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

Re:Kinda Simple

[CRCulver]

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.

Re:Kinda Simple

[Man On Pink Corner]

Do you even know what Theism is, and how it differs, from, say Deism?

Do you know what Frotzianism is, and how it differs from, say, Ozmology?

That question is just as relevant to our daily lives. My made-up "isms" are just as valid as yours.

Re:sad state of affairs.

[hcmtnbiker]

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 That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world.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.

Please tell me where anyone has said velociraptors and children played together, that would be a stupid comment to make, but alone doesn't say anything about religion or God. For example, there's plenty of animals you want your kids to stay away from today; wild dogs, alligators, anything of the large cat group, what's to day /if/ velociraptors lived at the same time as humans that they had to play nice?

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.

Lets see... On one hand you have bluray discs microwaves and nuclear warheads; all which involved observation AND experimentation. On the other you have evolution, which involved no experimentation and very limited observation. If you've ever read Origin of the Species you should know that Darwin himself said that if within the next decade the fossil record should show his finding true, and if it doesn't then you shouldn't listen it him. 150 years later we're still in search of some key 'missing links' so if I'm to listen to Darwin himself I shouldn't pay much attention to evolution as anything more then a theory until there is more evidence.

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'm a libertarian, and from my viewpoint you are at the very least as dangerous religious fundamentalists. You seem to think it would be great if no one ever thought for themselves and assumed everything you said or that's "peer-reviewed" is automatically fact. Accepting anything without skepticism is stupid. There are plenty of reasons to doubt evolution or climate change which don't even involve religion in the argument. Disregarding either idea without listening to it is incredibly arrogant, to me you're no better then some religious fanatic who puts their fingers over their ears and hums pretending not to hear you about science.

Ok that's enough Devil's Advocate. I just found the velociraptor line humorous so I had to comment about it.