I am listening to a discussion on the topic of how to better frame science, so that it reaches a broader audience and generates support for science and support for political agendas. I think the scientist often believes that best way to communicate science is to give the facts and it will be “obvious” what is “right”. While it is no doubt important to deliver the “content” in the right way, for the right audience (some of which will be biased against science, or lacking knowledge or having serious misconceptions about the science facts) – what people on both sides of controversial topics such as “Intelligent Design vs. Evolution”, “Stem Cell Research” and “Global Warming” forget is that the facts do not imply a certain action.

I have serious concerns that there are many audiences who will ignore or deny certain facts, or scientific conclusions in favor of the answer they “want” to hear. This extends to our current administration, as well as religious fundamentalists here and abroad. The scientific method developed in Europe with the Greeks and later with the Copernican Revolution, yet in many parts of the world, cultures do not embrace science and only begrudgingly accept applied science because they see the benefit of having technology. It is also probably true that most Americans, and most people on the planet do not have an understanding of what science fundamentally is, how it works and the benefits it provides. So, there is a lack of knowledge and in some cases a bias against science due to misconceptions or conflicts with dogma, but, even in the case that everyone agreed that humans contribute to Global Warming, not everyone will agree with the implications, importance or what to do about it. There will be people who feel we should cherish our planet and that environmental concerns are the highest priority. Others will weigh costs and benefits and decide they can accept more change.

Right now, scientific models are very complex and may not predict the results of Global Warming very well, so people are rightfully skeptical of being told that something certain will happen. Even if the scenarios were very reasoned and people agreed on best and worst cases, different people will support different courses of action. Not everyone will have the goal of totally reversing the human footprint. A minority will. A minority may not care at all. I personally feel there will need to be varying efforts to reduce outputs of all greenhouse gasses, sequester carbon out of the atmosphere, improve technologies, educate people on conservation and transfer technology to developing countries, as well as making changes to minimize the impact of unavoidable consequences. A rational plan of action requires: people receive good “processed” information, framed in a way that they can understand it and that it is relevent. It is too much to expect the average person to wade through raw data and complex issues and have any real understanding of the issues in order to make informed decisions. On the other hand, some groups trivialize these sorts of debates to the point their agenda fits on a bumper sticker. It is no wonder that people respond the way they do to national polls, that presuppose there are only two valid answers, one that is right (agrees with their agenda) and one that is wrong. (I wonder if that’s where the word “polarity” came from. )

We need to do a better job of teaching science and the scientific method to students, with an emphasis on changing the way they view the world and problem solving once they leave school. People need to learn the importance of rational thinking and skepticism, and how to make decisions when the facts are not always clear, and issues are sometimes complex. Thinking is an amazing ability humans have, and we need to do more of it, rather than following the crowd, towing the party line and letting someone else tell you what to think.

Similar Posts:

• Creationism in the Classroom
• Rational Expulsion?
• ID By Any Other Name…
• An Intelligent Article on the Dover Case
• What Makes A Skeptic?