Slashdot Mirror
Do Scientists Understand the Public?
Mab_Mass writes "The American Academy of Arts & Sciences has an interesting article on the relationship between scientists and the public. [Here's the paper itself, as a PDF.] Rather than point the finger at an 'ignorant' public, this article chastises the scientists for a poor understanding of how to communicate with non-technical people. With a look at the issues of climate change, nuclear waste disposal, genetics, and the future of the Internet, the article provides examples of how the experts in these fields are failing to present their message in a way that encourages public discussion and support."
That would not end well for the scientists.... Their brains would explode from having to dumb everything down for "public consumption."
HTML Version via Google Viewer
While it would certainly be nice if scientists, as a class, were better at public communication, I think that this consideration misses an important point:
If somebody happens to be the best available information source on a given issue, failure to communicate with them is a major failing on your part.
All men may be created equal; but only some of them are worth consulting for advice.
The Media already has a monopoly on informing the public, scientific discoveries included.
Scientists strive to be factual and complete. Media strives to be sensational and give people what they expect, or want, to hear.
Some of the most exciting discoveries are those that indicate existing beliefs are incorrect. That doesn't jive with...well, you can see where I'm going with this: insert faith here.
the experts in these fields are failing to present their message in a way that encourages public discussion and support
Isn't that what Slashdot is for?
and what's with this metric system. Why can't scientists use standard measurements like football fields, ping-pong balls, "around the Earth," and "to the moon and back," like our brilliant news media?
Many scientists need to realize that their goals, ideals, and ethical standards may not be universal.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Absolutely right.
Form a hypotenuse and experiment the danged thing.
What's all this subjective shit?
Thank you very much. Science is hard. If you're not willing to work at it, you won't understand it. If you're not willing to work at it, you won't. That's not the scientist's fault.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The public doesn't necessarily have to understand science. It's not their job.
I would say, however, that it's their job to at least not actively be misled, and that's the rub here. When you don't understand something, you can be neutral, and you haven't made life any worse for anybody.
But being vocal in the opposite direction, and showing an active aversion to learning it... that's something no scientist can fix. Worse, the more a scientist tries, the more you can take the multiple attempts to dumb it down as evidence that it can't be explained.
Scientists do need to learn to explain well, and that's an ongoing challenge to be met. But the vocal and anti-science part of the public is not a problem that can be met. That's damage that has to be worked around.
I became good at math and physics because I was bad with people.
If we understood people, we wouldn't have become scientists.
Ob. xkcd : http://xkcd.com/55/
Best way is probably to get a politician or diplomat to mediate and translate. Scientists don't like to lie or avoid topics or spin shortcomings; all things that are necessary to control the course of public discourse, which can easily be led astray. The public wants a clear, definitive message from a leader-type. The job of scientists and engineers is to make sure all of the little details and minor considerations are in line and questioned.
It's not really that simple. They construct models of the public, which can be disproven by counter-example, but never proven.
This approach is being questioned, however, as the scientific community is growing increasingly discontent with not getting laid.
Science had a *huge* positive mind-share during the 20th Century, and the participants basically didn't have much problem with trickle-down to an eager public.
What has changed is that religions out of synch with reality and corporations that don't want to spend the money it takes to deal with reality have been running huge propaganda campaigns to cast doubt on many of the major findings of science, if not on the potential of science itself.
What scientists have to realize is that the nest of little chicks with hungry mouths turned up has been partly replaced with a nest of well-funded vipers.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Unless they're anthropologists, or involved in some related field, they shouldn't be concerned with the public. They should focus on their field of expertise. When they deviate from this they're out of their element, thus just another laymen.
It seems ridiculously broad, since it contains all of those topics. Better to focus on one issue that is not being understood by the public, and find out the cause.
The public doesn't understand the meaning of words. Thus, they are not able to understand science. We agonize of the words we use in our publications, because we want it to be unambiguous. The public lacks the ability to care about the subtle differences between words.
The public doesn't necessarily have to understand science. It's not their job.
The median US citizen goes to school for 12 years. During that time, they all have to take at least one course on science. If after spending an entire course studying science (and probably many more than one class) they don't have an understanding of what science is and how it works, then I'd say the average US citizen has failed in their duty to become a rational and thinking being.
Science is one of the most basic and important mental tools for forming opinions based upon reason instead of irrational methods. Everyone should understand science, as well as some other, basic, tools for reasoning such as mathematics, logic, and critical evaluation. These should be core elements of every education.
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
That said, I'm having a hard time figuring out how one would explain Special Relativity - or, in my case, SVD-decompositions and unsupervised machine learning - to a six-year old.
Of course, that could simply mean I don't, in fact, understand either one.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
Perhaps after you construct a right-angled triangle you might want to form a hypothesis.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
From the article, "Republicans who are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change than those who have received less education."
All I can say is, "Dang."
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Communication is also a science. Like all other fields, it can be done ad hoc, or it can be taken seriously, studied, and used methodologically. I do say its the scientists fault if he/she refuses to take the time to work at and understand communication. Just as much as the public's inability to relate to the scientist.
Here is one big tip to all techies out there - listen. Do not jump to solutions. Do not tell people what they should do or want without the other person fully explaining themselves even though you may know the answer. Instead, listen, use deflective listening (rephrasing what the person said and lead them to continue), and lead them in a way that opens up your answer in clearer light. Consider it the foreplay to a response. Easy, and applicable to your occupation, friends, and significant other.
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
Give all the scientists breast implants. The public will have no choice but to love them.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The job of science is to seek, explore, and prove truths. It's not their job to be spin-doctors and make it palatable to hicks, politicians, corporations, and Bible-thumpers.
We don't need scientists to become more PR savvy, what we need is less sensationalist journalism, less politicizing of science, and less junk science originating from entities (corporate, political, social, or religious) invested in getting certain results that are all result in a woefully misinformed public, often stirred into a frenzy, with a mixture of half-truths or outright lies.
Maybe the scientists could promote ideas better with more social skill, and maybe the public could understand the science better with more science education, but none of that matters when there's a machine in the middle drowning out the communication with it's own noise.
I think the key here is that people want a translation of the science into terms they understand.
Exactly! When explaining science to the public my aim is not so much to "dumb it down" as to not use technical jargon and to avoid worrying about unnecessary details. A large fraction of the public can generally understand the basic concepts once they are explained without the technical vocabulary and without all the unnecessary details.
The big problem with talking to the public is that we scientists have developed highly technical vocabularies with precise meanings in order to be able to communicate complex concepts very precisely to each other. Even if we remember not to use this vocabulary there is the strong urge to fill in all the details which less precise, "everyday" vocabulary does not specify.
FTFY.
. But I think it's a mistake to take the current theories of the day as "The Truth" (they're so often over turned by later research)
A good scientist is a professional skeptic and will absolutely agree with that. "The Truth" is not the goal of science. It's not even a possible outcome. Science cannot guarantee that we're moving our knowledge closer to "The Truth." It is pretty good at moving our knowledge in a medium-term useful direction. And when we discover something wildly new, like relativity or quantum mechanics, we branch off in a new direction while simultaneously continuing in the old. The most flexible and brilliant scientists send a feeler off toward totally new territory, ***maybe*** making it somewhat more likely that we're approaching "The Truth" in a long term sense... but probably if we're moving toward "Truth," it is purely by accident.
It's still always possible that human science started with some sort of bias (sensory, cognitive) that makes us very, very wrong in a big picture sense. I think it's important to remember that such a possibility exists, but that it's a matter of philosophy until you can present some evidence for that idea.
Science is a way to discard those ideas that are obviously wrong while keeping around a bunch of useful ideas that haven't been shown to be wrong yet. That's what it's for, and it is the best system we've got for that.
I think it's really important that the public understands that scientists are trying to understand the universe but that many of them are deep skeptics who would be willing to completely change everything they think if presented with appropriate EVIDENCE. That's what makes science so useful and strong. It frustrates me that so much of the media discourse about science is focusing on the internal disagreements and the constant overturning of old ideas and pointing to it like it's a BAD thing. It's frustrating. It's kind of like having someone point at you in grade school and call out to all your schoolmates that you're stupid because you're WEARING GLASSES. It should be totally obvious to everyone who's ever seen you that you wear glasses, and yet, in certain social circumstances, people can wield power by pointing out an obvious fact and saying loudly enough that it's a negative thing.
You're absolutely right that you shouldn't look for "Truth" in science. Any good scientist should be on board with you on that. Our most important job is to be professional skeptics and to construct ideas and gather evidence that disproves other ideas and results. That's scientific progress, and having people point at you and make fun of you for doing that shows a certain immaturity, just the same as winning friends by making fun of someone's glasses.
Scientist: "we should study this to find out if its true."
Public: "Absolutely right. Form a hypotenuse and experiment the danged thing. What's all this subjective shit?"
Scientist: "Perhaps after you construct a right-angled triangle you might want to form a hypothesis."
Public: "Whooosh!"
Scientist: "I believe that was the joke ;)"
Public: "Doh!"
Too many members of the general public are ignorant of science, what its basic tenants are, how it works, why it has been so successful and therefore why it deserves everyone's respect and attention, especially when scientists warn us about things like tornados, the AIDS virus, volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, lead based paint, and releasing too much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, teaching people the facts about the universe we live in is difficult and expensive. But when society fails to educate its members sufficiently about science, to teach them to think critically, then the purveyors of disinformation -- typically organized religions and corporate marketing departments -- are always there to enlighten them with their own versions of the truth.
What can we do about this? First, never cut back on education. An enlightened society is an educated one and maintaining it as such is a endless task. Second, make education accessible to everyone at no cost. Three, we have to be hard on ourselves to ensure that our teachers and educational institutions continue to live up to the highest standards. Four... spend money on marketing facts that are both generally accepted by the scientific community and important to society.
How do we pay for all that? Higher basic taxes, I guess (it will eventually pay for itself), but perhaps also by levying a tax on top of what those purveyors of disinformation spend on advertising.
There are lots of reasons people have lost faith in science, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Challenger, Vioxx, WMDs, Cold Fusion, and the general lack of trust in authority that has grown since the 60s.
With the exception of Cold Fusion, these examples seem to be reasons to not trust corporations and political expediency - nothing to do with science. As for Cold Fusion, I guess some optimists have been saying it's "ten years away" for 25 years and some frauds have been perpetrated but I don't see how science as a whole is painted with that brush.
And really there is no reason to blindly believe scientists or anyone else: it's kind of health to ask for proof, as long as you don't keep denying once you receive it.
Sure, but I think evolution is on pretty solid ground which makes about 40% of US citizens deniers and another 20% uninformed at best.
Incidentally, you blame corporations, but a lot of the anti-science movement corresponds to the anti-corporation movement as well: the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO propaganda isn't coming from corporations any more than the anti-evolutionists.
There are crack pots on both sides of most issues, but I think a lot of the anti-corparate based hysteria is a reaction to the fact that they have a pretty bad record when it comes to "science" effecting public safety. I'm all for holding their feet to the fire. On a final note, I think any anti-evolutionists that say they are "questioning authority" are delusional since they are typically "answering to a higher authority."
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
So..*with* global warming we get NYC and DC flooded into oblivion?
I am trying but cannot see any negatives here...why again are we trying to stop global warming?
"there is no valid [hypothesis, to test, to theory] path, inasmuch as no AGW hypothesis can be described as any more than a projection into the future. Which is why it cannot be said that there is a valid AGW theory."
RF=5.35ln(c1/c2) - Fourier 1824.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
While there is some merit to the argument that many scientists can be poor communicators, the best communication skills are going to be stumped when faced with massive cognitive dissonance. Far too many of the US public wallow in deliberate ignorance or the rants of people who cater to their prejudices. You have a huge segment of the media industry there that is based around stimulating emotional reactions to trump reasoned arguments. Their opponents hold most of the media propagation cards, but it's the scientists' fault for being poor communicators. Talk about blaming the victim.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
We don't NEED to communicate with non-technical people. It has worked so far for well over 100 years of outstanding technological progress - why stop now? The drones can go on mopping floors, cleaning windows, and building buildings and we will go on doing our thing yeah? It's called specialization. Just like I don't expect my builder to understand or be interested in the carnitine shuffle, I have neither the time nor desire to get into the details of the local building code regarding a particular section of wall.
The author deserves an "F" for failing to understand that specialization is a good thing, and specialized fields REQUIRE their own efficient technical jargon. When two doctors speak "lingua medica" it's because it's faster, more convenient and more specific than common English. It's not to "say bad things about patients without them understanding". However why should any technical person lower themselves to the level of the common burger-flipper?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That was bit mean.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I take it you've never lived in Northern Michigan. When 'Cosmos' was broadcast locally absolutely **NO ONE** that I worked with (car parts factory) watched it.
I grew up in Southern Michigan and worked in the auto industry - including parts factories - for much of my professional career. I can assure you that both white and blue collar auto workers have some very smart people among them, many quite interested in science.
The Henry Ford Museum / Greenfield Village is one of the premier museums of science and technology - including such things as Edison's lab, lovingly disassembled in Menlo Park and reassembled on the grounds. (Henry and Edison were friends and colleagues.) It's a two-day minimum to even skim the place. It's always well attended, and a significant fraction of those attendees are auto workers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way