Framing Science

If we had science communicators who knew how to explain theories and issues without getting into the technical details, they would have a much broader reach and a significant impact. If they could do all this while being empathetic to the fact that what they say may conflict with a person’s religious upbringing and comfort zone, we’d all be in a better position.

I think I see what you’re saying: we need a scientist who can appeal to the public. Someone who can explain the cosmos in terms that will promote the sort of awe and majesty we scientists feel when studying it and engaging in the scientific method. We need someone who is not only a consummate scientist of the first order, knowledgeable in a variety of fields from evolutionary biology to astrophysics, but is also a beautiful writer of prose and a compelling, riveting public speaker. We need some sage adviser who is not afraid to challenge the popular delusions of the day, whether they be psychics or aliens or dragons or even religion, but can do so in a way that seems nonconfrontational, calm, even pleasant. We need someone who can, through books and television, actively promote a love of science and a wonder of the universe to the billions of ignorant people in the world. What science needs is a shining star, who can unite the community and bring light to the darkness.

Sounds almost too good to be true, the kind of person who only comes around once in a lifetime.

So science needs a better marketing department, eh? 😉

Actually, I think you’re right on the money Hemant. Especially in regards to how to change the minds of religious people regarding science. Let me describe what this looks like in my own work. Currently in my church there are two guys (one of whom, believe it or not, is actually a science teacher) who are still 6-Day Creationists (i.e. young earth, anti-evolutionists). We’ve gotten in debates and discussions at times, but I’ve known from the beginning that I can’t just change their minds by attacking their beliefs directly and imposing my own as their pastor (I’m very pro-science and see no contradiction between it and scripture).

Instead what I’ve done is give them a book, Paradigms on Pilgrimage, and offered to talk with them about it. The book describes the personal journey of two Christians, one a paleontologist and the other a pastor, away from a literal 6-Day Creationist view to a more science-friendly view. The scientist is able to say “Look, I’m not a secularist scientist whose goal is to undermine the Bible through science. I was a Creationist who desperately looked for scientific evidence to support my biblical interpretation and it just wasn’t there.”

And likewise, the pastor can say, “Look, I came to reject a literal Creationist view because the Bible itself led me away from it. The Genesis stories themselves can be shown to be more literary and observational in nature than literal history or science. Rejecting Young-Earth Creationism is about being faithful to the Bible, not just about throwing out the Bible in the face of scientific evidence.”

In other words, you’ve got to speak their language. Approach the argument with where they’re already at. If they respect the Bible, then don’t tell them that science contradicts the Bible – show them why they might be misinterpreting the Bible, and how to be truly “biblical” they need to be open to scientific discoveries.

I think that the main problem is that it’s so difficult to get the hard-line religious to ask questions in the first place. As Ted Haggard said, “We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It’s written in the Bible.” From the standpoint of the Bible, this is exactly what he should be saying. The Bible constantly denigrates reason and logic, especially in the epistles of Paul. If a person accepts Paul’s exhortation to be a fool and gather knowledge from the mouths of babes (“fool” is the Bible’s word choice, not mine, by the way), will any amount of framing affect their thinking? We’ve got a thick wall against logic to break through before we can even get some people to consider these issues. While pointing out that Noah’s flood is scientifically absurd, internally contradictory, and blatantly stolen from other sources may not be the height of intellectual discussion, it’ll certainly do a better job than pretending not to be an atheist out of fear that the audience will be offended by the mere fact that one is.

Now you come in and explain to offended theists why he is shouting. Afterall, he got their attention, and you’re the friendly one.

Except your timeline is a little off. Hemant was doing his thing and had articles being published about him months before the God Delusion came out (and do you think very many Christians had ever heard of Dawkins before that book started getting so much attention? He’s not exactly a household name among Christians even now.)

Maybe it’s different for others, but it was Hemant that got my attention. I’m not sure I would have even noticed Dawkins if I hadn’t first been introduced to the atheist world via Hemant.

Framing science ought not to be the responsibility of rank-and-file R. and D. scientists, and would be a waste of their talents. This necessary task belongs to popularizers of science, a special breed of scientist that combines personal charisma, scientific credentials, and the gift of expression. Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are examples (for example, see Tyson’s The Perimeter of Ignorance, subtitled “A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge,” in Natural History magazine, November 2005, and his new book Death By Black Hole ). The rise of Science Celebs is an unavoidable necessity.

I think Hemant has the sensible approach: point out our mutual interests in good science. Transformation of our culture will take time. An intermediate step might be to disarm the faithful by leaving space in this ‘framing’ for rationalized schemes similar to those advocated by Dr. Francis Collins and President Jimmy Carter. One can be a Sunday School teacher and also be no threat to science.

If atheism was a company, Dawkins would be in R&D and Hermant would be in Marketing.

Good distinction. I would only add that Dawkins himself is a kind of popularizer—look at his impact. Dawkins has intended to speak to the masses, and so he has.

Maybe part of the issue here is that “advocacy for science” and “advocacy for atheism” need to be kept somewhat separate. You can get people to become supporters of the sciences without demanding that they become atheists. And you can continue to make arguments for atheism without implying that atheists are the only ones who care about science.

I didn’t read the whole article, but perhaps part of the concern here is that support for the sciences themselves will end up being overshadowed and undermined by a philosophical debate over atheism vs. theism.

Maybe part of the issue here is that “advocacy for science” and “advocacy for atheism” need to be kept somewhat separate.

Valid. Just keep in mind that the primary argument by Pinker/Stenger/Dawkins/etc is that science will study the claims of theists. Harsh, materialistic, empirical science will cut open God and the Afterlife and peer around. And while this is going on, theists will get the same respect (or lack thereof) that any other scientist would get if their claims defy the academic literature. It ain’t a pretty thing – this scientific scrutiny and criticism. Thankfully Hermant is here with a spoon full of sugar.

Why are they doing this? Easy – theists are making scientific claims. Claims ranging from origins, to a mystic pervasive intelligence in all things, to meditation, to miracles… all of these are important, valid scientific questions, worthy of exploration. And it’s the ‘New Atheist’ scientists who are concluding, “There is a low probability of truth value to their claims.” If only theists provided data to prevent this conclusion!!

How do they say that nicely? I’ll leave that up to the marketing department.

Maybe part of the issue here is that “advocacy for science” and “advocacy for atheism” need to be kept somewhat separate.

That is a valid point, Mike. However, Mooney and Nisbet explicitly reject it:

Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins’s arguments against religion. The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism.

If the public “cannot be expected to differentiate between” defending science and advocating atheism, and it’s pretty clear that Mooney and Nisbet view defending science as the higher priority, then what exactly are they suggesting we should do? The only sensible conclusion I can possibly draw from this is that they’re saying atheists should stop defending atheism.

If the public “cannot be expected to differentiate between” defending science and advocating atheism,

The article said that the “The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his [that is, Dawkins’] advocacy of evolution and his atheism,” and the article noted that Dawkins has been “further mixing his defense of evolution with his attack on belief.” Of course, expecting the public to separate out what Dawkins has thoroughly intermixed is a bit much, and the article says just that. It does not follow that the article is claiming that the public cannot separate advocacy of evolution and advocacy of atheism when they are deliberately kept separate.

You can get people to become supporters of the sciences without demanding that they become atheists.

What’s interesting is that it’s not just people like Dawkins who links them. Pretty much every anti-evolutionist alive links them as well.

Yeah, no kidding. That’s why I’m constantly pointing out the strange agreement between fundamentalists and (some) atheists. Both of them seem to agree that belief in science and belief in God are incompatible. Meanwhile many of us go on believing in both regardless of what they say.

Both of them seem to agree that belief in science and belief in God are incompatible.

I don’t think adherence to science and belief in God are incompatible. I think consistent adherence to science and belief in God are incompatible.

Meanwhile many of us go on believing in both regardless of what they say.

People believe many things, which does not show that they are consistent.

To be clear: Nobody is saying anybody else ought to shut up or stop talking.

I don’t think this is clearly said at all. Every time I put the Mooney & Nisbet comments through BableFish, it still comes out STFU.

Now BableFish may not be the best available translator, but I really cannot be expected to be able to distinguish between M&N’s one note whine-o-grams and some other meaning they now say should be included therein.

Sure, M&N haven’t literally stated “Everyone who disagrees with us should shut up.” But they have consistently indicated that atheists should muzzle themselvers unless they talk the M&N talk.

Perhaps Mooney and Nisbet need to reframe their position so it no longer screams: STFU

I am a science communicator. It’s what I do for a living. I give performances about science for children in schools and libraries. I’m very good at making science fun and interesting. It’s not all fluff; I show them not just what science knows, but how science knows. I have given thousands of performances about dinosaurs, volcanoes or astronomy.

I’m not a scientist. I have master’s degrees in Art and in Educational Psychology. So I find creative ways to help people learn. I’m not the “shining star” that Tom Foss visualized in comment #1, but we don’t really need that once-in-a-lifetime perfect people’s scientist to make a good difference. We need people who are good communicators who can understand science well enough to make it accessible to the public. It has been agreed here that most scientists just aren’t very good at that, and training may not help much. Talented popularizers don’t need the PhD’s for their credibility, just some reputable scientists who will vouch for the accuracy of what they say. To use Anthony Rasmussen’s metaphor, R and D gives Marketing it’s stamp of approval.

Occasionally someone comes up to me after one of my shows with a question about something that I can sense conflicts with their religious teaching. I have been able to help them by being warm and approachable, by answering their question simply and honestly, and by being sensitive to the question behind the question. That unasked question is usually something like, “Do I have to give up my faith if I accept this information?” That’s what scares many people off from science. I never overtly answer those unasked questions, but I do leave the subtle, implied answer that “No, you don’t have to give it all up, just a few details.” The implied solution is that they can gradually adjust their faith to accommodate scientific explanations of the world around them. We have seen how many former young-earth creationists have been able to accept the scientific view of earth’s age and evolution without abandoning the core beliefs of their religion. Change like that comes in small steps and sometimes even takes more than one generation. Brutally bashing people over the head with scientific truth is not a good way. The market of scientific ideas may be rough and merciless but we don’t have to be that way to the general public.

It’s important to use a light touch and not overwhelm someone. Once a woman was admiring my specimens of fossil seashells. She told me how she once found similar fossils high on a mountainside, and asked me if I thought that could be evidence for Noah’s flood. Very respectfully I said, “That’s an interesting idea, but shellfish don’t’ float. She looked at me curiously and I added, “Shellfish live on the bottom. They don’t swim. If a great flood made the oceans deeper they would still be on the bottom, just in deeper water. They wouldn’t have been carried to the top of the mountain.” Now I could have gone on to utterly destroy Noah’s flood with a dozen other arguments, but I left it at that. I answered her question without humiliating her and I planted a seed of critical thinking into her mind.

Another time a father asked me about how we know the age of fossils and how long does it take for a bone to fossilize. It was clear he was hoping to confirm a young age for fossils. I didn’t go into details that would have bored him but I said that we have several ways to measure the age of rocks that are independent of each other. If we measure something with several different methods and they all come out with a similar answer, then it’s reasonable to assume we’re on the right track. I could see that at first he was a little disappointed but my openness kept him from turning away. He nodded more to himself than me as if he was adjusting something in his mind.

Rarely are questions simply challenges, basically saying “I’m gonna show you up.” There’s not much I can do with that and I’m just tactful and brief. But far more often the people are earnest in their questions. They clearly want to reconcile what seems like the very reasonable thinking of mainstream science with the essence of their faith. These people are not the hard core fundies, they have been duped by the hard core fundies. I treat them with gentleness and respect and I honor their sincerity with a straight forward but tactful answer.

Science can be made palatable to the public and even the religious public with a little creativity, patience and compassion.

Did I get it right? 🙂

My question: Why is the origin of the universe a subject beyond the capabilities of science?

Why don’t we discuss this over at Dan Harlow’s blog so as not to hijack this thread?

I’m cutting and pasting an argument I just made over at the thread about tragic events because it seems much more appropriate to be discussed here. I responded to something someone said:

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is right: the liberal and moderate believers provide (perhaps unwitting) cover for the nut case religions.

I have seen this assertion by Dawkins and Harris repeated over and over, and everybody seems to take it for granted. Has this ever been actually observed and measured? Does anyone have any actual empirical evidence of this? If we think that claims should be backed up by evidence, then show me the evidence, don’t give me common sensical arguments.

I don’t automatically buy it as so many fans of Harris and Dawkins seem to. It’s like saying that the leopards in Africa are covering for the lions. No, they’re not. It looks to me like the more liberal Christians and fundies are in direct conflict and competition. If people want to make so powerful a claim that they can conclude “so they all gotta go,” then prove it.
I’m open to being convinced by data, not blanket assumptions.

I as an atheist do not believe that all religious *gotta go*. As I have said numerous times, religion is a life savor for many when they would not have anywhere else to go. I can’t pull in that life savor if I don’t have anything else to replace it with.

But, if I belonged to an organization and in that organization, I as well as many others did not want the more radicals of the group to be representative of me, I should like to think we would be more outspoken of this fact and possibly even band together to get more public awareness out that those radicals/fundies/whackos were not representative of the majority of us.

I am up late at nights, many times surfing the tv channels. You cannot believe how much whacky religion shows are on at night. I am speaking about the ones that for a small price will send you healing handkerchiefs, holy water or somehow for a small price will be able to lay their hands on you through the television to heal you.

I understand the right to freedom of speech and anyone can buy time on the air waves, but if I was a moderate religious organization I would have to speak out loudly and readily of the dangers of this sort of scam. I think we all take for granted that its apparent that these things are scams, but we have to remember the desperate people out there that will grasp at anything many times to hold on to that last bit of hope.

Although, I guess it would be kind of hard to back up my warning of the scams of healing handkercheifs and holy water since those sorts of miracles are throughout the bible.

I am a science communicator. It’s what I do for a living. I give performances about science for children in schools and libraries. I’m very good at making science fun and interesting. It’s not all fluff; I show them not just what science knows, but how science knows. I have given thousands of performances about dinosaurs, volcanoes or astronomy.

Wow, what a great career, Richard! I am sure that you are making a big impact on kids, parents and teachers with your presentations. And if you can light a spark of interest in science – plus make it accessible to non-scientists – I’m sure you’re doing wonderful work that will have terrific repercussions for the future.

Richard,

Your a trip! LOLOLOLOL

it would be nice to be a part of a formal group of scientists, lay people, seculars and clerics who work together to promote better public understanding of science. There are a few such organizations focusing on political issues, such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Does anyone know about something like this for science?

Good question Richard, I’d like to be a part of that.