Chris Mooney has challenged me to respond to a video (see below the fold) of a talk that he and Matt Nisbet gave on framing. Over on his blog, Chris criticizes PZ Myers who couldn't sit through the whole hour [PZ, You Can Do Better Than This....]. Neither could I, but at least I got to the 50 minute mark which was more than twice as far as PZ.
Chris and Matt believe their talk is much more detailed than their short paper in Science or any of their other articles. They think that with this longer version they will have answered the objections raised by a number of scientists. This is quite in line with the position they have taken over the past few months. Their main defense has been to proclaim that we just don't understand framing and that's why we don't appreciate their opinions. That defense has the tremendous advantage (for them) of avoiding having to deal with any of the objections that have been raised. It's probably a good example of framing on their part.
Here's how Chris Mooney puts it today in addressing PZ,
So, c'mon, PZ. You've ripped the "framing science" concept based upon brief essay-style presentations of it. Now we've gone all out and produced a much more thorough presentation--one that covers, in depth, the concept of framing; evolution; stem cell research; global warming; hurricanes; and then closes by presenting policy solutions--and you won't engage.Notice how this works. PZ, and others, have already explained why they have a problem with framing science. Matt and Chris didn't listen. Now they want everyone to explain it to them once again just because they've produced an extended version of their opinions.
I'm disappointed by this, but I also know you're a thoughtful guy. So I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt here and ask you again to engage with our arguments as we have now chosen--comprehensively--to present them.
Well, Chris, I hate to break it to you, but there's nothing new in the video. It's just the same old fluffy rhetoric that we've seen before. I watched for 50 minutes and you never once addressed the main objections that you heard from many scientists. The ball was clearly in your court and you dropped it. You had one hour to engage our arguments and show that you were listening but you didn't do that. Why?
Have you forgotten the problem? You claim to be talking about "science education" and "science communication" but you are actually talking about politics. Scientists do not deliberately "frame" science. They tell it like it is. On the other hand, if you are trying to score political points or advocate policy change then you can use any trick in the book if you think you can get away with it. The fact that some of these political battles might be related to science is interesting but almost irrelevant. You could make exactly the same case for framing if you were engaging in political battles over the constitution, economic policy, or the war in Iraq.
As far as I'm concerned you and Matt are doing serious harm to science. You are strongly implying that it's okay to spin the science in order to achieve a political objective. Not only are you implying that, you are criticizing scientists for not learning how to
The other problem with your talk is that you continue to criticize Richard Dawkins for raising problems about religion and promoting atheism. Fine, that's your opinion and you're stuck with it. But you know damn well that many of us think you are way off base on that one. You've heard this point of view many times but you never addressed it in your talk. Why couldn't you have discussed the other point of view; the one that says arguments about religion are not the same as arguments about science? I would have had much more respect for you if you had showed me that you were listening to your opponents. At the very least you could have mentioned the difference between long-term goals and short-term goals and explained why you think Dawkins should sacrifice his long-term goal in favor of your short-term goal.
Finally, there's a problem that only concerns me and other non-Americans. Everything you say is "framed" as an American problem. You're talking about the American public, American politics, and American journalism. Your solutions only apply in that context. Your chosen frame does not resonate with me. Maybe you don't care about scientists in Canada or Europe (I'm sure you don't) but when you're broadcasting to the entire world don't be surprised if some of us don't care about you either.
You do realize, don't you, that Richard Dawkins lives in the United Kingdom? Do you understand that in terms of political debates, different spins will be adopted by people in different countries? It's just not possible for you and Matt to impose your American values on scientists in Japan, India, and Europe. But since we now live in a global village these foreigners are going to be heard in your country as well. How do you propose to maintain discipline under those circumstances? You are tying to herd cats, this strikes me as more than a little naïve.
For the benefit of readers, here's the video. The part about how to frame a political debate on evolution and creation can be found about 22 minutes into the talk at the 48 minute marker. (The timer starts at 70 minutes and counts down.)
24 comments :
"Now they want everyone to explain it to them once again just because they've produced an extended version of their opinions."
Of course. They have dropped off the radar screen and are trying to get back on it.
I hate to say it, but every time you address them, you give them more air time.
Rather than waste any more time going over the same arguments, I have a suggestion.
Challenge Nisbet and Mooney to do a case study of one of their proposed frames for one issue and report back with the results.
In other words, have the framing experts present the issue to one group and have a scientist present the same issue to the other (control) group in a way of his/her own choosing (as it is done now) and see which group buys into the science more.
Of course, that would require that they actually do something other than pontificate from their framing perch on high.
-- John B
Larry,
I disagree that there's science and politics and never the twain shall meet. There's a continuum and you're describing the two extreme ends. And I don't think you're so completely on the science side as you claim to be.
Much of your excellent work on Sandwalk seems to be aimed at persuading people of something (see quote below as merely one example).
As soon as you start putting your views out in public with a goal of persuading people, then you're leaning out of pure science and you're leaning into what you regard with disdain as politics.
Here's just one example, where you clearly want to persuade people to embrace rationalism and reject superstition. You're making an assertion that's not pure science, and it's aimed at persuasion:
"The real battle is between rationalism and superstition and that's why we have to point out the superstitious beliefs of Theistic Evolutionists just like we point out the superstitious beliefs of Intelligent Design Creationists."
By saying this, you're outside pure science. You're hoping to persuade people to accept your view that theistic evolutionists have superstitious beliefs and are appropriately categorized with ID creationists, not with atheistic evolutionists.
If that's pure science, then where is the experimental evidence for your strong assertion that theistic evolutionists are actually the enemy and not allies in what you call "your fight?" And how can a fight like this be pure science and not partly politics?
Mark
Mark, I don't disagree with you. Of course I'm engaged in all kinds of debates that are, strictly speaking, not pure science.
That's not the point. If Mooney & Nisbet want to advocate a way of debating politics then that's fine by me. I probably still won't agree with their tactics but they have every right to try and convince the world to adopt them for political debates.
But that's not what they're doing. They've addressed scientists and they describe their framing ideas as science communication, not politics. Do you see the problem?
I am not claiming that everything I have to say is completely within the realm of science. Not at all. What I'm saying is that when it comes to pure science, deliberate framing isn't allowed.
I'm also saying that when it comes to politics I don't agree with their particular spin on things but those are two separate issues.
Hi Larry,
The most recent edition of Science includes a review of the book entitled A Scientist's Guide to Talking with the Media: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists by Hayes and Grossman (two journalists).
Book Description
Research in most scientific disciplines calls for painstaking accuracy and a hesitation to generalize for fear of distorting the truth. Given this penchant for nuance, scientists often feel uneasy about a relationship with anyone in the media who is seeking an eye-catching lead, usually with limited space to express subtleties. Researchers who give interviews often feel that their findings are distorted or sensationalized, and shun future media contact. By avoiding potential misrepresentations, however, scientists also sacrifice opportunities to educate the public on important issues related to health, the environment, outer space, and much more.
In A Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media, Richard Hayes and Daniel Grossman draw on their expertise in public relations and journalism to empower researchers in a variety of fields to spread their message on their own terms. The authors provide tips on how to translate abstract concepts into concrete metaphors, craft sound bites, and prepare for interviews. For those looking for a higher profile, the authors explain how to become a reporter’s trusted source—the first card in the Rolodex—on controversial issues.
A must-read for all scientists, this book shows how it is possible for the discoveries that hibernate in lecture halls and academic journals to reach a broader audience in a way that is accurate and effective.
Just thought this might be of interest, if it is mostly about conveying accurate ideas effectively given the constraints of popular media.
Thanks Larry,
I think Nisbet and Mooney are talking about how to communicate science within the context of public policy debates.
I think they said that in their lecture, but I'm not sure. Either way, that's what I understood them to be talking about, and within the context of public policy debates I think they're right.
Mark
Hi Larry,
Just updated my latest post with this:
"Larry Moran watched the video which I appreciate. He's not swayed. He claims we haven't gotten what critics are saying, but of course, if he's calling framing spin still, he hasn't gotten what we are saying. That's too bad. Larry's right about one thing: Our argument is aimed at a U.S. audience, and so maybe it seems a bit odd to him as he's from Canada. Still, the same principles of framing would apply to other countries...."
We'll have to agree to disagree about Dawkins. Thanks for your post.
cm
Chris: "of course, if he's calling framing spin still, he hasn't gotten what we are saying."
So, LM (and PZM, and others) and those who agree with them that "framing" is just "spin" are -- what? -- too stupid to "get" it? ("Of course....")
Ummm, that's some good framing.
Chris Mooney says,
We'll have to agree to disagree about Dawkins.
Yes, we will, but I'm not sure you get the significance of this.
You and Matt are actually doing two different things. You are promoting the concept of framing, which may or may not be important.
You are also promoting your own personal opinions about how to frame certain issues such as stem cell research, global warming, and evolution. You don't seem to understand that just because you might understand the concept of framing, it doesn't necessarily follow that you and Matt are experts on the best way to do it for every issue.
What this means is that much of what you say in your lecture is highly personal and subjective. You don't acknowledge this when you lecture to your audience.
Let me give you some examples. It's perfectly reasonable to imagine a scientist who understands stem cell research but opposes it on ethical grounds. They will not be on your side in the political debate.
Similarly, one can imagine a scientist who knows all about global warming but reaches the conclusion based on her models that it will actually be a good thing in the long run. She won't go along with your version of how "scientists" should argue the politics. In fact, she will oppose much of what you say.
Or how about a real scientist who is convinced that the Intelligent Design court cases are counter-productive and wishes to speak out against your particular take on the issue? You and he agree on the science but disagree on the framing tactic. This is similar to those scientists who know a lot more than you do about the evolution/creationism debate and disagree with you on the effectiveness of Richard Dawkins.
You damage your case by being confused about your own areas of expertise. You may know a lot about the concept of framing but it doesn't necessarily follow that you know a lot about how to apply to these issues.
And that's the problem. Scientists are not stupid. They are all going to have their own ideas on how to argue their point. You have to convince them that your opinion (and Matt's) on how best to "frame" evolution is better than theirs. Good luck.
This is similar to those scientists who know a lot more than you do about the evolution/creationism debate and disagree with you on the effectiveness of Richard Dawkins.
What sense of "effectiveness" are you using here? Making and conveying good scientific arguments against creationism? Coverting creationists to evolution? Convincing the general public to support good science education?
I'm not much interested in the "f" word, I'm just curious as to in which way scientists are in such a superior position to judge the effectiveness of anti-creationism arguments.
Dictionary.com defines
spin:
to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction.
I'd say that framing almost certainly falls under that category -- particularly when it is used for the primary purpose of changing opinions.
"I'm not much interested in the "f" word, I'm just curious as to in which way scientists are in such a superior position to judge the effectiveness of anti-creationism arguments."
I would say the first choice you listed is probably the best when it comes to Dawkins. The man is an excellent writer with a prodigious talent for manipulating intuition pumps (with such tools as the biomorphs and the weasel experiment, which give people an idea of how selection works).
As for his public advocacy of atheism, we could certainly argue that he's done a good deal to break the dam that kept atheism out of the accepted public discourse for so long. Whether his advocacy will have a positive or negative effect in the long term is debatable, and depends greatly on what people are aiming for.
Larry,
If there's an issue where the scientific community is split, then there will definitely, inevitably, also be a split over how to frame that issue.
But we haven't chosen particularly controversial issues as examples. Teach evolution and only evolution in science class: It's hard to say the scientific community is very split on that.
Or, support embryonic stem cell research with increased federal funding.
Or, human-induced global warming is a problem that must be addressed.
None of this is particularly controversial among the scientific community, and we've chosen these examples for precisely this reason.
Chris is the expert. He's a "journalist" with an English degree. He therefore knows all about science and framing. He has all the answers. Listen to him. Do what he says.
Ayyup, there is new philosophy of science that mandates - journalists instruct scientists.
Mooney says above that scientists have NOT been bamboozled by the fog of global heating denial. Nevertheless, scientists must learn from framing geniuses how to properly frame the "essence." What are essences, you ask? Essences are like frames.
Larry Moran: "Or how about a real scientist who is convinced that the Intelligent Design court cases are counter-productive and wishes to speak out against your particular take on the issue?"
Why would you say that Kitzmiller was counterproductive, considering that it put a monkey wrench in the IDers' efforts?
I'm tempted to wonder if you think Brown vs. Board of Education and other seminal court cases were counterproductive?
J.J. Ramsey,
Why would you say that Kitzmiller was counterproductive, considering that it put a monkey wrench in the IDers' efforts?
It did? Do more Americans believe in evolution today than before the Dover trial?
I'm tempted to wonder if you think Brown vs. Board of Education and other seminal court cases were counterproductive?
Yes I do think that. The effect of all this emphasis is to turn over the defense of evolution to lawyers. The emphasis is on whether Intelligent Design Creationism is religious and not on whether it's true. I'll let you in on a little secret, none of the IDC adherents had any doubts about it being religious. What they've succeeded in doing is making themselves into martyrs who are being oppressed by the ACLU and their constitutional lawyers. This just confirms that they're on the right track.
They've chosen the frame and the evolutionists are cooperating.
Gerald said
"scientists must learn from framing geniuses how to properly frame the "essence. What are essences, you ask? "
Assendses?
Frame the assendses?
And hang them on the wall???
--John B.
What they've succeeded in doing is making themselves into martyrs who are being oppressed by the ACLU and their constitutional lawyers. This just confirms that they're on the right track.
I don't think that's right. Their original frame was that ID is science. At best, the martyr business is their back-up frame after losing what they really wanted. And it's a pretty poor substitute at that, since they never needed any help triggering the religious right's persecution complex, as can be seen in such tripe as "the War on Christmas." In other words, martyrhood is really low hanging fruit.
If you have some evidence that the persecution stuff is playing outside the religious right, I'd like to see it.
What the IDeologists lost big time in Kitzmiller was the free ride they got in the media. Many if not most of the articles dealing with ID lately have the Discovery Institute barely mentioned or only in passing and without much credence given to what they said. That's way different than the situation before Dover.
But hey! I'm just a lawyer, not one of those scientists who are so much more expert in public communication than other people are, so what do I know?
Maybe it would be helpful to get a concise statement of the framing and anti-framing arguments. I tried this out on Chris Mooney's site and he said he would broadly agree. How about you Larry?
Framing: The best way to talk about science to non-scientists is to extract accurately the core results of a scientific subject and present them in a comfortable context. This builds trust and acceptance, encourages listening, and minimizes the impact of ideological or other filters. This approach is especially important when policy implications exist, because that’s when it’s hardest to get people to listen to and understand science.
Against framing: The right way to talk about science to non-scientists is to display science including assumptions, evidence and uncertainty. This is much like talking to scientists, except understanding can be encouraged by helpful examples, translation of jargon, and engaging presentation. This approach is especially important when policy implications exist, because including any opinions or spin casts doubt on the reliability of the science.
At a time when global heating unquestionably presents the most perilous problem ever encountered, Nisbet and Mooney's engineered framing discussion is the last thing we need. The probabilistic and predictive claims of science are our best hope for survival. Casting any unnecessary doubt on scientific evidence and predictive power is absolutely counterproductive.
If they were just yuppies on a career roll, it would be bad enough, but I claim that their published statements are filled with crypto uncertainty. Just read the crap, and they are determined to continue.
gerald spezio says,
At a time when global heating unquestionably presents the most perilous problem ever encountered, Nisbet and Mooney's engineered framing discussion is the last thing we need.
I agree with you that deliberate "framing" as a way of changing what you would naturally want to say is wrong.
However, your statement that "global heating unquestionably presents the most perilous problem ever encountered" can't go unchallenged. The scientific data shows that global warming is real. It does not show that it necessarily represents a "perilous problem." In fact, it might actually be a long-term advantage to the world (but probably not).
By using words like "perilous problem" you are framing the debate in a way that many scientists can't go along with. It's exactly what Mooney and Nisbet want to do. They do not want scientists to mention that the consequences of global warming are somewhat uncertain and may not be perilous. When you say "unquestionably" you have exited the realm of science and entered the realm of pure politics and rhetoric. I will not follow you down that path.
The probabilistic and predictive claims of science are our best hope for survival. Casting any unnecessary doubt on scientific evidence and predictive power is absolutely counterproductive.
With all due respect, that's exactly what you have done. As a scientist, I'm prepared to hedge my bets and advocate that we do something about global climate change on the grounds that we need to allow for the worst case senarios. What I will not do is lie about the probabilities in order to convince people that they should take action.
Good science education requires that we teach people the truth about science even if this means acknowledging that we don't know for certain whether Florida will be covered with water or whether cutting back on CO2 emissions at this point in time will have a significant impact. Science is all about probabilities and skepticism. If you sacrifice that for political expediency then all is lost.
I stand corrected and chastised. My choice of "unquestionably" was dumb from a rhetorical perspective. My passion in opposing the global heating deniers (warmers) overcame my good judgment.
Most probabilistically, however, the overwhelming evidence for human generated greenhouse gases as the primary cause in global heating and the consequences of climate disruptions can surely be called very critical, if not perilous. Nothing like this has ever happened before. I am following James Hansen's position and predictions basically.
I am very surprised that you could suggest that there is much probability of real positive advantage to the planet from even the most moderate scenarios. Indeed, this shuck, so readily presented, about increasing growing seasons and "better weather" in some locations is pure madness.
Larry, I have spent the last two years in an exhaustive study of global heating and related serious climate disruptions. Along with the wealth of hard science, there is plenty of propaganda and doubletalk. A recent flurry of well orchestrated spin has focused on the imprecision of computer modeling and scenarios. Depending on one's level of understanding, one could conclude from the spin that there was very little or no empirical foundation for the modeling. Just one recent example of the empirical versus modeling theme was *framed* by Chris Mooney's peeyar publishing people at the Rabinar Agency. Since I criticized this false and spurious dichotomy emphasized in Mooney's book, he has refused to publish anything from me - never mind address my criticism.
It's very difficult for the average person to get accurate information on global warming. I tend to be fairly skeptical about a lot of what's published in the media and this skepticism is enhanced when I hear people like Mooney and Nisbet preaching the spin.
I agree with New Scientist and their extensive coverage of the issue [Climate Myths: Assessing the evidence]. They say,
Truth is the first casualty of war. As the political battle over climate change has heated up, so has the propaganda campaign. On one side, green activists sometimes exaggerate claims about the possible consequences of global warming. On the other, sceptics seize upon anything that appears to suggest that climate change is not happening, is not due to human emissions, or will not be a problem.
The media tend to give both of these extremes rather more column inches and airtime than they do to the mainstream scientific position.
From the sounds of it, Mooney and Nisbet are not so much interested in scientific truth as they are in propaganda. They give the impression that their minds are made up and that makes them suspect as far as I am concerned.
Post a Comment