In their article Nisbet and Mooney call for scientists to “deemphasize the technical details of science when trying to defend it.” Understanding that using a slant, like any media outlet does, to paint science in the most beneficial light possible is important, granted, but to deemphasize the technical aspects is a critical error. Without the technical detail science sounds like any other argument made in favor of one ideology or another, informed and educated individuals will latch onto these aspects and sort the importance of the details ahead of bickering and slander. Initially in the article they seem to divide up Republican views of science and Democratic views. Why they do this is to show that people are in denial of the UNIPCC’s findings and derive their information from sources that only tell the story via their view, but as far as I can tell no connection is drawn directly between the media outlets reporting this information and the opinions the respective party members hold. It seems this might be in poor taste due to the fact that they go on to criticize scientists for attacking religious views when attempting to present the facts that are important. I agree completely that the scientific community needs to think more critically in the way they approach the public and the way the media portrays the findings. It is often that when a scientist and a religious official are brought on any sort of media they are there just to create a ruckus and cause problems rather than intelligently discuss the facts. However, it could be argued that the two are incompatible so it would behoove scientists to avoid any sort of confrontation with an unfalsifiable source such as a religious fanatic that is clearly set up for ratings and not progress. Science should emphasis the progressive mindset instead of allowing for the trifling encounters set up to create a spectacle. By positioning themselves in a way that is much more public relations savvy science could create a more direct, open and clear line with citizens who would greatly appreciate the genuine nature of such an interaction and undoubtedly benefit from it in their personal decision making.
Note: previous posts will be added soon due to initial blog set up problems.
Your caution about Nisbet and Mooney's argument is well-placed. In some ways N&M have put out an argument too easily accepted too quickly by too many (...but not all; they've been roundly criticized as well). What's interesting is the way you put your comment near the end: "By positioning themselves in a way that is much more public relations savvy science could create a more direct, open and clear line with citizens who would greatly appreciate the genuine nature of such an interaction and undoubtedly benefit from it in their personal decision making." The nub of the problem of course is figuring out what "public relations savvy" consists of. N&S would say that what they've written is a guide to such savvy.
ReplyDelete