How are you 'Framing' Science when you speak?

[skeptigirl]

When I have more time later tonight I'll expand on the "Framing" terminology which some of you are undoubtedly starting to hear used in various circles. But I started the thread to discuss the statements we make and how they reinforce or undermine the value of the scientific process and the perception people have of that process.

This editorial in Sky and Telescope (http://media.skytonight.com/documents/200703008008.pdf) points out one of those issues. In a hearing on Capitol Hill last week the quote was used that some in the anti-science crowd have "a predatory relationship with the uncertainty of science", (Dr Rick Piltz, former head of the GAO). This needs to be addressed, in particular statements we in the science community make that cloud the issue continually.

It is common to be repeatedly explaining the difference between a theory and an hypothesis and the general nature of scientific proof vs the casual use of the word. The need to continually repeat this explanation reflects a failure to teach it to the general public. One contribution to that failure is the words we ourselves are using to discuss science.

Another common mistake (in my opinion) we continually make is repeating such things as, “scientific evidence can be found to support both sides”, and, “there will always be political pressure influencing scientific research.” If skeptics and scientists lack confidence in the process you can imagine how confident the general public is. Before you say, "but it's true", think about how you can separate out the distortion of scientific research from the scientific process in your discussion of this "truth".

Instead of repeating and thus reinforcing the false claim science can be found to support both sides of an issue, be it global warming or trial evidence, we must instead use our voice to educate the public about the ways research results are distorted to falsely support conclusions. For example instead of only saying scientists are brought in to support both sides in a trial, add that one side may just be paying someone to claim what a very small minority of the scientists think and that the actual evidence is really overwhelming on one side. Or if the science is equivocal, say so while making it clear this is a specific case and not all cases are equivocal even if two scientific opinions are presented. We need to be making statements that reinforce the reliability of the scientific process.

Clarify what is meant when “proved” is not the conclusion. 'Overwhelming evidence' and 'majority consensus' are terms that can counter predatory attacks on the uncertainty of science. Expose the fact some scientists are presenting minority opinions as if they were supported by more scientists than really hold that opinion. Teach people how to verify what the evidence actually does support when divergent claims are made rather than just giving up with the belief such practices are merely part of life. They are but that doesn't mean complacency is warranted.

These are just a few examples. The issue of confidence in the scientific process is of utmost importance. How we describe science can either reinforce the reliability or the unreliability of the scientific process.

[CapelDodger]

It is common to be repeatedly explaining the difference between a theory and an hypothesis and the general nature of scientific proof vs the casual use of the word. The need to continually repeat this explanation reflects a failure to teach it to the general public. One contribution to that failure is the words we ourselves are using to discuss science.
It's very difficult to teach adults about things which, to them, are nebulous or about which they already have a formed but not necessarily informed opinion. Can we adapt our language to get science across to the masses without compromising science itself? People generally are more comfortable with priests and politicians who will say "This is so" than scientists who will say "The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points towards ...". Is there much we can do about that?

If children can be taught what science is, in principle and in practice, we'll be better off in the future. Sadly, in the UK there's a cultural bias against science, in my experience. C P Snow described it as "the two cultures"; in reality it's more that science is not for the cultured.

[andyandy]

i think the danger is that in following through such a combative agenda one risks the core objectivity on which all science has to be based. It's not, in my opinion, appropriate for science to be politicised by scientists.....

[drkitten]

Instead of repeating and thus reinforcing the false claim science can be found to support both sides of an issue, be it global warming or trial evidence, we must instead use our voice to educate the public about the ways research results are distorted to falsely support conclusions. For example instead of only saying scientists are brought in to support both sides in a trial, add that one side may just be paying someone to claim what a very small minority of the scientists think and that the actual evidence is really overwhelming on one side. Or if the science is equivocal, say so while making it clear this is a specific case and not all cases are equivocal even if two scientific opinions are presented. We need to be making statements that reinforce the reliability of the scientific process.


But part of the problem is that the scientific process is not reliable.

Issues of political distortion aside, science is one big exercise in what logicians call "hasty generalization." And in cases of genuine scientific controvery -- which are all too common, unfortunately -- the science literally does support both sides, because a scientific consensus has not yet emerged, either because the data is too sparse, or because the data genuinely supports a multitude of hypotheses.

And at any point, I can point to any number of scientific questions that are in a genuine, non-distorted, state of controversy.

How do you plan to distinguish between genuine scientific controversies and political stalking horses? At what point does controversy turn into consensus?

[CapelDodger]

i think the danger is that in following through such a combative agenda one risks the core objectivity on which all science has to be based. It's not, in my opinion, appropriate for science to be politicised by scientists.....
I think skeptikgirl is referring to us as socially-interacting individuals trying to get ideas across, rather than scientists at work doing science. We, on one side, have to be combative because there's another side which is already being so. Or we just shrug and let them make free with our goats and womenfolk. Nay to that, I say, and thrice nay. The question is, what tactics are likely to be successful?

If we have to adopt some of the Black Art tactics of the opposition to succeed, so be it. Language is central to communication - well, duh - and to manipulation. What's said is not always as important as how it's said. "We are all one in Jesus" says absolutely nothing, but it resonates with some people. Advertisers, lobbyists, proselytisers know what works to their ends and so should we. Even if it makes us feel a little grubby.

[CapelDodger]

How do you plan to distinguish between genuine scientific controversies and political stalking horses? At what point does controversy turn into consensus?
Coming up with a generalised answer - a very scientific aim - is a tall order. But what about specific issues? Anthroponegic global warming is an issue where there is consensus, and it's one of the few scientific subjects that are commonly discussed in the wider community. Vaccination is another. When discussing them, should our first concern be getting across the nature of science as never conclusive - a turn-off, freely exploited by lobbyists and woo-merchants - or getting across the consensus and the reasons for it? I think the latter, unsurprisingly :) .

In practice, I concentrate mostly on getting across to people the way they're being misled by the manipulators rather than the fundamental nature of science. People understand that more easily than they do science, it's simply more human. Lead them to the field of doubt, without branding them with any particular certainty. The other side leads them to the certainty of doubt about specific scientific topics.

I recall an episode of Bones (one of my favourite sci-fi shows) where Dr Brennan is giving expert evidence at a trial and the prosecution is trying to coach her in how to come across to the proles who actually sit on the jury. Fine stuff, I thought.

[fuelair]

Depends on the science: I like a nice brown wood for biology and with green hints for Ecology. I see Physics in a brushed aluminum. Haven't thought much about the others, but I'll get back to you!

[Jimbo07]

Stupid Physics... getting all up in our face with its aluminum finish... It's all shiny and up in our buisness...

[athon]

Welcome to the confusing and rather fuzzy world of science communication.

Language is always at the heart of the problem with communicating science, and there are numerous issues with how to properly describe scientific issues while remaining aware of the fact that the context of language varies between fields of science, let alone between science and the so-called 'layman'.

A perfect example of contentious use of language is in analogies. The extent to which an analogy serves as a model is often misinterpreted; and yet, science communication relies on analogies to create a good bridge to the public.

We need good communicators and good educators in science. The precise nature on what this entails is a rather novel field, and right now I'm directly observing the teething problems. Just saying 'we need better education' doesn't cut it. It's stating the obvious, like being in a plane that's nose diving and having somebody scream 'this plane shouldn't be allowed to hit the ground'.

Right now we need good pilots who have some good, practical ideas on how to fly this thing. And unfortunately, we still in the middle of writing the manual.

Athon

[Schneibster]

When I have more time later tonight I'll expand on the "Framing" terminology which some of you are undoubtedly starting to hear used in various circles. But I started the thread to discuss the statements we make and how they reinforce or undermine the value of the scientific process and the perception people have of that process.I think this is perhaps one of the most important subjects facing scientists today, not as scientists, but as members of society. I support and endorse your view on this subject unequivocally. I do not yet have anything to add, but I'm going to think about this.

The "predatory relationship" quote is particularly powerful to me. Thank you for bringing this subject up.

[skeptigirl]

It's very difficult to teach adults about things which, to them, are nebulous or about which they already have a formed but not necessarily informed opinion. Can we adapt our language to get science across to the masses without compromising science itself? People generally are more comfortable with priests and politicians who will say "This is so" than scientists who will say "The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points towards ...". Is there much we can do about that?

If children can be taught what science is, in principle and in practice, we'll be better off in the future. Sadly, in the UK there's a cultural bias against science, in my experience. C P Snow described it as "the two cultures"; in reality it's more that science is not for the cultured.The problem with your assessment of teaching adults here is assuming if teaching fails then there are no alternatives. How do you know it's the fact they're adults rather than the possibility the method of teaching may be the thing that needs to change?

As far as compromising science, no way. I'm saying the opposite. Claiming science supports both sides is often the scientific compromise.

Take something like the OJ trial, most everyone is familiar with it. They attacked the DNA evidence claiming the sloppy lab procedures compromised the evidence. They got the good Dr Lee to testify for the defense.

That's wasn't a scientifically valid argument because, if I recall, the results, if contaminated, would not have matched both victims and/or OJ as consistently as the results did. While the lab procedures may have been atrocious, and one might have stretched the possibility of cross contamination, the actual science only supported the defense because it was misrepresented.

It's compromising science to allow such a distortion without objection.

I most certainly want scientific research to be accurately communicated. That's the point.

[skeptigirl]

But part of the problem is that the scientific process is not reliable.

Issues of political distortion aside, science is one big exercise in what logicians call "hasty generalization." And in cases of genuine scientific controvery -- which are all too common, unfortunately -- the science literally does support both sides, because a scientific consensus has not yet emerged, either because the data is too sparse, or because the data genuinely supports a multitude of hypotheses.

And at any point, I can point to any number of scientific questions that are in a genuine, non-distorted, state of controversy.

How do you plan to distinguish between genuine scientific controversies and political stalking horses? At what point does controversy turn into consensus?Aaaaaaahhh! Wow do we ever need to educate ourselves!

How about I start with the issue of "reliabliity" vs overwhelming evidence vs consensus, vs equivocal vs not enough evidence to support either of two conclusions.

The scientific process is as reliable as humanly possible. You are confusing the implications of a single study or a research problem where the evidence is not conclusive. A single study is typically weak evidence until it is repeated unless the single study is very large.

That doesn't mean science isn't reliable!

And political distortions of science are just that, distortions. It isn't hard to find the reliable science underneath. There are rules one follows evaluating research results.

The global warming issue is an extreme example. Oil companies have literally financed a million dollar campaign to discredit the science and they have been very successful. In doing so they did serious damage to the credibility of science. But the evidence is undeniable and regardless of the campaign against the science, you can't change the evidence. Because of that fact, the controversy will eventually be resolved, by the most reliable means, the science.

If you just think in terms of how science reports conclusions that results in more precise statements about conclusions one can draw from evidence. Don't expect "proof" unless you are talking about math, but at the same time, it's reliable to act on overwhelming evidence.

And sometimes you act on less than ideal evidence, but that doesn't mean science isn't reliable, it means the research isn't yet adequate. Those are two different things.

[skeptigirl]

....

I recall an episode of Bones (one of my favourite sci-fi shows) where Dr Brennan is giving expert evidence at a trial and the prosecution is trying to coach her in how to come across to the proles who actually sit on the jury. Fine stuff, I thought.
Dr Shindell did a good job replying to one Congressman Issa in the Waxman hearing on scientific integrity over government scientists who were intimidated and censored over their global warming research. Rep Issa kept pressing for an answer to the question, "Isn't it true some scientists are not in agreement?" (paraphrasing the exchange from an imperfect memory)

Dr Shindell: "Well there is a general consensus..."

Rep Issa: "Is every scientist in agreement or not?"

[It was like a cross exam and went on a few more times]

Dr Shindell would not give in and answer yes. In a court room you'd have to and hope the other lawyer would let you answer on redirect.

Dr Shindell got the last word in and explained that, "any opposing scientific view would be listened to as long as it was supported with valid evidence and research. And in the case of global warming there was a majority consensus by the scientific community..."

[skeptigirl]

I think this is perhaps one of the most important subjects facing scientists today, not as scientists, but as members of society. I support and endorse your view on this subject unequivocally. I do not yet have anything to add, but I'm going to think about this.

The "predatory relationship" quote is particularly powerful to me. Thank you for bringing this subject up.I'm beaming from this comment! I've been trying to get this issue across for a couple of years and it's been a real struggle. Everyone that 'hears' what I'm saying makes me ecstatic because I know that person will go on to convert another.

Athon is exactly right that we need to start by writing the manual. I have enough material for a number of pages but hardly enough to consider publication.

The page for today is changing the way we communicate the uncertainty in science so the non-scientist hears the 'degree of certainty' and the reliability of the process to continually decrease the uncertainty, and the fact that "overwhelming evidence" is good enough to take to the bank.

There are lots of other issues like imparting those critical thinking skills so people recognize the distortions of science when they see them. But we have to stop undermining the basic science itself. If we don't then that critical thinking will just get the person to the confusing language of uncertainty.

If you just adopt the term, "overwhelming evidence" in lieu of "proof" it's a start. (But don't use it if it isn't valid.)

[Schneibster]

When I have more time later tonight I'll expand on the "Framing" terminology which some of you are undoubtedly starting to hear used in various circles. I am strongly aware of framing and have been for several years. I'd like to recommend a couple of articles you may or may not have seen:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

The first tells how the research that led to framing was done, and who funded it, and why, and the second is Lakoff, who if you know what framing is, you should know of, since IIRC he invented the term.

I'm going to partly turn your post into a list. I think we might need a list.

In a hearing on Capitol Hill last week the quote was used that some in the anti-science crowd have "a predatory relationship with the uncertainty of science"...

It is common to be repeatedly explaining the difference between a theory and an hypothesis and the general nature of scientific proof vs the casual use of the word. The need to continually repeat this explanation reflects a failure to teach it to the general public. One contribution to that failure is the words we ourselves are using to discuss science.

Another common mistake (in my opinion) we continually make is repeating such things as, “scientific evidence can be found to support both sides”, and, “there will always be political pressure influencing scientific research.” ... Instead of repeating and thus reinforcing the false claim science can be found to support both sides of an issue, ... we must instead use our voice to educate the public about the ways research results are distorted to falsely support conclusions. ...

Clarify what is meant when “proved” is not the conclusion. 'Overwhelming evidence' and 'majority consensus' are terms that can counter predatory attacks on the uncertainty of science.

Expose the fact some scientists are presenting minority opinions as if they were supported by more scientists than really hold that opinion.

Teach people how to verify what the evidence actually does support when divergent claims are made rather than just giving up with the belief such practices are merely part of life. I think there are actually two lists there: problems, and solutions.

I have some random observations that may or may not turn out to be useful in this regard, either for spotting patterns, or directly finding a problem or a solution.

I think I'd like to add a solution that is probably looking for a problem: "Why is science so wrong, if (choose product, appropriate to the subject at hand) works so well?" This works for chemistry, most branches of physics, biology, and astronomy pretty well; I've had several creationists walk off in a huff after I used this one on them. Where else would be a good place to use it, and where else is under attack that needs it?

I have noticed that there is an enormous conceptual gap between people who actually "get" how things are, and people who just plain flat don't. I have come across pretty smart people, for example, who just didn't "get" that space is really, really big. I was talking with one guy, pretty well versed in bio and anthro, who said to me that he was concerned we were gonna pollute space. When I stopped laughing, I tried to explain it to him. I never really got the impression he believed me. And it's not even a matter of that he didn't get "goes on forever;" it was that he had just never thought about what "goes on forever" might actually really mean.

For another example, sometimes when I talk about physics, I try to tell people how quanta just aren't anything you can actually visualize; there's no "little light shining over your shoulder" onto "little balls floating around each other." But they've seen so many pictures that showed just that, that they can't seem to imagine it any other way; and just about the time you think you've got them to where they've figured it out, they up and ask some question that makes it clear that they just didn't get it and are still thinking about little balls that they can somehow see with "quantum light" or whatever (sorry, that was kind of condescending, but geez, ya know?).

Here's a big, big one: people are not taught to think critically. What I mean is, in school. There honestly are people who never think about the fact that if they don't think about something, it doesn't go away. What can you do with that? We are talking here about people who are seriously delusional, but who are fully functional, other than the peculiar way they might behave toward unpleasant situations. There are a LOT more of them than we think. What can we do about that?

The remainder of the things that come to mind right now are totally political. I'm going to take a break and see if any more that actually hit on science come to mind.

I hope that helped.

[skeptigirl]

This blog, Framing Science (http://www.scienceblogs.com/framing-science/) has been excellent as far as the entries I've read. I only found it a couple weeks ago.

This one, with the same title (http://framing-science.blogspot.com/) is more about taking the pulse of America and how science is being framed.

This article is titled, framing science. (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2118) It's funny they would think the science of persuasion is 'new'. The science of marketing and the science of persuasion both go back decades maybe even centuries depending on where you consider the actual science for it began.

[skeptigirl]

I used the Lakoff article for my TAM presentation. He seems to be getting credit for the term, framing.

[Schneibster]

I'll have a look later. I STRONGLY suggest you look that "Tentacles of Rage" article over. Lakoff can wait, but you should know about what they did and how and why they did it.

[skeptigirl]

I was trying to stay away from politics because it draws my usual crowd of critics who think I bring up the Republicans for the politics when I sometimes bring them up purely for the communication issues. I was going to put these links in another thread where Luntz was mentioned but I think I'll just put them here instead.

Frank Luntz, the infamous Republican marketing strategist was on Tavis Smiley tonight doing the talk show circuit to promote his book, "Words that Work" (http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599) I'll be buying a copy shortly. Luntz's key points are research, research, and research. It's why I keep saying the anti-science crowd knows one science very well, the science of marketing and persuasion. And it's the one science some of us don't even recognize is a field of science.

Wiki on Luntz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz)

Luntzspeak, a site that points out the language being used to manipulate voters (http://www.luntzspeak.com/), kind of along the lines of Randi exposing fakes by disclosing their secrets.

PBS interview of Luntz (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html)

I'm not suggesting we go completely into marketing science, unless it's simple and clean. But I think there might be a scientific approach we should take to researching and writing that manual Athon mentioned. And if no one's going to fund it, we can just study the research the marketers like Luntz have already done and adapt it to framing science.

[Cuddles]

And sometimes you act on less than ideal evidence, but that doesn't mean science isn't reliable, it means the research isn't yet adequate. Those are two different things.

I think this is what DrKitten meant. The trouble isn't that sometimes we don't have a definite answer yet, it's explaining to people the difference between cases where we don't have an answer and cases where we do but people are telling us not to believe it.

For the climate example, 20 years ago we did not have an answer. There was evidence that humans might be changing things, there was evidence that the Sun might be, there was evidence that sometimes [rule 8] just happens. Now, we are almost certain with our answer, but there are many people telling everyone that we aren't and that because every single scientist doesn't agree exactly we still simply don't know the answer.

I believe the problem DrKitten was getting at is that it is extremely difficult to explain to the layperson what the difference is between these two cases. How do you explain that in this case there is genuine scientific uncertainty and in that case the answer is known but politics is pretending it isn't? And more importantly, how can you get people to be able to tell the difference themselves?

[skeptigirl]

I think this is what DrKitten meant. The trouble isn't that sometimes we don't have a definite answer yet, it's explaining to people the difference between cases where we don't have an answer and cases where we do but people are telling us not to believe it.

For the climate example, 20 years ago we did not have an answer. There was evidence that humans might be changing things, there was evidence that the Sun might be, there was evidence that sometimes [rule 8] just happens. Now, we are almost certain with our answer, but there are many people telling everyone that we aren't and that because every single scientist doesn't agree exactly we still simply don't know the answer.

I believe the problem DrKitten was getting at is that it is extremely difficult to explain to the layperson what the difference is between these two cases. How do you explain that in this case there is genuine scientific uncertainty and in that case the answer is known but politics is pretending it isn't? And more importantly, how can you get people to be able to tell the difference themselves?I know what Drkitten meant. But the way that meaning was stated is exactly the point I am making about how NOT to describe science.

First, I don't want to get into the "genuine uncertainty" about global warming in this thread because it's one of the reasons we need to change how we frame what we say. That uncertainty everyone is buying into even among the skeptics was exaggerated and promoted by a couple million dollars and some oil company interests in influencing legislation. They took that uncertainty those of us in the scientific community understand and used it to convince lay persons science didn't really have valid evidence.

In the case of global climate change, as I've said elsewhere, the evidence will eventually rear its inconvenient self and resolve the false beliefs about uncertainty. It actually already has. Bush is now claiming he's always promoted the science which supported the conclusion global warming was occurring and human CO2 was a major cause. :rolleyes:

But the damage to the integrity of science will outlast the false uncertainty of global warming.

Instead of repeating the evidence is completely useless to draw a conclusion from, it would have been helpful if the skeptical community would have sorted past all the individual claims the evidence showed this or that and looked for the growing consensus among climate scientists. And the skeptical community could have done a better job identifying the areas of consensus and the areas with less certainty rather than speaking in terms of overall uncertainty when perhaps it was beginning to narrow to just a few areas of contention. And in the case of global warming, taking a closer more skeptical look at who was saying what to see if a pattern of oil company sponsored research just happened to fall heavily on one side which unaffiliated science oddly fell on the other.

In other words there was a lot that could have been done when it appeared politics was unduly influencing the way scientific research was being characterized. Regardless of the politics, the scientific process has a way of verifying research. Short of outright fraud, the scientific process can overcome political influence. Just look at the actual science and look at what the critics have to say about research methods and whether the data support the conclusions drawn. Are the results repeatable, all that stuff. The process is indeed reliable.

[drkitten]

How about I start with the issue of "reliabliity" vs overwhelming evidence vs consensus, vs equivocal vs not enough evidence to support either of two conclusions.

Good, since that's specifically the question that I asked, hmmm.?



The scientific process is as reliable as humanly possible. You are confusing the implications of a single study or a research problem where the evidence is not conclusive. A single study is typically weak evidence until it is repeated unless the single study is very large.

That doesn't mean science isn't reliable!

Er, yes, it does. The fact that "as reliable as humanly possible" isn't especially reliable doesn't help your case here.



The global warming issue is an extreme example. Oil companies have literally financed a million dollar campaign to discredit the science and they have been very successful. In doing so they did serious damage to the credibility of science. But the evidence is undeniable and regardless of the campaign against the science, you can't change the evidence. Because of that fact, the controversy will eventually be resolved, by the most reliable means, the science.

"Eventually"? The question of race-based IQ measures has been around for as long as IQ has, over a century, and there's no resolution in sight. Perhaps you're simply more patient than I am, but I would like to see action taken on global warming sometime in my lifetime -- or my grandchildren's.



And sometimes you act on less than ideal evidence, but that doesn't mean science isn't reliable, it means the research isn't yet adequate. Those are two different things.

Except it does. The reason -- the primary reason -- that science is reliable is because the research isn't yet adequate. Unfortunately, there's no bright line that distinguishes "adequate" from "inadequate" research. The secondary reason is because scientists make mistakes, some of which are structurally endemic, and so any individual report can be discounted. The process of peer review is supposed to catch the mistakes -- and it generally does, given enough time -- but that doesn't help non-scientists evaluating stuff.

And therefore, it's always easy to dismiss scientific reports that disagree with your point of view with the simple statement either that the research is "inadequate" or "inconclusive," that "more replication is needed," or that any particular research method is flawed or oversimplified (as they almost always are).

The fundamental problem is that you are looking for a way to describe "science" that will prevent anti-science folks from describing it in their own way. And that's simply not possible. There are no words that YOU can say that will silence the anti-vaccination crowd. Expecially since what they say is, in point of fact, true.

Your Shindell example is quite direct and to the point.

The correct answer to the question "Does every scientist agree with the point of view you've just expressed?" is "No." No amount of hedging will turn that "No" into a "Yes." As you yourself pointed out, in a courtroom you would have to give that "No." You might be able to avoid saying "No" in a televised debate, but everyone watching will see how hard you have to work at it.

Trying to airbrush that "No" away and pretend it doesn't exist is dishonest -- and more importantly, futile, because everyone who is opposed to your position knows the answer anyway, so if they can back you into such a corner, they win, because you look like someone caught trying to avoid a direct lie....

[hammegk]

This thread needs to be re-titled. Something along the lines of

"How To Lie, Scientifically"

perhaps? ;)

[AmateurScientist]

But part of the problem is that the scientific process is not reliable.

Issues of political distortion aside, science is one big exercise in what logicians call "hasty generalization." And in cases of genuine scientific controvery -- which are all too common, unfortunately -- the science literally does support both sides, because a scientific consensus has not yet emerged, either because the data is too sparse, or because the data genuinely supports a multitude of hypotheses.

And at any point, I can point to any number of scientific questions that are in a genuine, non-distorted, state of controversy.

How do you plan to distinguish between genuine scientific controversies and political stalking horses? At what point does controversy turn into consensus?

Very good post, drkitten.

AS

[Darth Rotor]

I am strongly aware of framing and have been for several years.
Could it be that you put in a few two-by-fours with this this delightful piece of your anecdote? ;)
And it's not even a matter of that he didn't get "goes on forever;" it was that he had just never thought about what "goes on forever" might actually really mean.
As I understand Hawking's explanation of spacetime, it does not "go on forever," but is instead bounded and finite. Granted, it's bloody enormous to the likes of you and I. Perhaps it is "as near to going on forever as need be," so your conceptual sketch has utility.
For another example, sometimes when I talk about physics, I try to tell people how quanta just aren't anything you can actually visualize; there's no "little light shining over your shoulder" onto "little balls floating around each other."
It took until I reached college level physics to dispell the orbital track model of electrons from my head and the probability / energy level idea in. I am not even sure that is current, as we were discussing spin, which at the time was a radical concept for me.

I don't think that it is bad to work from the simple to the complex, particularly when starting out. Physics beyond the high school level is not for the faint of heart.

"F = Ma, and you can't push a rope" only takes you so far. :)

But they've seen so many pictures that showed just that, that they can't seem to imagine it any other way; and just about the time you think you've got them to where they've figured it out, they up and ask some question that makes it clear that they just didn't get it and are still thinking about little balls that they can somehow see with "quantum light" or whatever (sorry, that was kind of condescending, but geez, ya know?).
To paraphrase an old toilelt stall graffito:

Those who teach in ivied halls
Rolls their sh__ in quantum balls
From those who feed on learned wit
Arise newly formed balls of sh__

All you can do is try to keep the learning process alive. I learned, on my own, a very bad golf swing, and had to first unlearn, then re-learn, a new and more effective one. The mind seems to develop "muscle memory" style patterns as well, so the effort to learn and teach will "go on forever." :D

DR

[skeptigirl]

This thread needs to be re-titled. Something along the lines of

"How To Lie, Scientifically"

perhaps? ;)No, not only completely misses the point, this is totally the wrong conclusion.

[Jimbo07]

Physics beyond the high school level is not for the faint of heart.

As I've found, you don't need to be especially smart to survive a physics major, just too stupid to give up. ;)



"F = Ma, and you can't push a rope" only takes you so far. :)


It's funny. As we were setting up our robotics display for a recent student show, we had to rig an apparatus. At one point we found ourselves pushing a rope, and all had a good laugh... it turns out we were able to push a rope quite effectively (and no, not just bunched up), thereby dispelling an axiom from 1st year, 1st day engineering mechanics. :D

[skeptigirl]

Good, since that's specifically the question that I asked, hmmm.?.....You are missing the point as well but I need more time to reply so we don't just talk past each other. But I'll try the short version and go from there later tonight.

I don't disagree at all (well maybe on a detail or too but we don't disagree in general) with what you are saying. The language of science is the language of uncertainty.

And contrary to Hamme's odd conclusion, I'm not talking about lying, misleading, or misrepresenting any scientific research or conclusions. That wouldn't help a bit.

Let me give an example from the editorial in Sky and 'Scope that I linked to in the OP.

What got me thinking about these not-so-subtle differences of meaning was a string of press releases and media reports on recent discoveries in astronomy. It started last August, when NASA claimed that new data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Hubble Space Telescope constituted “direct proof” of the existence of dark matter (S&T: December 2006, page 46). Then, in October, the Space Telescope Science Institute trumpeted Hubble’s “direct proof” of mass segregation in globular clusters (that is, massive stars move slowly and sink to the cluster’s center, while stellar fl yweights pick up speed and zoom into the outskirts). Finally, in early December, the New York Times ran a story about recent changes in two Martian craters (see page 17 of this issue), under the headline “Strongest Proof Yet of Water Flow on Mars.”

If you ask a jury of astronomers whether the existence of dark matter in galaxy clusters, mass segregation in globular clusters, and running water on Mars are established beyond a reasonable doubt — the same standard used in criminal trials — you’ll probably get an acquittal, or perhaps a deadlock. We have no proof of any of these things. What we do have is some very compelling evidence — enough to convince many astronomers, but not enough to convince all. In the stories cited above, “direct proof” or “strongest proof” should properly have been written “best evidence yet.”

Using theory when you should use hypothesis may be easier, but we repeatedly explain to the non-scientist what a theory is and is not, then fail to reinforce the lesson by using the terms correctly in practice ourselves. It's like a teacher giving a grammar lesson then using bad grammar the rest of the day in his/her own speech.

I'm saying there are more precise ways to discuss the uncertainty of science that doesn't undermine the scientific process. I'm not saying to deny or cover up the uncertainty. Saying the jury is out doesn't have to imply it will never come in.

[CapelDodger]

The problem with your assessment of teaching adults here is assuming if teaching fails then there are no alternatives. How do you know it's the fact they're adults rather than the possibility the method of teaching may be the thing that needs to change?
I did say that it's very difficult to teach people about things on which they already have formed opinions. Not that it's impossible. I'm in agreement with you that the way it's usually tried is not proving effective, and effective ways must be sought. They may exist.

(Alternatives to teaching the masses definitely exist when it comes to public policy, the obvious one being removing them from the decision-making process. Which, arguably, they have been in some democracies by the Dark Arts of manipulation.)

As far as compromising science, no way. I'm saying the opposite.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise, I was questioning whether we can get through to people without doing so. On further reflection, I think we can, if we separate science as a discipline and pursuit from the communication of scientific understanding to normal folk outside that sphere. The Dark Arts practitioners have done something very similar; they haven't influenced science itself, they've influenced public perceptions of science. I'm not averse to doing the same in a good cause.

Claiming science supports both sides is often the scientific compromise.
I'm not sure it's "often". The scientific position on theory, as I understand it, is that even if all available evidence supports a theory it's never conclusive. Even if there's no evidence that refutes it - in fact, such evidence kills a theory. Evidence, from repeated observations, science can be sure of.

Take something like the OJ trial ...

That's wasn't a scientifically valid argument because, if I recall, the results, if contaminated, would not have matched both victims and/or OJ as consistently as the results did. While the lab procedures may have been atrocious, and one might have stretched the possibility of cross contamination, the actual science only supported the defense because it was misrepresented.
Lawyers originated the Dark Arts of manipulation, thousands of years ago. Even priests and kings fell under their sway, and still are, even modern politicians and Kings of Industry. Advocacy and science are opposite poles.

Another example (not so obviously legal) is the assault on climate reconstruction, by Mann et al in particular. Obscure statistical procedures that weren't applied are constantly dredged up and presented as evidence - proof, in that world - that it's meaningless, without presenting the results with said procedures applied. Because, of course, they make no perceptible difference to the results. Implication is what's being exploited - after all, it wouldn't be brought up if it's not important, would it? Dead right it would if that's going to be the desired response.

I most certainly want scientific research to be accurately communicated. That's the point.
I'm of the opinion that it can only be communicated to people who already understand what science is and how it works, which is why I think teaching that to children is crucial. Give them that and they can laugh off the worst onslaughts of the Dark Arts merchants. More fundamentally, teach them critical thinking about everything they're told. Not all parents will thank you for it, but screw them, frankly.

[CapelDodger]

Dr Shindell did a good job replying to one Congressman Issa in the Waxman hearing on scientific integrity over government scientists who were intimidated and censored over their global warming research. Rep Issa kept pressing for an answer to the question, "Isn't it true some scientists are not in agreement?" (paraphrasing the exchange from an imperfect memory)

Dr Shindell: "Well there is a general consensus..."

Rep Issa: "Is every scientist in agreement or not?"

[It was like a cross exam and went on a few more times]

Dr Shindell would not give in and answer yes. In a court room you'd have to and hope the other lawyer would let you answer on redirect.

Dr Shindell got the last word in and explained that, "any opposing scientific view would be listened to as long as it was supported with valid evidence and research. And in the case of global warming there was a majority consensus by the scientific community..."
A variant of the old "Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer Yes or No" lawyer's trick. Dr Shindell clearly handled it very well, but of course such a response will be presented by some as "refusing to answer a simple question" to their target audience.

Demanding clarification is a satisfying tactic in such circumstances. "By 'scientist', do you include political scientists? Economic scientists? Professors of Truthology?". Twist the bastards up and leave them flapping in the wind. It won't change the subsequent presentation to an audience that isn't going to be watching, or care to look up the transcript, but there's still the satisfaction and don't we all crave that? In this particular case it certainly couldn't be called bullying.

[Schneibster]

I was trying to stay away from politics because it draws my usual crowd of critics who think I bring up the Republicans for the politics when I sometimes bring them up purely for the communication issues. I was going to put these links in another thread where Luntz was mentioned but I think I'll just put them here instead.I don't mind, and I don't think it's OT if we're talking specifically about science. It was their choice to go after science, not science's to come after them. It is certainly legitimate for scientists and people who discuss science regularly to discuss what they have done and how it can be counteracted, and to do so in a scientific venue rather than a political one.

[Schneibster]

Regardless of the politics, the scientific process has a way of verifying research. Short of outright fraud, the scientific process can overcome political influence. Just look at the actual science and look at what the critics have to say about research methods and whether the data support the conclusions drawn. Are the results repeatable, all that stuff. The process is indeed reliable.Eppur si muove.

[CapelDodger]

I am strongly aware of framing and have been for several years. I'd like to recommend a couple of articles you may or may not have seen:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml


Thanks muchly for the links, particularly the first. I'd tracked the shift in the US zeitgeist (I'm not above use of oxymoron) to the Goldwater nomination, but never with such detail. I'm more of a big-picture type, and the differences between the first and second Nixon runs pointed me in that direction.

The Movement has, to a great extent, been going with the flow rather than directing it. In the 50's and 60's science and progress and a promising future were bracketed together with an extended economic boom, the A-bomb notwithstanding. By the 70's that association had crumbled with the shift to an unpromising future : from hippy to nihilist punk. The only constant was marijuana. And the cultural importance of music. Two constants. And sexual liberation ... among the few constants were the aforesaid.

Science as liberator of the housewife became science as destroyer of the environment and - crucially - jobs. Still no cities under the sea or on the Moon, still no jet-packs, antibiotics were a long-ago revolution and Mother's Little Helper had churned out millions of prescription-junkies. No wonder science was vulnerable to a fantastically well-resourced and well-organised assault with the political aim of turning the clock back many centuries. Back to when power and wealth were dynastic, and there was no inheritance tax. No tax on the rich at all, to speak of.

[athon]

Unfortunately educating adults is an extremely difficult thing to do. True 'conversions' are rare, and most apparent changes of heart occur when those who possess good thinking skills are effectively shown that there are others who challenge beliefs, and that gives them the strength to do it themselves. The consensus is that epistimology has been well established by early to mid adolescence and very little influence will occur to change this in adulthood.

Miscommunication of the values of science (such as its incomplete certainty in knowledge) occur in school, and mostly because those in the formative years -- such as in primary school -- themselves don't understand the philosophy well enough. Coupled with focuses on social thinking skills (fallacies of authority and popularity) and with a confidence in intuitive thinking, we have the present issue with people progressing into later education with misinformed notions of what science truly is.

I'm learning that this way of thinking can be changed in adolescence, but by adulthood is pretty much firmly embedded. So, what hope do we have?

Primarily we need better scientific literacy practices in the formative years, which evolve through adolescence to produce strong scientific thinkers. We need to see which programs under development at the moment are the most effective at addressing this and we need to implement them with an eye for assessing their progress. It might feel somewhat like I'm advocating we abandon hope of changing the minds of adults, but at its core I believe that resources are best aimed at children and young adults.

Manipulating the language of science to compensate for a misinformed public is a bandaid effect and presents too many dangers. It is better, IMO, to continue to demonstrate science as it is, with its shortness of certainty and its apparent faults, and teach the younger generations the value in doing this.

Athon

[logical muse]

It is common to be repeatedly explaining the difference between a theory and an hypothesis and the general nature of scientific proof vs the casual use of the word. The need to continually repeat this explanation reflects a failure to teach it to the general public. One contribution to that failure is the words we ourselves are using to discuss science.


I have a particular pet peeve, which I attempted to address by making a web site sbout it:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

I'm not a scientist, in fact I'm reasonably uneducated. If anyone has suggestions to improve the content, please let me know.

If you like it, please help by linking to it in your blogs and web sites.

[skeptigirl]

I have a particular pet peeve, which I attempted to address by making a web site sbout it:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

I'm not a scientist, in fact I'm reasonably uneducated. If anyone has suggestions to improve the content, please let me know.

If you like it, please help by linking to it in your blogs and web sites.It's excellent. It's to the point and the name works well.

[skeptigirl]

Unfortunately educating adults is an extremely difficult thing to do. ...Just a quick comment on teaching anyone but especially adults. Address the problem as you would address a scientific problem. Start by assessing why it is you are failing.

Every education issue is not a knowledge deficit. For example, the anti-vaccine crowd holds certain beliefs which allow them to discount the scientific evidence. One of those beliefs is that all research is funded by BigPharma. In addition, they do not perceive risk from some of the diseases vaccines are for. If you just cite research and tell them vaccines are safer than the diseases, the anti-vaxer will not change their mind. But if you assess the problem and find it's the misconception that there is no research done by anyone who doesn't have a financial interest, you would then know you had to address that misconception in order for the person to even consider the research you were citing.

If the anti-vaxer doesn't think a particular disease is a risk, you have to address risk perception before you can change their beliefs.

It comes back to doing a better job assessing why we aren't changing hearts and minds. I happen to think some of the language we are using contributes to our failure to convert people to the scientific position.

Luntz's book's subtitle is, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." I think that is a good description of the problem. We aren't assessing what they hear as well as we should be assessing it.

[skeptigirl]

.....

Manipulating the language of science to compensate for a misinformed public is a bandaid effect and presents too many dangers. It is better, IMO, to continue to demonstrate science as it is, with its shortness of certainty and its apparent faults, and teach the younger generations the value in doing this.

AthonAn additional comment, I am not suggesting "manipulating" the language of science. Rather, I'm suggesting we improve on the accuracy with which we relate science, and that we pay more attention to what the person we are communicating to hears when we speak.

There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution, for example. So why, when asked if there was "proof" of evolution, would you answer, no you can't prove it, or explain science doesn't prove theories necessarily? Why not answer with, there is overwhelming evidence?

Was that person asking you to explain how the term "proof" is used in science? No, they were asking about the degree of certainty of the theory of evolution. If your answer is about the limits of scientific certainty, you may have made yourself happy, but the questioner hears, "evolution is far from proven."

This isn't about "manipulating", it's about better perception of communication issues.

[logical muse]

It's excellent. It's to the point and the name works well.

Thanks! That's quite a compliment. :)

[andyandy]

interestingly the cover story in this week's NS is about this topic...this was a scientific convention to deliver a consensus for political consumption.....

The word they were most pleased with was "unequivocal". Three hundred government-appointed delegates from 113 countries were last week unanimous in agreeing what most climate scientists have believed for years: that the world is warming fast and that humans are almost certainly to blame.

Some 600 scientists wrote the summary of the fourth assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published this week. Virtually everything they wanted to say in it survived the politicians, but the IPCC's review process was so rigorous that research deemed controversial, not fully quantified or not yet incorporated into climate models was excluded. The benefit - that there is now little room left for sceptics - comes at what many see as a dangerous cost: many legitimate findings have been frozen out.

This is the untold story of the report, uncovered in interviews with many of the scientists involved, the story of how a complex mixture of scientific rigour and political expediency resulted in many of the scientists' more scary scenarios for climate change - those they constantly discuss among themselves - being left on the cutting room floor.

basically this approach meant not including a lot of data that had it not been for the political motivations, would have been included...

"[in the IPCC process] real-world evidence was specifically excluded because it is not yet included in the models"
Researchers outside the IPCC process have been outspoken in condemning this approach. Bob Corell, a leading US meteorologist and chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, warned before the report's publication that any prediction of sea level rise of less than 1 metre would "not be a fair reflection of what we know".

The IPCC team also sidelined findings from the British Antarctic Survey. BAS researchers say that the Antarctic Peninsula is warming faster than almost anywhere on the planet. They have documented a sharp decline in sea ice around the peninsula, and warn that the giant West Antarctic ice sheet is "unstable and contributing significantly to sea level rise".

In contrast, the IPCC summary claims there are "no statistically significant average trends [in sea ice]," and that this is "consistent with a lack of warming, reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region". It asserts that overall "the Antarctic ice sheet... is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall".

the insight into the political wranglings is quite interesting too

Delegates spent five hours debating whether it was "extremely likely" or only "likely" that humans were responsible for global warming since the mid-20th century (see Graphs below for changes in man-made emissions). In the language of the IPCC "extremely" means a greater than 95 per cent certainty and "likely" a certainty greater than 66 per cent. A hawkish British government delegation wanted the summary to say "extremely likely"; the Chinese and Saudi Arabians wanted "likely"; in the end exhausted delegates settled for "very likely", meaning a certainty of at least 90 per cent.

Old IPCC hands say that Saudi delegations have a track record of vocal intransigence in the face of scientists' findings; this time they were more constructive. The main problem came from the large Chinese delegation, which was asking for the removal of five key passages from the summary.

They got their way only once when, after a 10-hour debate on the relative influences of solar and human activity, an exasperated meeting agreed to remove a sentence saying that the change in radiative forcing - the heat entering the system - that is attributable to human activities was "likely" to have been at least five times greater than that due to changes in solar activity. The Chinese argued that the influence of the sun could be greater.

"We let it go in the end, because the figure was in a graph anyway," says Kenneth Denman of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, British Columbia, Canada (see "The solar effect").

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19325903.800;jsessionid=DOMIHHMEMKJA

[athon]

Every education issue is not a knowledge deficit. For example, the anti-vaccine crowd holds certain beliefs which allow them to discount the scientific evidence. One of those beliefs is that all research is funded by BigPharma. In addition, they do not perceive risk from some of the diseases vaccines are for. If you just cite research and tell them vaccines are safer than the diseases, the anti-vaxer will not change their mind. But if you assess the problem and find it's the misconception that there is no research done by anyone who doesn't have a financial interest, you would then know you had to address that misconception in order for the person to even consider the research you were citing.

Ok, two points here.

Firstly, most people do not have committed views on most subjects. In other words, the vast majority of adults aren't anti-vaxers, don't have firm beliefs in the paranormal and don't defend homeopathy. What you will find is that most people tend to defend these things as possible (a good percentage of surveys that explore public beliefs are worded in such a way that it is biased towards what the surveyee believes is possible). It seems like a minor distinction, but it is actually at the heart of what we're discussing here.

Rather than go into detail of what I mean here, I strongly recommend you reading Deanna Kuhn's The Skills of Argument (if you haven't already) for her research into this issue.

Second point;

You're right in that offering contrary evidence to their opinion will not sway supporters and advocates of pseudoscience. However, the epistimology of these advocates is extremely difficult to change beyond adolescence. Even researching 'why' they hold different opinions will not offer a novel way to change their way of assimilating knowledge.

It comes back to doing a better job assessing why we aren't changing hearts and minds. I happen to think some of the language we are using contributes to our failure to convert people to the scientific position.

The choice of language is always of concern. I wrote a uni paper on this very topic, and Randi published it in SWIFT a number of years ago (I'll see if I can find it). The semiotics of science has been a point of contention since long before anybody even thought of analysing methods of science communication.

Yet the issue is a broad one, that extends past merely the words and media one uses to convey scientific information. A scientifically literate public is required, and that is far easier to solve than through the use of language.

Luntz's book's subtitle is, "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." I think that is a good description of the problem. We aren't assessing what they hear as well as we should be assessing it.

Actually, people are researching that very thing. However it's a novel field. Science communication as a field of research has only been taken seriously within the last decade. Answers are slowly coming, but it is taking time as more people see the validity in the field.

An additional comment, I am not suggesting "manipulating" the language of science. Rather, I'm suggesting we improve on the accuracy with which we relate science, and that we pay more attention to what the person we are communicating to hears when we speak.

Which brings us back to the epistimology of the receiver of the information. How they assimilate the information depends on their level of scientific literacy. I assume you're stating that once we are aware of how people address scientific information, we can better deliver it so it is perceived more accurately. I don't see how this could work in reality, to be honest.

Policing the delivery of all information, for starters, is impossible. People are met with truths, half truths and falsehoods from all angles, and each looks prettier than the last. We can word science in such a way to make it accurate and appealing, yet pseudoscience can also be presented this way.

What people need beyond anything else is a means to be able to critically analyse all information and to have the tools to be able to interpret it usefully.

There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution, for example. So why, when asked if there was "proof" of evolution, would you answer, no you can't prove it, or explain science doesn't prove theories necessarily? Why not answer with, there is overwhelming evidence?

Proof is a mathematical term. Science cannot offer certainty, for within that ability science remains strong. That room for doubt is perhaps science's greatest assett, and is the strength in critical thinking. Without that we adopt beliefs without hope of dropping them in light of new evidence. And that is something people can benefit from.

Once again, the language you're advocating as a possible answer to creating a scientifically literate population can also be used for pseudoscience. How are people to know the difference?

Athon

[hammegk]

Once again, the language you're advocating as a possible answer to creating a scientifically literate population can also be used for pseudoscience. How are people to know the difference?

Athon
I'd say the crux of the matter is "How will scientists know the difference?".

Er, let's take a vote .... ;)

[athon]

Hammy, I think your favourite 'winky' icon is a perfect symbol for you. Going through life with one eye permanently closed.

Athon

[hammegk]

Try "Both open".

When y'all start "framing" your presentations of science, you've become politicians.

[skeptigirl]

Ok, two points here.

Firstly, most people do not have committed views on most subjects. In other words, the vast majority of adults aren't anti-vaxers, don't have firm beliefs in the paranormal and don't defend homeopathy. What you will find is that most people tend to defend these things as possible (a good percentage of surveys that explore public beliefs are worded in such a way that it is biased towards what the surveyee believes is possible). It seems like a minor distinction, but it is actually at the heart of what we're discussing here.If we impart knowledge and find that failed to convince, most skeptics who aren't in the education field will repeat the information using different citations or examples. They don't stop to reassess the problem. So it wouldn't matter what most people believe or know as long as we recognize when communication fails and think about using other approaches.

The tools for measuring the learners' knowledge deficit such as a survey, are like any measuring tool, accuracy varies. There is a lot of scientific research in the field of education. There is research in persuasion, in the "Skills of Argument" as you noted (I haven't seen that one but I will since you recommended it). We don't need to reinvent the wheel.

I found there are current studies going on to find the best means of assessing and teaching critical thinking skills themselves and teaching them to a variety of adult learners. Fortunately there has been a shift and I hear, "teaching critical thinking", now a lot more often than a decade ago. So the skeptics are not static.

We do need more research that specifically addresses the typical false beliefs we in the skeptical community are seeing. There are many similar threads running though the woo community and the people not really in the woo community be susceptible to woo beliefs. The latter are the ones I think we can reach.

We debate, present an impeccable case, and it fails to convince. I agree with you there are many people listening who are hearing that impeccable case and are influenced. Of the ones we don't convince, more than a few might just be near impossible to reach. On the other hand, you seem to be claiming no other approach will be successful and to that I say, how do you know? Has there been enough research to that effect? Have all the possible approaches been tried? Are we thinking in a reasonable time frame for change and taking that into account when assessing our success? And, what about the people in the middle? Can we move the bar over more and reach more people even if we can't reach all people?

-

I have been addressing the false belief that flu shots make people ill for 16 years now and have identified a number of issues in addition to basic information that prevents people from hearing me. Addressing those issues has resulted in many converts. I have talked people out of their false belief about flu shots who started out swearing they'd never get another one. If simple information about placebo controlled studies isn't enough then I don't have someone with just a knowledge deficit.

So next I defuse the barrier which blocks out any information about flu shots by deferring that end point to a later time. I know I have to first get them to understand why they concluded erroneously an illness was caused by a flu shot, before I can get them to reassess their erroneous conclusion of cause and effect. So I just work on the problem of drawing conclusions about coincidences and literally tell them to forget about the shot for the moment. Sometimes people change their belief 2 or 3 years later.

And, they in turn are telling other people, "I wasn't going to get a flu shot because [relates story]. But Ginger talked me into trying it again and I had no problem." Now in addition to being a source of correct information, they are no longer a source of bad information. It's a twofer.

I made this case again just today. As time has gone by, I've really refined my own thinking in the matter. It's common for people to be convinced the flu shot was the only new thing in their life and that's their rationale for believing the new thing caused the illness. That one is easy, they wouldn't have known a new infection also happened near the flu shot since the organisms can't be seen. And I point out to them they get sick at other times without the shots. Sometimes they swear they haven't been sick in years and I have to work at getting through to them, but it's still just a matter of addressing the fact illnesses happen without 'changes' in our lives.

The next one is harder. I'm going to pose it here for everyone interested to think about it and say how they would explain the difference, then I'll tell you how I do. There is no one answer.

Person who thinks flu shot made them ill: "If I hit glass with a hammer and it breaks, I don't need a study to conclude the hammer broke the glass. So if I get a flu shot and get sick the next day, I don't need a study to "know" the flu shot caused the illness". Personal experiences are harder to address but I've developed one for this. What would anyone else say to that argument?

-

When I'm not able to shake the person's false belief, I still address the additional problem of those people spreading bad information. They don't need to be convinced themselves for me to tell them they have a duty to not repeat their non-evidence based belief while on duty as a health care provider. It waters the seeds a bit over their own non-evidence based belief when I do that, as well as teaching the concept that they need to be conscious of their part in the spread of misinformation especially in health care.

--

Over the 16 years I've been doing this particular job and the many years I've been a skeptic, I've found a number of key issues about why people believe some very specific false facts. And I have uncovered a couple of arguments which could be made a little more prominently in certain debates. I would bet within the skeptical community we have a wealth of similar data from our own experiences.

Second point;

You're right in that offering contrary evidence to their opinion will not sway supporters and advocates of pseudoscience. However, the epistimology of these advocates is extremely difficult to change beyond adolescence. Even researching 'why' they hold different opinions will not offer a novel way to change their way of assimilating knowledge.I realize I'm unlikely to change an Evangelical Christianist or others who are really 'gone'. I remember a teacher once saying something like studies revealed you have to let the old die out and just teach the young for the same reason you cite.

With my flu shots, all those folks aren't that far gone, but some of them are far enough that just giving them a few citations and exposing the cause and effect fallacies isn't enough. While the examples I mentioned above do show you can reach more people by being more specific in what false belief you address and by using some techniques like deferring the end point to remove barriers.


The choice of language is always of concern. I wrote a uni paper on this very topic, and Randi published it in SWIFT a number of years ago (I'll see if I can find it). The semiotics of science has been a point of contention since long before anybody even thought of analysing methods of science communication.

Yet the issue is a broad one, that extends past merely the words and media one uses to convey scientific information. A scientifically literate public is required, and that is far easier to solve than through the use of language.
.....
Actually, people are researching that very thing. However it's a novel field. Science communication as a field of research has only been taken seriously within the last decade. Answers are slowly coming, but it is taking time as more people see the validity in the field.When I was writing my paper for TAM I searched for "communicating science" and found only discussions of how to take technical information and present it to lay populations. There was very little else. I did find "framing science" and searching that term got the sources I cited earlier in this thread.

In science, the field of communication is indeed new. But the science of communication goes back as far as any science we have. I've been taken aback at how little attention is paid to the science of communication by the skeptical community. On the BAUT forum where science can be discussed and politics supposedly can't, the politics of global warming spills into the debate as well as the politics of ID vs evolution. But when I tried to post a thread about the science of communication, the fact I mentioned the use of this science in the political arena drew a majority (not unanimous) response it was politics and not a science.

If no politics were ever discussed on the BAUT forum, it would have been more consistent, but that isn't the case. Here on JREF, I've had similar responses. If I was to post that the Republican Evangelical Christians were stacking school boards using the 'wedge strategy' developed by the Discovery Institute, a Christian Right Wing think tank, to push ID into public school science classes, the discussion would likely be on the ID issue. Not many people would be posting things like, "you're just Republican bashing." But bring up the science of communication/marketing/persuasion and cite the incredible expertise in this field by the Republican leadership, and no one hears "the science of communication" in that topic.

Which brings us back to the epistimology of the receiver of the information. How they assimilate the information depends on their level of scientific literacy. I assume you're stating that once we are aware of how people address scientific information, we can better deliver it so it is perceived more accurately. I don't see how this could work in reality, to be honest.

Policing the delivery of all information, for starters, is impossible. People are met with truths, half truths and falsehoods from all angles, and each looks prettier than the last. We can word science in such a way to make it accurate and appealing, yet pseudoscience can also be presented this way.

What people need beyond anything else is a means to be able to critically analyse all information and to have the tools to be able to interpret it usefully.You cite the problems here but seem to see no solutions so let me give you ones I see.

Re science literacy: There's the teaching of critical thinking going on. It'll take a while. People are working on it.

As far as the individual skeptic is concerned, (and OT though I'm happy to branch off in this direction): I hear the way we discuss research and hear 'bad grammar' to make the analogy that I used earlier. We don't need to police skeptics, we need to use proper speech ourselves, discuss it at every opportunity and the snow ball will begin rolling and growing. You said you heard of these concepts years ago. I've been posting about them for years. There was enough interest in my TAM proposal it was accepted and I spoke at TAM5. There were other speakers who touched on the topic. I've had two people ask me for the paper and there's interest in having me talk about it at an upcoming Seattle Skeptics meeting. And there are a couple of blogs on framing science.

When you share some insight, people remember. And I think the current anti-science political atmosphere has resulted in the science of communication crossing paths with the skeptical community where it hadn't been so prominent before.

Re the tools: The head of our pediatric hospital spoke at a conference where he addressed the anti-vax issues. He said scientists need to develop the tools for health care workers to use when communicating with parents or patients. That is exactly what still needs to be done.

Here is the link if you're interested. Edgar Marcuse, MD, professor, University of Washington School of Medicine (http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=5170&fID=1469) is the doctor and he speaks first. It's really worth watching if you can find the time, about 15 minutes for his part. He specifically addresses just what we are talking about. (More snow on the snowball.)

Proof is a mathematical term. Science cannot offer certainty, for within that ability science remains strong. That room for doubt is perhaps science's greatest assett, and is the strength in critical thinking. Without that we adopt beliefs without hope of dropping them in light of new evidence. And that is something people can benefit from.

Once again, the language you're advocating as a possible answer to creating a scientifically literate population can also be used for pseudoscience. How are people to know the difference?

AthonCommunicating the uncertainty is one of those areas we need a bit more attention paid to what the listener hears. We still need to maintain accuracy. Dr Shindell's example is a good one. He repeated scientific consensus often. But when pinned down to answer "what about the scientists that disagree" he stated what a dissenting scientist needed to have his/her views included (peer reviewed supporting evidence) then Dr S went on to repeat the consensus.... By doing that, Dr Shindell avoided the trap of being accused of excluding scientists' views he didn't agree with. It was an excellent move. And now those of us who know the move can use it ourselves when similar traps confront us. We have one more tool.

The co-opting of scientific language by the woo crowd is a growing problem. It'll take time and a bit of brainstorming to develop effective means of thwarting the practice. It needs a case by case response just as specific woo beliefs do.

I can tell you how I address the ID claim of being science. The wedge strategy involves calling ID science then arguing it is being excluded because of the scientific community's anti-religion bias. And what do the 'dumb' evolutionists do? They play right into it in the worst way. They argue ID isn't science because belief in gods is outside the realm of science.

What should evolutionists do? Forget the perfectionist answer that ID isn't science because one can't test for a designer. That argument is over the lay person's head. Argue why ID is bad science. The ID argument relies on irreducible complexity. IC, which is testable, is easily refuted by overwhelming evidence in genetic science. Why are skeptics trying to educate the public why science doesn't test for designers when the public isn't even sure yet about something as basic as evolution? It's like teaching algebra to first graders who don't know addition and subtraction yet.


I'd love to hear some other ideas and insights people have observed or discovered.

[skeptigirl]

Try "Both open".

When y'all start "framing" your presentations of science, you've become politicians.
See if you can find in my post above which of my points you make a great case for with this statement.

Amazing.

[athon]

If we impart knowledge and find that failed to convince, most skeptics who aren't in the education field will repeat the information using different citations or examples. They don't stop to reassess the problem. So it wouldn't matter what most people believe or know as long as we recognize when communication fails and think about using other approaches.

I'm curious to know what you mean exactly, though, about 'other communication'. Obviously the wording is important in conveying any information with accuracy, but the current research in the sci-com field strongly suggests that those who believe in pseudoscience and the paranormal have poorer skills in rationalisation and approve of intuition over reason. Communicating to these people is not a matter of language, as they lack the skills of critical reasoning to be able to understand how to make use of the information contained within it. Interestingly, they are no different to the rest of the population when it comes to their positive attitude towards science (so they aren't 'anti-science' at all, even if they don't fully understand how it works).

I'm not saying that communication should not rely on effective use of language that takes heed of what the audience can effectively interpret. What I am saying is that any effective interpretation relies on a scientifically literate population. You can suggest all you like that text needs to be written in a way that people will make sense of it, but if people just can't make sense of the information behind it, any choice of media will fail.

I found there are current studies going on to find the best means of assessing and teaching critical thinking skills themselves and teaching them to a variety of adult learners. Fortunately there has been a shift and I hear, "teaching critical thinking", now a lot more often than a decade ago. So the skeptics are not static.

You might be surprised to know that critical thinking has been around in pedagogical literature for quite some time. The problems with it being effectively implemented, however, remain the same; how do you get teachers to teach it properly, and how do you assess that the methods they use is effective? All rely on having good teachers, and therein lies one of the issues.

...On the other hand, you seem to be claiming no other approach will be successful and to that I say, how do you know? Has there been enough research to that effect? Have all the possible approaches been tried? Are we thinking in a reasonable time frame for change and taking that into account when assessing our success? And, what about the people in the middle? Can we move the bar over more and reach more people even if we can't reach all people?

Good question. I think we can create more informed public by making good information more accessable to the wider population. And yes, the manner in which it is presented is very important. This is increasing with more media options (television shows such as Mythbusters is an excellent example, and popular science magazines have multiplied over the past decade) and a more appropriate use of dialogue between scientists and the public thanks to technology such as the internet.

Information is out there. And the way it is 'framed' is indeed taking into account the level of literacy within the population. Shows like Mythbusters wouldn't exist if you didn't have a sizeable part of the population who had scientific literacy.

So next I defuse the barrier which blocks out any information about flu shots by deferring that end point to a later time. I know I have to first get them to understand why they concluded erroneously an illness was caused by a flu shot, before I can get them to reassess their erroneous conclusion of cause and effect. So I just work on the problem of drawing conclusions about coincidences and literally tell them to forget about the shot for the moment. Sometimes people change their belief 2 or 3 years later.

I agree that there are many who change their views given time and good information. And I also agree that science communicators must have skills in understanding how to present information in a way that people can best make use of it.

Maybe the problem is that to me, this is common sense. Science communication is about using appropriate language that the audience can make sense out of, especially in light of their level of literacy. The literature does not debate whether or not this should be done, but rather the best media to use, how to take certain influences into account, how to make appropriate use of analogies etc.

Person who thinks flu shot made them ill: "If I hit glass with a hammer and it breaks, I don't need a study to conclude the hammer broke the glass. So if I get a flu shot and get sick the next day, I don't need a study to "know" the flu shot caused the illness".[/b] Personal experiences are harder to address but I've developed one for this. What would anyone else say to that argument?

To be honest, this isn't an argument I would have. No information would make a difference to this individual, as they rely on intuition to form their opinion. I would hope we can limit the number of such individuals in society by promoting in our youth a firm understanding of the philosophies and foundations of scientific thinking. Hopefully a paradigm of thought will form where such thinking as 'I don't need a study to "know" the flu shot caused the illness' will be considered as silly.

When I was writing my paper for TAM I searched for "communicating science" and found only discussions of how to take technical information and present it to lay populations. There was very little else. I did find "framing science" and searching that term got the sources I cited earlier in this thread.

In the future, PM me and I'll point out some good papers on the topic. Another person you can contact is Kylie Sturgess. Her archives put mine to shame. But between us both we can give you a score of papers and books that will help put you on the right track.

You cite the problems here but seem to see no solutions so let me give you ones I see.

I'm only saying that I don't see the framing of language in science communication as a panacea for addressing public ignorance or lack of critical thinking. It is necessary for good communication, but that's hardly novel. What is needed to address the lack of critical thinking in the greater population is adequate educational measures done consistently throughout a person's early educational career.

We don't need to police skeptics, we need to use proper speech ourselves, discuss it at every opportunity and the snow ball will begin rolling and growing.

Role modelling proper thinking behaviour is indeed the best way for educators to teach it.

Re the tools: The head of our pediatric hospital spoke at a conference where he addressed the anti-vax issues. He said scientists need to develop the tools for health care workers to use when communicating with parents or patients. That is exactly what still needs to be done.

I agree. There are measures being taken in numerous medical hospitals across Australia (and several in the UK) to promote better communication skills in practicing doctors. Science communication units are slowly being introduced into mainstream bachelor courses, although not as enthusiastically as we hoped. The message is spreading slowly, but it will take time.

I guess in summary, I can't disagree with you. But perhaps I'm too close to the centre of the storm to see the concept as all that revolutionary. It's a core issue in science communication. Yet language is only a small part of the problem, as the media of information transfer is only one third of the communication pathway. Effective transmission and effective reception are also needed, and with many people the way they receive information is flawed.

Athon

[Schneibster]

Hammy just doesn't like it because only he gets to do that.

[hammegk]

Here's some first-class framing ....

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

[lenny]

When y'all start "framing" your presentations of science, you've become politicians.
i was just about to agree with this whole heartedly, and then...

i fear as soon as we start presenting science in public scientists enter the political, and to fail to accept that fact is naive.

we can present material to motivate, or present it to inform. "framing to motivate" is unjustified (by/in science); but is "framing to inform" that bad a thing? always? it seems a slipery slope...

is there really an alternative, other than not promoting public understanding of science at all?

[lenny]

I'd say the crux of the matter is "How will scientists know the difference?".

Er, let's take a vote .... ;)

i think you know scientists can always tell the difference, it just may take a few hundred years, or so. can we wait and vote then?

[lenny]

And sometimes you act on less than ideal evidence, but that doesn't mean science isn't reliable, it means the research isn't yet adequate. Those are two different things.
Except it does. The reason -- the primary reason -- that science is reliable is because the research isn't yet adequate. Unfortunately, there's no bright line that distinguishes "adequate" from "inadequate" research.

if we could get that fact across to the public, it would disable the bad-guys as much as it enabled the scientists.
Trying to airbrush that "No" away and pretend it doesn't exist is dishonest -- and more importantly, futile, <snip> , they win, because you look like someone caught trying to avoid a direct lie.... i fear it can be even worse. climate models are often said to be based "on the fundamental equations with govern the atmosphere...". without noting that these equations are rather poorly approximated on current computers (and ignoring the questions of whether these equations do indeed "govern."). when science misleads in this way, it is unlikely to be caught in a direct lie, but scientists who overstate what we know now risk discrediting the advances of science in the future.

[Schneibster]

I can't decide whether drkitten or Athon has made the best "against" post on the thread. I'll answer both; they deserve proper answers. We need standards of communication that laymen can understand. This may be the most important issue in science today, as I stated above. As the impact of scientific knowledge on the layman's ability to understand and deal with the facts of the world around us becomes more and more important, so does this (as I see it) positive duty of scientists become more crucial. The reason -- the primary reason -- that science is reliable is because the research isn't yet adequate. Unfortunately, there's no bright line that distinguishes "adequate" from "inadequate" research. The secondary reason is because scientists make mistakes, some of which are structurally endemic, and so any individual report can be discounted. The process of peer review is supposed to catch the mistakes -- and it generally does, given enough time -- but that doesn't help non-scientists evaluating stuff.

And therefore, it's always easy to dismiss scientific reports that disagree with your point of view with the simple statement either that the research is "inadequate" or "inconclusive," that "more replication is needed," or that any particular research method is flawed or oversimplified (as they almost always are). I disagree that that's always possible, at least if one wants what one is maintaining to have even a nodding acquaintance with anything that anyone might call "the truth."

The recent practice of using "very likely" for =>90% certainty, and "virtually certain" for =>99% certainty, can be compared to legal degrees of certainty and perceptions of percentage chance that the assertion is true as in Table 1 here (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/1/1/014003/erl6_1_014003.html). I have not fully reviewed the position of the author, but the table seems at minimum reasonable and perhaps even definitive. I believe that wide propagation of these standards, and their use by as many in the scientific community as possible, cannot help but have the most beneficial effects on public understanding of what scientists are saying. A great deal of the problem comes from the collision of legal and scientific expressions of the degree of certainty, and the use of legalistic terminology in scientific evaluations, and vice versa (depending on who you think came up with it first, you might even believe that these are matters of one or another branch of philosophy).

This avoids dismissal of good theories based on corollaries of the venerable and despicable "scientists can't make up their minds," without compromising their integrity. Furthermore, if expressed in a scientific paper, these measures of certainty can and will be, along with the rest of the content, peer reviewed and discussed, and amended if there is not substantial agreement, just as they were in the IPCC report. The level of certainty was adjusted from >99% in drafts to the >90% in the final published report. This is, in the context of the concerns raised both by the IP and the post I am responding to here, a Good Thing For Science.

The fundamental problem is that you are looking for a way to describe "science" that will prevent anti-science folks from describing it in their own way. And that's simply not possible. There are no words that YOU can say that will silence the anti-vaccination crowd. Expecially since what they say is, in point of fact, true.While this is technically correct, an expression of certainty at the level of legal proof sufficient for various levels of certainty, when combined with a percentage expression, should allow the vast majority of laymen to make an informed judgment. And it is, in my view, essential that the vast majority if not the totality of people be given the information that can reasonably be expected to allow them to do this.

Whether they actually manage to do so depends in part upon their critical thinking skills and their level of sanity; obviously, someone incapable of thinking critically isn't going to be able to make a well-informed choice, nor is someone who is incapable of distinguishing external reality from their internal belief system, but if the majority of people are capable of making use of this information, and legal systems the world over insist they are, then this is the best we can do, and if it is good enough for law, in which peoples' lives and freedom are at stake, then it must be good enough for science. To deny that this is so is elitism in fact; those who have followed my posts know that I dismiss specious claims of elitism, but should be aware that I do not deny its existence, merely its overapplication.

The correct answer to the question "Does every scientist agree with the point of view you've just expressed?" is "No." No amount of hedging will turn that "No" into a "Yes." As you yourself pointed out, in a courtroom you would have to give that "No." You might be able to avoid saying "No" in a televised debate, but everyone watching will see how hard you have to work at it.But on cross-examination, or re-direct, in response to this tactic, a wise attorney will ask the questions implied by the standards given above: is it likely? Very likely? Virtually certain? How would you quantify the chance that this is correct? 50%? 60%? Can you give a number that you would say the degree of certainty must be above? And a reasonable jury (or a reasonable and properly educated public) would make their determination based on that, rather than the implicit lie that because you cannot say 100%, it must not be true. And I will stop here and point out that the standard for conviction and sentencing to death in a criminal trial in the majority if not the totality of the United States is not 100%. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, and it is NOT 100%. Any judge will tell you that "beyond a shadow of doubt," which IS 100%, is NOT required to convict. And we are talking about a human being's life or freedom.

If that's good enough for that, why isn't it good enough for science? And why should there be any question as to the Theory of Evolution, for example, when the level of certainty is >99%? Why is anyone listening to the creationists? I'll tell you why: because scientists don't put it that way. And I'll tell you something else: they should, for the good of us all. And they should do it not only in scholarly papers, but in textbooks. We wouldn't have these problems if they did. People, reasonable, reasonably educated, common, non-scientist people, could form their own reliable judgments, and would if scientists would take their responsibility to do this seriously.

Trying to airbrush that "No" away and pretend it doesn't exist is dishonest -- and more importantly, futile, because everyone who is opposed to your position knows the answer anyway, so if they can back you into such a corner, they win, because you look like someone caught trying to avoid a direct lie....But using this argument ignores the fact that stating that there is material uncertainty sufficient to dismiss the conclusion when the certainty is, say, 90%, or even 75%, is equally a lie; and moreso, because it ignores reality to make a claim with an implied level of certainty that is not supported by the facts. That "No" must be supplanted, in EVERY case, by the statement of the degree of certainty. And when that degree of certainty is sufficient to support stripping an individual of their life or freedom, are we not justified in saying that it is not sufficient to support certainty so strong that extraordinary evidence is required to overturn it? And, of course, this last is precisely what scientists have been saying all along; but they are not taught to, and do not understand the necessity of, using language that even a layman can understand and evaluate.

Finally, you will realize upon reviewing this that I have placed the burden of adjustment upon scientists. And that is as it should be. In all specialties, the burden of communicating findings to non-specialists is inherent. If this is ignored, then the specialty becomes more and more disconnected from the reality perceived by most people. This does not serve our society, and to the extent that we are each responsible for that service, if we do not do this, we do not meet that responsibility. I think that the means I suggest above not only do not place undue burden upon scientists and science, but are in the process of being accepted by scientists. I hope that this post and others like it will help to convince all of us that this is absolutely essential to the progress of science.

[Schneibster]

Obviously the wording is important in conveying any information with accuracy, but the current research in the sci-com field strongly suggests that those who believe in pseudoscience and the paranormal have poorer skills in rationalisation and approve of intuition over reason. Communicating to these people is not a matter of language, as they lack the skills of critical reasoning to be able to understand how to make use of the information contained within it. Interestingly, they are no different to the rest of the population when it comes to their positive attitude towards science (so they aren't 'anti-science' at all, even if they don't fully understand how it works).I think that the level of understanding of legalistic terminology, combined with the scientific expressions of certainty I have advocated above, finally combined with the numeric percentages also given above, would contribute greatly to public understanding. I think that the majority of people have the ability to distinguish between likely and unlikely as evaluations of truth. I think that if language is used in a consistent and unequivocal manner, public understanding will be vastly improved. To hope that everyone will understand all the time is futile; but to hope that most people will understand most of the time should be the aspiration, and its achievement is not outside our capabilities. Every effort should be made; society supports science, and as such deserves not merely the material, but the intellectual benefits it can bring, as well as a report on how that support is being utilized.

I'm not saying that communication should not rely on effective use of language that takes heed of what the audience can effectively interpret. What I am saying is that any effective interpretation relies on a scientifically literate population. You can suggest all you like that text needs to be written in a way that people will make sense of it, but if people just can't make sense of the information behind it, any choice of media will fail.We trust common people to evaluate the truth of the statements of witnesses on the stand; and to evaluate the truth of accusations. And upon their ability to evaluate this by and large accurately rests the fairness of a system that can deprive them of life or liberty. If it is good enough for that purpose, how can it not be good enough for this one? Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. But it will have to be good enough. I can't see any way it could be better.

You might be surprised to know that critical thinking has been around in pedagogical literature for quite some time. The problems with it being effectively implemented, however, remain the same; how do you get teachers to teach it properly, and how do you assess that the methods they use is effective? All rely on having good teachers, and therein lies one of the issues.Well, the accuracy of our legal system rests upon it. Our political system as well. And if it's good enough for that, I guess it has to be good enough for the communication of science to the common person. We can strive to use better communication strategies. We can strive to use improved teaching strategies. And these are good things. But we must never bow down to the same mistake that people make in succumbing to these framing strategies; we must never despair if it's not perfect. And we must never lose trust in the eventual wisdom of a free and reasonably educated public.

The strategies of truth and the requirements of legal proof must be our guides. They are good enough for our governments, and for our legal systems; we need to assert that they are good enough for our science, too. Lincoln said it, and it is more true than many people believe: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." Scientific knowledge may be denied by some portion of people for some period of time; but the truth will out. We must trust that it will, and do everything we can to help it. We cannot despair that we can't get it done right now. Perseverance is key.

Good question. I think we can create more informed public by making good information more accessable to the wider population. And yes, the manner in which it is presented is very important. This is increasing with more media options (television shows such as Mythbusters is an excellent example, and popular science magazines have multiplied over the past decade) and a more appropriate use of dialogue between scientists and the public thanks to technology such as the internet. I agree wholeheartedly, and propose that the use of language discussed in my previous post and in the Charles Weiss paper I referenced there, is a positive step toward that ideal that scientists can take, without having to depend on efforts that might take years or decades to bear fruit. That these other efforts should be undertaken to the degree possible is unquestionable; but that we must depend solely upon them, without any effort by scientists to use more understandable language is questionable at best and most likely plain, flat, pure-D wrong.

Information is out there. And the way it is 'framed' is indeed taking into account the level of literacy within the population. Shows like Mythbusters wouldn't exist if you didn't have a sizeable part of the population who had scientific literacy. But deliberate attempts to obfuscate the truth are out there too. And scientists are just beginning to use terminology that addresses the strategies behind these attempts. This needs to continue, improve, become common. Only thus can this attempt at framing and dismissal of the true evidence be defeated. And to do it, scientists must trust the public. That is an essential lesson that must not be lost in this conversation.

I agree that there are many who change their views given time and good information. And I also agree that science communicators must have skills in understanding how to present information in a way that people can best make use of it.

Maybe the problem is that to me, this is common sense. Science communication is about using appropriate language that the audience can make sense out of, especially in light of their level of literacy. The literature does not debate whether or not this should be done, but rather the best media to use, how to take certain influences into account, how to make appropriate use of analogies etc.I think that ignoring legal terminology is a mistake. I hope that that will change. I hope as well that scientists will begin to put levels of certainty explicitly stated in legal, numeric, and the proposed scientific terms, in their papers. The more this happens, the more certain the public will become in their evaluations of "scientific certainty," and the less room there will be for framing and other manipulations, or the more transparent such tactics will become.

I find I am repeating myself. I think that I have addressed the points you raise adequately, and see no reason to prolong it. I congratulate you on a thorough overview of the issues; without your analysis my own would be incomplete at best, and more likely impossible, Athon. I also congratulate drkitten in the same way, and skeptigirl for bringing the subject up in the first place, and finally everyone else who has responded on the thread with their thoughts, or even just lurked and read it, for taking the time and trouble. Please share your further thoughts. This important subject deserves every careful consideration, and hopefully some of the scientific community are here, and can help propagate and/or encourage what appears to be a growing movement toward clear, concise quantification of degrees of certainty in terms comprehensible to the majority of the lay public.

[athon]

I think that the level of understanding of legalistic terminology, combined with the scientific expressions of certainty I have advocated above, finally combined with the numeric percentages also given above, would contribute greatly to public understanding.

I can't disagree with that. For people to make good decisions, they need information that is clear, accurate and as free from ambiguous, connotative text as possible. However, while people can usually differentiate likely from unlikely in a rather crude way (it is unlikely this fish will kill me if I eat it vs. it is likely I will get sick if I eat green meat), the majority of the population has great difficulty with chance, risk, extremely big and small numbers etc.

In other words, we can put the language in place accurately, but without adequate reasoning skills a lot of people will sooner believe science portrayed with better spin.

Note this does not mean I advocate competing with those who 'frame' science in a manner that makes it more appealing. We should endeavour to continue to communicate science clearly and accurately. But without an adequately educated public who are capable of discerning useful information, those information sources with the best spin will typically win out.

We trust common people to evaluate the truth of the statements of witnesses on the stand; and to evaluate the truth of accusations. And upon their ability to evaluate this by and large accurately rests the fairness of a system that can deprive them of life or liberty. If it is good enough for that purpose, how can it not be good enough for this one?

Yes, we trust that people have good reasoning skills. But unlike you, I feel that for the most part this trust might be a little stretched.

I, for one, feel that 'jury by peers' is outdated and dangerous. A jury that is educated in how to evaluate evidence using critical thinking would serve much better than one selected from the population, and often for their openess to being swayed than for their thinking skills.

Sorry, to make the suggestion that if it's good enough for our judicial system, it's good enough for science, is inherently flawed. While it doesn't herald the collapse of society, I do think for democracy and our judicial system to work at its best, it relies on having a population that not only gets good information, but knows when it is getting good information.

[quote]But deliberate attempts to obfuscate the truth are out there too. And scientists are just beginning to use terminology that addresses the strategies behind these attempts. This needs to continue, improve, become common. Only thus can this attempt at framing and dismissal of the true evidence be defeated. And to do it, scientists must trust the public. That is an essential lesson that must not be lost in this conversation.[quote]

This is more or less my point. There are indeed attempts to dishonestly obfuscate the truth. There are also disagreements between scientists, poor science being done honestly, and honest mistakes being made by otherwise trustworthy people. Not all information is good, but all information can be framed to look that way. People need more than just well framed information. They need adequate skills to know what good information really looks like.

Athon

[Schneibster]

I can't disagree with your points, but I must point out that the majority of people show themselves daily capable of evaluating evidence based on such criteria. I do not deny that they could do a better job; and I agree that the more we are educated in these types of evaluations, the better society works. But the essential point I want to make is that we must not despair that people will correctly understand, sooner or later. And more likely sooner. And I think that the type of terminology that Charles Weiss advocates, and I endorse, can and will help this understanding. The more common it becomes, the more problems will be solved while they are still little, before they become big.

[skeptigirl]

.... i fear it can be even worse. climate models are often said to be based "on the fundamental equations with govern the atmosphere...". without noting that these equations are rather poorly approximated on current computers (and ignoring the questions of whether these equations do indeed "govern."). when science misleads in this way, it is unlikely to be caught in a direct lie, but scientists who overstate what we know now risk discrediting the advances of science in the future.You guys are getting caught up in a single example and ignoring the whole point of the thread. I'm 100% confident in the genetic basis for evolution. I'm 100% confident gravitational lensing is real.

The global warming issues are really a mess considering Exxon's 2 million dollar (probably much more but that much is on record) campaign to discredit the science and inject uncertainty into the debate. I think skeptics need to teach themselves a bit more about critical thinking and this is a case in point. Some of us have bigger blind spots in some areas than others. For that reason, there are forumites who haven't gotten down through the politics to the scientific base of the global warming issues.

If you put that area of contention on hold for the moment, and just look at the basic concepts here it would help. Regardless of your opinion on what the science on any issue supports, there are still ways to communicate uncertainty which reinforce the reliability of the scientific process and ways to communicate uncertainty which undermine the scientific process.

For example, "science supports both sides". No it doesn't. That statement is one of the biggest offenders.

Here's a more accurate statement: The evidence so far has not come out clearly on one side or the other.

What is the difference? The first one implies you can always twist evidence around, you can always manipulate scientific evidence. But that is only true when the person being manipulated doesn't know any better.

When you state the same thing using the second example, you are saying the research is incomplete but the scientific process will eventually lead to the truth. You let the lay person know that scientists have confidence in science regardless if research results are sometimes manipulated.

[skeptigirl]

Originally Posted by hammegk
...When y'all start "framing" your presentations of science, you've become politicians.

See if you can find in my post above which of my points you make a great case for with this statement.Times up Hamme. The answer was, "I've been taken aback at how little attention is paid to the science of communication by the skeptical community. On the BAUT forum where science can be discussed and politics supposedly can't, the politics of global warming spills into the debate as well as the politics of ID vs evolution. But when I tried to post a thread about the science of communication, the fact I mentioned the use of this science in the political arena drew a ... response it was politics and not a science.

...If I was to post that the Republican Evangelical Christians were stacking school boards using the 'wedge strategy' developed by the Discovery Institute, a Christian Right Wing think tank, to push ID into public school science classes, the discussion would likely be on the ID issue. ...But bring up the science of communication/marketing/persuasion and cite the incredibl