Slapdown at the Bell: Post Game Analysis
Published by Greg September 29th, 2007 in Science Essays, Framing Science, Commentary
The Real Winners of last night’s Epic Battle: The cute puppies.PZ and I closed the bar last night, but since I’m heavily medicated for other, medical reasons, I was dry all night, so here I am, lacking a little sleep, but with no hangover … Last I saw Matt and Chris, they were heading for one of the frat houses for a kegger, or at least that is what I’m told. PZ was en route to some impossible to find seedy motel on the outskirts of town. We can only hope we’ll hear from him later.
[update: PZ awakes, here. Chris Mooney chimes in, here.
I want to start my comments with a very important clarification. Near the end of the panel discussion, in addressing the question “how to get more students in science” (not “into” as in “interested” but “in” as in to become scientists), among my comments, I suggested “cut out the math.” This of course enraged much of the audience, and later, I got a lot of complaints. Of course, I was joking. Indeed, I may have even been framing.
There is an argument to cut the math out of some science classes for those instances where you simply want students to get “into” science a bit, but it is a bad idea for training scientists. Math is not just important in science, it is a fundamental inseparable part of it. Some sciences, in fact, are pretty close to 100% math, like quantum physics and statistical ecology, for instance.
The event at the bell went well by all accounts. Chris and Matt gave a very well honed and well prepared presentation. PZ had some nicely prepared but very frightening slides. I had not prepared anything, but I jotted down some notes while Chris and Matt were giving their presentation, and blurted them out when I had the mike. There was very little vitriol or bloodshed, despite the fact that certain members of the audience were trying to goad us on like dogs in a pit.
Basically, what happened was this: PZ and I decided before the debate to give Chris and Matt a break, let them have their say, complement them on their lovely housedresses, and then make a few of our own points that we felt needed to be made, in parallel with, not necessarily in opposition to, the Framing schitck. Another problem was that the stage was too small and pretty much filled with this big table. There was no way to really get rough without also getting clumsy, and that would have been bad theater.
Chris and/or Matt will declare victory today or tomorrow on their blogs, as they actually had the audacity to do last night during the presentation. But PZ and I, being the subtle cats that we are, know who really won this “debate.” The children won. We did this for the children and the teachers and the unadopted puppies, and they are the real winners here.
I just wanted to take a moment and reiterate some of the points that I made last night. They are:
1) We are talking about problems at the interface between science and society, whereby right wing political forces are interfering with rational process and effective management of critical problems such as global warming, health, and so on. But this is only a small part of the larger reality of the interface between science and society. In fact, it is a very small percent measured almost any way I can think of other than press coverage. Meanwhile there are thousands, nay, tens of thousands, of scientists and science-related individuals carrying out science every day and not being bothered or harassed or told to stop or being interfered with. This is important to keep in mind for two reasons. One, it puts the issues we are speaking about in proper perspective. The other, more important reason, is that we can often refer to this larger corpus of activities in the debate, where the debate occurs. An obvious example from the Creationist Attack is this: Creationists claim that “evolution is not true” (their words) because radiometric dating is flawed. But listen to this: The same science that brings us the wonders of radiometric dating also powers our nuclear navy and a big part of our domestic power grid; operates the satellites that need to be adjusted with relativistic calibrations (lots of math there!) in order to work as communications systems; and so on. You can’t have it both ways: You can’t go along living without complaint in modern society, using your cell phone, making toast in the morning, and driving to work, and at the same time bitch about the science. No fair.
2) A premise of much of this discussion is that scientists are bad communicators. This is an incorrect assumption, and I’ve written about that elsewhere on this site, so I will not bore you with my perspective here.
3) Framing is said to be short term and immediate, and thus important for handling critical problems right now, and the alternative, what Chris and Matt have taken to calling the “popular science” model (a bit of somewhat obnoxious framing, IMHO) but that I call “Education” (has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?), which is long germ. I disagree. Well, it’s true to some extent. If framing actually works, it might sometimes work on the short term. But I think that about 7 years went between The Contract On America (New Gingrich) and the total takeover of the American Government by the Right Wing. It took about 8 or 9 years between the first attempts to get a Clean Water act in place and the passage of the act itself, and another 7 or 8 years before the tide began to turn on actual water quality with the implementation of the regulations. In other words, no matter how you approach an issue, you are talking five to 10 or even 15 year time scales to actually make things happen. Education is not particularly longer-term than framing as a solution, and to the extent that it may be, it is more permanent and satisfying, and the effects of education run deeper. Once we fix (see below) science education in high schools, it will only be about five years before we get our first crop of science-aware and science-sympathetic citizens (SSC’s) into the entry-level job market with college degrees. That’s not long.
4) Science education sucks because, even though the right wing has lost the battle in the courts, they are still fighting an insurgency, and so much damage was done by this war on science that the system has been wrecked and we are not working hard enough (or spending enough money!) to make the necessary repairs. Life Science education in American K-12 schools is the post-Katrina New Orleans of the educational system. I could go on about this, and have in the past, and will in the future.
5) We are at present in the middle (roughly) of a revolution in how society works, how our society thinks, grows, and act. This revolution is a very long term shift, from religion (using that term somewhat broadly) based thinking to rational thinking. We are well into the third century of this revolution, and we can expect another century or two of change before it is complete.
Keep up the fight. Viva la revolution.
I want to thank my homies, my friends and associates from the Twin Cities area, who came to lend support and cheer us on. The lovely and talented Shanai Matteson (one of the prime movers behind our local Cafe Scientifique) needs to be given enormous credit for organizing this event and for pulling it off so well. Jessica Marshall (UMN Journalism) refereed the slapdown in an effective and fair manner. The event was Co-sponsored by the Bell Museum of Natural History; Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs; The Humphrey Institute’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Minnesota Journalism Center.
20 Responses to “Slapdown at the Bell: Post Game Analysis”
- 1 Pingback on Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I appreciate why you and PZ gave ground up front to them, but it allowed them to steer the conversation the way they wanted it. I don’t think that most of the audience was unaware that there is a problem in the way that science is perceived, and I think that most of the audience agreed that the way that the science on Global Warming is being distorted by moneyed interests.
The fact that the real issue I went to hear addressed was deflected until the Q&A makes me think that it is hard to claim victory. You and PZ did a great job of emphasizing the need to fix the education system so that people have a more solid grasp and interest in the issues raised by science, but I really think that they were able to convince at least Steve Kelley that the “New Atheist Noise Machine” is a problem, and perhaps it swayed more people in the audience as well.
This is a negative “Frame” on science that Matt is perpetuating, aiding and abetting, and I think it must be challenged in debates in the public as much as it is in the blogosphere. If a large majority of scientists are atheists, how do Chris and Matt expect to advance their proposals while “pissing them off?” It doesn’t matter if they piss me off about it, because I am only peripherally involved in advancing interest in science. Matt needs to do better research on the effects of atheism among scientists. I don’t think he has come to the right conclusion.
And finally, I don’t really think that atheism is what is scaring people away from science, it is an apathy bred by our popular culture. As the woman on The View stated, many people don’t think that science matters enough to dig into, because they are more concerned about “feeding their kids” and don’t think that science helps in that. So they are comfortable with letting the parson teach them “science.”
So, I think it is great that E.O. Wilson is reaching out to churches, and in the long run it may lead people to examine the basis for their religious beliefs. BUT telling atheists to “ush-hay” on the “odlessness-gay” is not helpful at all.
And who was that good-looking guy that helped you and PZ close down the bar?
Given the canine metaphor behind this entire thread, it’s pretty clear to me that you are framing those “certain members of the audience” (zout alors–c’est moi!) as the Michael Vick of the Uppity Atheist set. How dare you?!? “Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Maybe I should change my handle to “Bad Rieux’s Kennels”….
Exactly, so much more effort should be put into improving the way maths is taught in schools.
My maths skills may be politely described as minimal. To put it another way, showing me an equation is a much more effective way of paralyzing my mental processes than a phaser set on ’stun’.
This dates from my experience of being taught mathematics at secondary school in the UK. To put it simply, I dreaded every lesson. They were experiences in fear and humiliation that I would have done almost anything to avoid. I didn’t learn maths, I learned to loathe the subject with a passion.
To be fair to the teacher concerned, this person was also the deputy head teacher of a newly-established comprehensive school. The administrative demands of that position sometimes meant that they were only able to take sometimes one lesson in three often one in two. On the other hand, it was plain that this teacher was someone to whom maths came very easily and who had no understanding of - or sympathy with - those for whom it was not so obvious.
If my experience is not uncommon - and talking to others suggests this might be the case - then perhaps throwing far more resources into making maths far more enjoyable and accessible might be just the thing to help improve science literacy in the general population.
So I think I’ve got a great idea for making all four of you annoyed. We need a frame for pushing better science education. As some one said at the table at Kafe 421 last night “The Ruskies are beating us!” That was a great frame for increasing science education in our schools. We need to give people a reason why they should care about science education for children.
“The Chinese and Indians are beating us”?
- Rieux, spouse of an India-born math professor (who only slightly wanted to smack Greg last night for the math crack)
Typo in item 3 - should be long term, not long germ!
See that’s cognitive miser stuff.
I think one could make the argument that rather than teaching science we should teach science appreciation. This way we could dazzle people with really cool stuff, teach what math does,rather than the math itself, and give them an idea of probablility and statistics so they can see obvious flaws without actually being able to do even a t-test. Those that wanted to go on could…..
All you need to do is point to some historical analogues. The first one that comes to mind is that of Athens and Socrates. I’m sure some are aware that this did not end very well; Socrates opted for the penalty of death when he could have simply been exiled. Some background is required here I think. Socrates was charged with corrupting the young, among other things. This might seem irrelevant to those who do not believe in history or think that times are “so different now that it could not possibly have any bearing on the present.” Simply put, it does.
That debate appears to have been too much for PZs pschye:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn.....p#comments
I noticed that you were the one offering the “modest proposal” to cut out the math, and that you did not credit this position to Mooney and Nisbet, but only saying “There is an argument …”.
JJ: The meaning of your statement escapes me.
“We are at present in the middle (roughly) of a revolution in how society works, how our society thinks, grows, and act. This revolution is a very long term shift, from religion (using that term somewhat broadly) based thinking to rational thinking. We are well into the third century of this revolution, and we can expect another century or two of change before it is complete.”
First, I think you’re being optimistic, but I suppose neither of us will be around, alas, to learn what happened.
Second, I wonder whether the *proportion* of scientifically rational folks has grown much. While it may be difficult to find much direct evidence, I strongly suspect that, even within the church, there has always been - well, at least for the last 400 or so years - a substantial portion of the highly educated intelligentsia who believed something close to “Spinoza’s God” rather than some kind of literal take on the Bible. Perhaps that proportion is larger today, but if so, it’s not by much. More people are out about it, certainly, which does mean something.
But that said, nothing I’ve heard in talking to people from all walks of life and education about what they believe gives me any sense of a cultural revolution vis a vis science. People are remarkably ignorant of science. In my milieu, the performing arts and humanities, I am often thoughtt very scientifically knowledgeable but that simply isn’t so (I wish it was). What my friends mean is that I can actually read a graph, I understand what the median is, and I can explain in lay terms things like plate tectonics. The point is that they can’t, and there are a lot more of those folks than you folks.
What I do sense more and more, is not a revolution in the direction of the rationale, but instead the fragility of the Enlightenment tradition. It is something all of us will have to fight for. Recently, John McCain’s campaign called the notion that the Constitution says America’s a Christian nation is “non-controversial.” Aside from the fact that that is clearly nutty, it contradicts the notion that there is a revolution in worldview afoot.
Forgive me, but I suspect your immediate milieu gives you the mistaken impression that there are more science-hip folks around than there actually are. It’s really pretty bad out here.
Trist…
I’m not naive about how many scientifically “hip” people are out there. (Believe me, I observe my milieu with a great deal of skepticism!) Rational-based thinking does not equal science, per se. Science is part of it. Among your humanities/arts friends and colleagues, how many believe that if they lay down all the way instead of sitting partly upright while sleeping that their souls will exit their bodies or that they may become possessed? Even the basic beliefs of many religions are substantially more rational now than they were, say, in the 11th century.
But perhaps I am being too optimistic…
Greg,
I’m glad that I was wrong and that you do get that your milieu may not represent the rest of the population. I apologize if I offended you by suggesting so.
It is true that I don’t know anyone who believes they will become possessed due to the way they sleep. But it is also true that a friend of mine told me once that she was an “expert on crystals” - that’s verbatim - meaning their healing power. There are way more people in the arts who believe in astrology than the Big Bang, and when I say “believe” I’m not talking an occasional reading. I mean genuinely serious bucks spent.
Hand in hand with this kind of stuff goes, sadly, ignorance of the deepest sort. I know people who are not sure that chickens are birds. That includes a Yale Drama School graduate. Since I won’t exempt myself from being ignorant, I didn’t encounter the theory of plate tectonics until 15 years ago, when I wrote music for a documentary on geologist Marcia McNutt. I was utterly amazed (and frankly, very embarassed) and read everything I could find. I assure you that the notion that continents are moving around is one that will come as a huge surprise not only to most artsy types but also most folks working on Wall Street, manufacturing, service industries, and even some reporters. In fact, I know a journalist at the Times who told me that it wasn’t important for science facts to be taught in science classes so much as it was how science is perceived in the community. Therefore, intelligent design creationism should be taught in biology class (he has since changed his mind, happily).
There is a small group of people - scientists humanists, and others - who take a jaundiced view of all this hokum. Yes, I would imagine that in the 11th Century, things were a lot worse. But by the 17th Century, the kind of worldview you and I take for granted started to spread among the elite, educated classes.
I truly wonder whether the *proportion* of those who hold this worldview has increased substantially since then. Yes, you no longer get burned at the stake for questioning the earth’s place in the cosmos, so we’re more “out” and that means something, for sure.
But I can’t get out of my head the conversation I had with that Yale Drama grad about chickens being birds…
Trist:
I’m sure you’re right in all of this. But, there is a more widely held sense that there is a rational knowledge, and a rational approach, and we more often than not go along with that even if we may as individuals not know that a chicken is a bird (or that ham, bacon, and pork chops all come from the same magic animal!). In other words, when you insist that a chicken is a bird, you don’t get burned at the stake, and when someone finds out that a chicken is a bird (realizing that they did not know this before), there is usually some embarrassment. But I do get your point.
So maybe it’s a 600 year long revolution…
Since the blog entry where I posted my response to you is pretty buried over at Pharyngula by now, I thought I’d copy it in here as well, so you had a chance to see it, Greg:
Other Greg (Laden):
Naw, not at all. You added some really important info, and hey dude–I LIKE you! I like your blog, what you stand for, your willingness to go up there and educamacate us folks–all of it. I sure couldn’t have done as well as anyone on the stage did. I just like pith, you know? And I still disagree that the study (which is, as you note, flawed…but interesting) has more than a glancing relationship with risk. I would maintain that if the whole ridiculous thought experiment included your having a Taser to knock the fat guy out before you through him off the bridge and onto the tracks, and there was a scary-looking spider on the switch to divert the train to hit the one walker and save the several on the train–most people’s moral intuition would still have them throw the switch before heaving a person off a bridge. That’s the real point of the “experiment.” It could be that some of what we think of as moral intuitions actually evolved as risk assessment heuristics. But I don’t think it’s a clear case that Hauser’s experiments really focus on risk assessment.
Minor point, anyway. The last thing I meant to say is that you or anyone else was ineffective (and proof? my opinion doesn’t even rise to the level of “evidence”). If anything, everyone was TOO effective. That’s what left me feeling sort of depressed by the whole experience. The need is so crying, and the possible solutions seem so paltry in the face of that need, that it’s hard not to despair. But I have nothing but admiration for everyone who is trying. And if there’s one thing I learned from watching Joss Whedon’s “Angel,” it’s that you do keep doing the right thing, even if the result is unassured. ESPECIALLY if the result is unassured. Slow the grind of ignorance and superstition by just. That. Much.
So…you rock.
It’s great you all decided to agree to agree on what you agree on (which is what?).
But I’m having trouble seeing what the point of all this is.
Nobody (least of all scientists) ever said that framing does not work or that scientists and educators should not use it. In fact, they use it all the time — though some people still do not seem to appreciate that fact.
But there are lots of different kinds or framing (from couching a lesson in terms that someone can relate to to “playing on people’s emotions to get them to buy into (or just buy) something”.
Agreeing that “certain types of framing are a good thing in certain cases” is really not much of an accomplishment.
The one thing I could never understand about this whole framing “debate” was why those who believe in the kind of framing Chris and Matt are suggesting don’t just do it and leave everyone who would take a different approach out of it entirely.
The approach a teacher or scientist takes to educating the public about science should be a personal matter.
In that regard, the situation is kind of like the situation with religion. It’s not OK to tell someone how to worship, so why should it be OK to tell a scientist how to talk to the public?
The only thing that would tick me off more than having a person come to my door and telling me how to worship (or whether to believe in God) would be to have someone come to my door and tell me how I “should” educate other people about science. I just find it offensive — especially when people who are not science educators or scientists themselves try to tell me the “best” approach.
Bob, re: how I “should” educate other people about science ,”
you really should frame it better….you can do a better job of educating the asses…Er…masses….the best approach is to use the part clearly marked “viewfinder”–the one with the lens? The pentaprism is just science stuff, so just forgetaboutit, shoot automatic–point the darn thing, and let thLord sort out the negatives…
Thanks for this info. It sent me to a YouTube clip of Matt and Chris explaining their ideas on Science Communication.
Communication is a field of study unto itself and you can even get a degree in it at Georgia Tech (mainly the good folks who have improved our football program.) So learning to use effective techniques to reach a splintered public that shows a significant level of scientific illiteracy is not so stupid.
It is this public that will decide who the “deciders” are on policies. In the world now, rational policies may be the only thing stopping us from a slide to nuclear detonations, a pull back culturally to the 7th century, not to mention the possible dangers of global warming. So the stakes are very high that we have a good plan to communicate with the public issues regarding science.
So be purists in your actual science, but learn how to “play the game” when communicating outside of your peers. If only for the short term and practical reason of winning a policy argument! We have lost so many of them and we can see that the world is not made safer.
Lets be practical people!