PZ Myers has a new post on Framing, in which he discusses a “challenge” laid down by Mark Powell of blogfish, which in turn brings up what is supposed to be a good example of framing by Carl Safina, discussed in Safina’s blog post Baked Alaska.

Since the challenge is to PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse and others, and I’m another, I’ll chime in.

Is size all that matters to framers?

What is Mark Saying about Carl?

Mark notes that those “opposed to framing” keep asking for an example of well-done framing, and suggests Carl’s post is one. Specifically, Mark frames (with a small “f”) the argument thusly:

…the question is how can we get scientific information to play a bigger role in public policy. Some say “frame” the science so people can hear the message. Some others say “framing” is wrong

I want to problemitize this characterization. First, we don’t want scientific information to play a bigger role in public policy. We want scientific information and related cognitive powers such as assessment and judgment to play an appropriate role in public policy, which in many cases means more (bigger) but in all cases means something else, something more important. Science is a system of knowledge and inference. Only as such should it play a role.

Let me provide a metaphor. If you want to install a multimedia client on your computer, ideally, you would install a bit of software that will automatically open multimedia files or links and make the sound and/or video, or whatever, emanate from your computer, efficiently. You don’t want it do do anything else. But if you install certain multimedia clients, you also get popups that advertise products, or even just popus that tell you that it is time to upgrade your multimedia player to a paid version, etc. So you may try to get a certain product, or a certain result, and what you get is something different.

Or perhaps you car pool. What you really want is a car pool partner who can drive safely from home to work and from work to home. But if you get someone who can’t stop talking about the Vikings-Packers game, or who needs to stop and make a lot of errands, or worse yet, simply can’t drive … again, you tried to get a certain result and you got something else.

So, hold those metaphors (or at least the idea they represent) in mind for a moment.

Mark’s statement also says that some people want to “frame” science so that people can hear the message, while others say that framing is wrong. Is this meant to imply that these others (I’m another) don’t want people to hear the message? That is implied in this statement but not clearly stated. I would strongly disagree with that idea. We want people to hear the message.

But that is not the main or only thing we want. We don’t want people to hear our message as much as we want the body of knowlege and system of inference to be a key part of public policy where appropriate.

I think that this is part of the problem with this entire discussion. It is not merely that there are “framers” and “anti-framers” in the sense that there are two camps with different approaches to do the same thing. I am now beginning to realize that the two camps (and there does indeed seem to be two or more camps) are actually going after different objectives. The framers want science to score on measures of popularity and acceptance. The others (like me, and other others) want to see scientific knowledge and systems of inference employed where appropriate in public policy.

The difference between these two approaches may seem subtle, but they are potentially immense. Go back to our metaphors. The car pool guy who can’t actually drive is of no use. Even if you got ten of these guys, they would still be of no use. There would just be more of them. You don’t want more drivers who can’t drive. The objective is to get from point a to point b, not just to get car pool partners. Some of the most popular software … that which is distributed widely either because of big advertising or because of insinuation into various markets by threatening people with dire consequences if the don’t use it, is crap. It does not do what it is supposed to do, yet it is widespread.

Microsoft Windows plays a big role in public computer use. Yet it sucks. Why is this good?

What is especially striking about Mark’s post is his bitter vehemence. He uses the sort of rhetoric we hear from, say, homeschoolers that feel threatened by people like me (and others) who ask questions about home schooling. He sounds like Randy Weaver symps decrying the oppression of people who just want to be left alone by Jack Booted Thugs flying in on Black Helicopters issued by the UN.

OK, maybe he does not sound that bad. You be the judge. Mark says:

So you stone-throwers determined to “defeat” religion and expunge “superstition” from our culture. Go ahead and shout about why nobody cares about science in the US if you want, but if you really want to change things (instead of just hearing yourselves rant), then go learn from Carl Safina about changing the world.

OK, let’s reconstruct and problematize this bit of prose.

To begin with, the first bit “So you….our culture.” is not a sentence. Fine. But I can parse its meaning nonetheless. I don’t get the impression that Mark is any kind of religious activist. I mean, one of his favorite singers is Sinead O’Conner, after all. But I so suspect he is harboring repressed fears of agnostic whims, the kind of thing that happens when you embark on a life of scientific rationalism, but when you were little, the nuns planted a chip in your neck that makes you feel bad when you think certain things, and good when you think other things. That’s the only imaginable way we can get a “sentence” like this. “Stone-throwers” is a clear biblical reference. Since PZ and others (I’m another) are the stone throwers, and Mark is a Frame-Symp, that makes him a martyr. Placing “superstition” in “quotes” is another clue that the chip is working. Mark, it IS superstition. Why are you putting it in quotes, man?

I won’t even begin to parse the use of the word “from” or the word “our.” I’ll leave that to your imagination, dear reader.

Now, on to the next phrase. “Go ahead and shout…” This is interesting, because while it is clearly a religious reference, it is not Catholic. It is more Revivalist. I honestly don’t know what Mark’s culturo-ethinc background is, but snake handling is not out of the question. But we’ll leave that for now. In point of fact, however, we are not shouting, and we are not shouting in particular about why nobody cares about science. People care too much about science! They also care about cancer and bridges falling down. The problem is that they don’t respect science. We’re just asking for respect.

I won’t even touch the word “rant” in this statement.

Now, I want to reproduce a comment by Carl Safina on this blog post of Mark that I’ve been deconstructing an problemetizing:

Thanks for helping propagate the message. As long as we keep science away from the public, as long as we refuse to talk with people who don’t already agree with us, we get the politics and policies we have. Time for a different approach. A lot of people are sick of the culture wars and the old culture warriors are dying or retiring. We need healing, and we need to get to work to solve the mess we’re in. Your positive response is much appreciated. If you’re ever on the East Coast, let me know.

Carl Safina

Oh, my Carl, I see you may have a chip as well. Not just the kind on your shoulder, but the implant kind. Propagate the message is cognate with “Spread the Word” a common religious term. And your blog is covered with words like “Inpiration” and “Hope.” So OK, that’s your perspective, and it is fine for you, if it works.

I happen to agree completely with Carl that it is bad to “keep science away from the public” or to “refuse to talk with people who don’t already agree with us.” But I don’t agree at all … and this is very important … that it is people refusing to talk with those who do not already agree with us that has gotten us the politics and policies we have.

First of all, you can both take a leap off a tall bridge. I’m one of the “others” and I assure you that I have dedicated my life to the communication of science to others, regardless of their beliefs, and I’m not bad at it, and I’ve been effective. Your characterization is wrong and offensive, not to mention annoying. Your implication of my intolerance is unfounded and out of line. Get your facts straight, and get your characterizations straight. What is really going on here is that you are telling PZ Myers and others (I’m another) to stand down, be quiet, and stay out of the process. Because you disagree with us. Please consider the fact that you are being a hypocrite.

But at a bigger scale, Mark and Carl fail to understand what has really happened in this country over the last decade or so. The religious right has insinuated itself, and its perspective and system of “reason,” into the media, the government, other institutions, and society at large. It is not the fault of scientists that there is an increasingly larger and more active set of forces working against rationalism. Mark and Carl are blaming the victim. And they are the victim. I don’t know why they don’t see this. (You do see this, don’t you guys?)

But enough of that. I want to get on to the Baked Alaska post.

If all we had to do was go on a cruise…

Most of the post is an excellent and well written description of the effects of global warming in many of the contexts in which it is so starkly clear: At the edge of glaciers, in Arctic streams, in Arctic villages, and so on. I enjoyed this part of he post a great deal.

But I did not like this statement at all:

As scientists, we have scientific authority. But for moral authority, people look to religious leaders.

Carl, ol’ boy, would you care to modify this? This statement leaves very little wiggle room for us atheists, who most certainly do not look to religious leaders for moral authority. I’m sure you did not mean that, but I can tell you, I would not hire you as a copywriter for anything I needed “framed.” You’ve alienated a significant proportion of your potential readership by implying that they cannot really be moral. I am certain that you did not mean it this way.

Indeed, not all religious people look strictly to their religious leaders for their moral authority. For one thing, in many, many religions one is strongly urged to not look to authority, but rather, to God. Other religious people don’t look to either … they look within themselves. And so on. So, this statement is really very problematic at many levels. Again, I stress that I don’t think you are making this statement as such, but the implication is there in the words as they are.

You wrote a blog post. Heaven knows that blog posts are neither perfect nor sacred. We pound out or posts and rarely re-write. This would be a statement that you would surely rewrite if this was a more serious missive. Fine.

But then the blog goes on to say:

Religions formulate responses to the changing world. These two most powerful forces in society [science and religiou] need each other if we are to chart a path of survival into the future.

I assure you that there are many religious people who a) believe that the religious side of their lives do not require any attention to science yet b) respect science. It is not the case that religious people necessarily see science as something one must reconcile, or oppose. Similarly, there are many scientists who simply do not believe that religious approaches are necessary at all.

The characterization you lay out here may in fact apply to a large number of people. You are probably right about that. But, I believe you have made the mistake here of conflating a commonly held approach with the way that it generally is. You’ve abstracted a particularity to a grander scale than it deserves. I don’t think you can build much of an argument on that. And worse still, you have extended is to ought. Is does not require ought, and especially if the is is itself questionable. As a scientist, are you sure you want to stick with this Hobbsian fallacy? (I suppose it all depends on what you think is is.)

Yes, it may be size over substance

Sadly, in the end, we have this. Mark tells us that Carl’s post is an excellent example of framing. In this post we see two things: Carl hangs out with the Evangelicals for several days and brings them face to face with the realities of global warming. Is that framing? I hope so, and I hope it worked, and I think that’s great, and Carl, good going, man, that’s fantastic.

But the other thing is Carl’s post is this statement about morals and religious leaders, and these statements about how the only way that the conversation can proceed is by somehow hybridizing religious and scientific views of the world. If that is framing, then framing sucks. But, I very quickly add that I don’t really think Carl made any substantive statement about framing in these paragraphs about morals and stuff. I don’t believe for a second that he really thinks you have to get your morals from religious leaders. I don’t think he put much thought or work into these few sentences, and I don’t think this represents any kind of thoughtful contribution to the framing debate. So I’ve got to assume that this is NOT what Mark was talking about.

Perhaps Mark was talking about going on a cruise with people you may not see eye to eye with and spending some time. I’m not sure if that is framing or not, but it sounds like a good idea.