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.'"
Science needs to talk about science and not political agendas.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Use small words.
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
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
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.
I got a catholic block.
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".
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.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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".
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.
"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.