Hmmm.
Brian Cox was at it last week, performing a “smackdown” on a climate change denier on the ABC’s Q&A discussion program. He brought graphs! Knockout blow. And yet … it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing, changing minds, winning people over to a better, brighter future?
No, but let's be fair here - this isn't the sum total of what science communication consists of. Debunking is just a small part of it. And when confronted with a politician who denies an extremely strong consensus, it's hard to see how anyone could react differently.
But when these experts tell us how to live our lives – or even worse, what to think – something rebels. Especially when there is even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty. Back in your box, we say, and stick to what you’re good at.
Well that's a problem, because science is chock-full of controversies. We really have to get away from the notion that it's all about certainties and facts. Which is precisely why those few issues on which there is a strong consensus need to be taken extremely seriously. It's a bit like watching a group of incredibly angry cats suddenly start behaving as a group : there's a damn good reason why it happens, and it' ain't due to any "false consensus" or "herd mentality" nonsense.
Yet science is also about telling people what to think. That's kindof the whole point : to establish objectively what the world is doing, regardless of what we might like to be true. Findings can be framed in terms of people's values to an extent in order to persuade them, but this doesn't always help. "Vaccines keep people safe" versus "vaccines are dangerous" - where do you go from there ? The answer can only be with the facts.
On the whole, I don’t think people who object to vaccines or GMOs are at heart anti-science. Some are, for sure, and these are the dangerous ones. But most people simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is taking their worries seriously; that someone cares for them.
Sure, for personal health issues that makes sense. But climate change ? Harder to see. It's not like alternatives to allow people equal quality of life aren't available (unless you're one of those commenters on the BBC website who believe that energy-saving light bulbs are worse than child sacrifice). Pressure as far as climate change goes seems to me to be mostly on governments and industries, not individuals - few people are saying, "give up cars", lots of people are saying, "produce more electric cars". The only groups I've seen saying "let's all go back to the trees" are the kind of hippy nutters who were saying that anyway.
The physicist Sabine Hossenfelder gets this. Between contracts one time, she set up a “talk to a physicist” service. Fifty dollars gets you 20 minutes with a quantum physicist … who will listen to whatever crazy idea you have, and help you understand a little more about the world.
How many science communicators do you know who will take the time to listen to their audience? Who are willing to step outside their cosy little bubble and make an effort to reach people where they are, where they are confused and hurting; where they need?
Oh, quite a few actually. But this is a little self-contradictory. The problem is we're got nutters presenting their ideas as though they were credible and expecting to be taken seriously, e.g. Cox versus climate loony. When someone says something that is not controversial but just plain wrong, it makes absolutely no sense to pander to their "feelings". You have to demonstrate to them why they're wrong (there isn't really any alternative) and there's only so far you can go to appease them. You don't have to shout insults at them, but if presenting "facts" and "graphs" is now elitist, I submit that the problem isn't with the scientists presenting facts and graphs.
Though physics communication is different : anyone who is "hurting" because of their crazy theory about how the universe works is psychologically unbalanced. The Universe doesn't give a damn what you think, deal with it. But I've said it before and I'll say it again : climatology desperately needs more experts doing front-line, public, prominent outreach.
Most science communication isn’t about persuading people; it’s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us, it says, aren’t we clever? We are exclusive, we are a gang, we are family. That’s not communication. It’s not changing minds and it’s certainly not winning hearts and minds. It’s tribalism.
Telling people the truth is now considered tribalism ? Lordy...
And yet, I partially agree. There are certainly some popular science advocates whose whole attitude reeks of tribalism (but really most science communication ? That is much too strong a statement and needs justification). Answer : fewer advocates, more experts, more "human" stories on science and scientists. Don't present them as aloof, boring old white men, because most of them aren't.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2016/aug/23/scientists-losing-science-communication-skeptic-cox
Another fine Headline from Betteridge's Headline Factory. Science has never lost a fight, ever. Schiller: "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" == against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.
ReplyDeleteHere's how this works, in our times: in the interests of picking a fight, the idiot television programme host pairs up a moron with a scientist, as if the moron had anything useful or factual to contribute - and treats the ensuing dialogue as if it were a bullfight.
Science is hard. It doesn't neatly reduce to bumper stickers. Though there are some wonderfully eloquent Explainers, who can provide some insights into the great scientific breakthroughs, the explanations provided are never exact and are often simplified to the point of error. Spacetime, for instance, is not amenable to the Rubber Sheet analogy. Herd Immunity is non-intuitive: to properly grasp the concept requires a mathematical explanation. Global Warming likewise requires intricate models and supercomputers. That's why scientists write papers and conduct seminars and they don't work alone, usually. Dumb people have the advantage of simple, stupid statements which neatly fit between adverts on the television.
Cuz, they lie... Simple as that. They have an "agenda".
ReplyDeleteMark Ruhland, who, the scientists?
ReplyDeleteChris Greene Yes, the scientists. Each side is claiming that they are the one's "speaking the truth"... Yet, who is to believed? For instance, I had a medical doctor (a scientist, in his own field), tell my folks and me, I wouldn't live to see my 16th birthday, at the age of ten. Well, I'm 40 yrs past my "expiration date of 16", and still around.
ReplyDeleteScientists are only human, and we need to remember that. They don't know "everything", like they think they do. They make mistakes. Errors in calculations, errors in interpretation of the facts... etc. They are human, just like me.
You'll say that neuroscience and climate science are two different fields. Yes, they are. But, they are both sciences taught by men and women, to other men and women.
In my view, there are aspects that don't get talked about in the "climate science" discussion. Namely, the effects of asteroids and meteors (meteorites) that come from space, thru the atmosphere and disrupt the climate. Volcanoes would be another aspect not spoken about much. How can you have millions of degree hot lava expelled from the earth into the atmosphere and not have an effect on the planet's climate.
I'm reminded of the events of 1980 when Mt St Helen blew 1/3 of it's mass into the atmosphere... 1/3, is a lot of debris to deal with... even on a global scale. I was living in North Dakota at the time and woke up the following day to find an inch of St Helen's ash on my vehicle.
Yes, that one one event, 36 yrs ago. But what about Vesuvius??? Kilauea and it's still spewing into the Pacific Ocean. Not to mention the fallout from the horrible disaster of the Fukashima radiation disaster that is still polluting our oceans and raising temperatures, due to the radiation.
Man is not responsible for all the climate change happening. BUT, climate scientists want to blame man for everything, after the invention of Fire, to the invention of the assembly line for the Ford Model T, and so on.
I'm saying that there is a balance. Yes, there have been things that man has done that have affected the climate. But, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and has for Billions of years. The Sun is expanding, therefore causing our climate to change and behave differently, than it has in the past. We are hurtling thru space being bombarded by meteors, Xrays, Gamma rays, Theta waves (tossed in to see if you understood that I was joking about theta waves. I know what they are) etc. Those also can affect our climate. I could very well be wrong in my thinking... It hasn't been the first time. Yet, there are many pieces to the climate puzzle that need to be worked on, in my view to make things more understandable and complete. Right now, we're about half way there, to understanding the complete picture of how things fit.
Mark Ruhland You talk with great authority about stuff you really know nothing about. Scientists talk with great authority about stuff they know a great deal about. You say '...there are aspects that don't get talked about in the "climate science" discussion.' In fact every single thing you mention, and many more besides, has been considered at great length by climate scientists. They aren't stupid; they aren't evil; they aren't motivated by some political agenda; and they study this stuff full-time. They are far more likely to know what they are talking about, and far more likely to give you the straight scoop, than a bunch of climate change deniers paid by the fossil fuel industry.
ReplyDeleteKent Crispin On the contrary. I have no "authority", whatsoever. I do, however have an opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn fact every single thing you mention, and many more besides, has been considered at great length by climate scientists. If that is so, why don't they help us understand more of what they know. I don't have the ability to read minds. Nor do I trust people just because they have a PhD or an MD or JD or a "Hon" after or before their name. I have not always been skeptical.That came about in time. The reason is simple. I have felt lied to by those I have trusted. People with knowledge withholding information makes it hard for those of us who do not have that information to make decisions.
I gave up trusting people, at face value, long ago. Now, they are gonna have to work to regain that trust.
The list of people that I trust is small. I trust Ethan Siegel, because he is someone who speaks plain English. I trust Ciro Villa Because I have interacted with him and he has helped me understand bits and pieces of what I don't understand. I trust Rhys Taylor, because he has a way of writing that has clarified thing in my mind that confused me.
I hope to add you to my list of people that can point me in the direction that can lead to success in understanding more. But, if not, that's fair, too. My way of writing is not for everyone. But, I try not to come across as a know-it-all... because, I don't know it all. I just have questions.
Rhys Taylor I blocked this jamoke quite some while back... with AGW, I believe there's plenty of room for doubt in the conclusions reached. Oh, we know the current trends reveal disaster is here already - and worse is yet to come. The doubt arises in coming to terms with just how epic the coming disaster will be.
ReplyDeleteShould we blame the scientists trying their best to communicate the problems to the public or those people pedaling false information about climate change?
ReplyDeleteUrgent situation requires urgent solution and every little chance to pass the message around should be well made use of. Brian Cox is being proactive in this whole argument to explain the gravity of the situation, some without basic knowledge of the essentials(the discoveries in nature)are denying it to those who need to be told.
This is not pedantic from Cox in the sense that he is doing the right thing of sensitizing the public of prevalent catastrophe, at least from a scientific perspective, is the right direction to take.
Patrick Johnson Who do we blame when the Sun engulfs Mercury, heads towards Venus, snacks on that and then heads towards Earth? Granted, we won't be around then, but our descendants will... Maybe. Do we still blame man, or would it be better to blame the Sun for ruing the day?
ReplyDelete