buck; students should be encouraged to explore these questions with faculty whose subjects are closer to physics and philosophy.

From mathematics, biology teachers should teach a proper understanding of the word "random." That random processes can at least be modeled with mathematics, and math is all about Laws and Proofs and other certainties which should appeal to the Lawful Good Authoritarian mindset. Get out the 2d6 and show how 7 is the peak of their Gaussian distribution! That "random" is not scary at all and obeys Mathematical Laws.

As an aside, usually the Republicans promote freer markets. If you can understand Adam Smith, you can understand biological evolution! Crappy companies go out of business, crappy species go extinct. Public tastes are often inexplicable and at least as random as any mutation (the solution space is larger, as a base pair can mutate to only one of three other pairs). Many ideas of trade and evolution are quite parallel, even running on the same conceptual engine, selfishness.

The selfishness of genes leads directly to Cain's Question and answers in the affirmative: from the gene's viewpoint we are certainly our brother's keeper.

Stipulating some game theoretic insights, many other Moral Laws can be derived - the Prisoner's Dilemma brings forth some reasons for cooperation.

And always, when a student's question is really beyond what the teacher and even science knows, the answer should be "I don't know" or "we don't know." Honesty and no buck passing! They may need a knowledge gap to house their God, and a militantly agnostic attitude should be taken by teachers when the students ask Those Big Questions. Did God "dial in" the physical constants? We do not know we are literally agnostic.

Start with honesty!

[BCGlorfindel]

There really is only one big thing lacking in the way science is communicated, honesty. How many 'science' articles have you read in mainstream media lately that actually presented the true scientific study, rather than extrapolation or analysis? Even here on Slashdot, a presumably more science savy site, the summary and headlines read like the recent 'room temperature superconductor' article. The actual science hadn't discovered anything of the sort, a better summary would've been another step closer to room temperature, but still a long ways to go.

Even laymen aren't as stupid as many in the science crowd might believe. After being told that fusion power, flying cars and fabulous discovery X are just 10 years away for multiple decades, some cynicism sets in. If articles could just present the honest progress and verified science that really has been done, everyone would be the better for it. People shouldn't be expected to have to go in and read the scientific journal for every new science article they read just understand what really has and has not been discovered.

Re:Science consists of looking at the evidence...

[Belial6]

The movie was factually wrong. For the "science" in the movie to be correct, there would be no point in trying to slow CO2 emissions, as we are already having 400 degree temperatures, or they will start withing the next few years, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

Of course here we are debating the merits of the movie instead of the actual scientific data. So at least we have real evidence for the part we agree on.

Bi-partisan?

[photomonkey]

In keeping with the political notion, I think the biggest problem is that, like everything else in the US, there is no middle ground. We drive people to make uneducated choices simply so they can buy the t-shirt and blindly root for their 'team'.

We are constantly told that if we're not in favor of fighting overseas, then we're in favor of terrorism. If we believe in a god of some sort, then we have to be anti-science. That if we're not 'for the children' then we're automatically against them.

And how much have we actually proven, versus simply not being able to disprove? Does my belief that the theory of evolution is probably correct somehow prohibit me from seeking a spiritual understanding of the world around me?

One of the wondrous aspects of the human mind is the ability to operate equally well in the realm of concrete truths (fire is hot) and the the realm of imagination or unprovable concepts (is fire hot and why? What if it weren't?). And yet, we do all that we can to divorce ourselves from this in favor of being either-or.

You can walk on water....

[Roger W Moore]

"If a person walks on water, they'll sink."

Really? Up in Canada we regularly walk on water, although usually only from November to March. Now if you remember Christ was around 2,000 years ago before all this global warming....

On a more serious note though it illustrates the point that, looked at in a different context, things are not always as impossible as they may at first seem.

it's a bit more complicated than that

[misanthrope101]

If you think that using big words automatically means pretension, then we have found part of the problem. You have to credit readers with the ability and willingness to look up a word they don't understand. If, in truth, they won't, and if, in truth, they'll resent you using any word that they don't already know, then that isn't pretension on your part, but anti-intellectualism on their part.

Yes, writing can be overdone. Some writers overuse 25-cent words. But a larger part of the problem is that we demand that every idea be simplified to where anyone with a fifth-grade education can understand it in 20 seconds or less. Another problem is the willful arrogance of the ignorant. I know people who KNOW that they are ignorant about, say, evolution, yet they don't feel that this self-admitted ignorance lessens the value or insight of their own opinion. I'm not saying that they have failed to gain expertise--I'm saying that they can't even explain the basic tenets of evolutionary theory. They just don't care about what it IS, because they already know that it's wrong.

There is a bit more involved here than a scientists talking down to the rubes.