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 of Political Agenda?

Science needs to talk about science and not political agendas.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

How can science avoid talking about political agendas when most research funding comes from the political arena?

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

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.

Remember Ross Perot?

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 of Political Agenda?

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

He just spoke the truth and passed on the knowledge to anyone who would listen.

Perhaps we should have some forum on transmitting accurate historical information to a deeply confused audience.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

Newton said the Earth was not the center of the Universe?
You are not confusing him with Copernicus, by any chance?

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

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

Can I have some of what he's smoking?

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.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

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?

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.

How?

Use small words.

Re:How?

Agreed. Don't say "you're as dense as a Pomeranian" when "as a dog" will do.

Maybe not the best example

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.

My little how-to

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.

Who exactly proposed this?

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?

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 [blogspot.com].

Regards,
--
*Art

Kinda Simple

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

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

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.

Simple, really...

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...

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.

I think there's only one way:

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.

Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so

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.

Re:Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so

Communications techniques borrowed from the political realm will not help to promote scientific understanding, because those techniques were not designed to promote understanding.

I need to consider it for a while, but could this be a case of the street finding it's own use? You think Berners-Lee had amazon.com in mind when he created HTML?

Poli-comm may not have been designed to promote understanding, but that does not mean it cannot be used as such by clever people. I can see how methods designed to obscure facts and be use to instead reveal them.

Re:sad state of affairs.

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.