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?

[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?

[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?

[rlp]

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

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

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[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?

[Dareth]

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

How?

[geek42]

Use small words.

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: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.

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.

Maybe not the best example

[Guppy]

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

Re: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: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".