Matt Nisbet has tried to defend his attacks on PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins with a posting that promotes Paul Kurtz as a "reasonable" atheist [Paul Kurtz: The Local Leader Who Happens to Be an Atheist]. He followed it up with a posting on his comment policy where he notes that he has been forced to delete some of the comments from people who defend PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins [A Note On Comment Policy]. In that comment thread, Matt Nisbet defends his position on framing ...
I've been very active in communicating why my research is worth the money and I have done it very effectively.Here's the problem. Matt Nisbet is promoting the concept of framing science. This is his field and he has every right to do that. I don't buy it and neither do many other scientists who think that framing is too close to "spin."
-->I've done close to three dozen presentations over the past year and talked face-to-face with several thousand scientists, policymakers, other academics, students, and lay citizens.
-->I regularly post here on the relevance of framing to a range of topics. The top tabs of the blog explain in depth the nature and application of research to science communication.
-->I've done about 40 media interviews on issues related to science communication and/or framing.
-->I followed the Science article with an article at the WPost, a longer cover feature at The Scientist, both articles I link to as PDF copies free for reading. I have also done extended interviews on the topic at the Point of Inquiry podcast.
-->I advise and consult with a range of nonprofits, organizations, and government agencies.
-->I engage almost every serious minded blog post and comment with a respectful, and usually detailed reply.
But that's not all that Matt Nisbet wants to do. Not only does he want scientists to adopt framing as a means to communicate science but he also wants to dictate the frame! In other words, he sets himself up as not only an expert in communication but also an expert in what should be communicated in the rationalism vs superstition debate. He can't tell the difference between the concept of framing, which many scientists reject, and his personal opinion, which is that vocal atheists are hurting the cause of atheism.
Matt want to have his cake and eat it too. He will get neither.
[Photo Credit: Worst Birthday Cake .. Ever!]
8 comments :
I've read some of the comments that you've left on Mooney's blog and I appreciate them, though wonder how much life this donkey has in it.
He can't tell the difference between the concept of framing, which many scientists reject
"Framing" in the general sense is probably a good, useful if somewhat obvious principle. "Communicate to your audience in a way they can relate to." Fine, sure, alright, whatever.
It's such a shame that Nisbet and Mooney have tainted it so quickly and so effectively. It's reminiscent of the way that "alternative", "holistic", "complementary" and other terms have become so soiled by their association with idiocy that we reflexively cringe when we hear them. It's a testimony to M/N's communication ability that they've tarnished so much with so little.
Has Nisbet actually admitted that he is a doodoo-head? I won't concern myself with anything else he says until he gets that right out front.
I think too, that Nisbet and others arent actually "framing". I think that the whole issue of "framing" is pretty much like rhetoric:
It is actually good thing: If you think:
1: What i want to say
2: To What audience
And use neat language, which is logically accurate AND not too comlicated but not too siplified for that audience, it is extremely good thing. And in that Nisbet et Mooney are pros.
But like in rhetoric in framing is "spin" part: If you use semantics to deny that "you cant say certain opnions", that is something totally else.
Nisbet and Mooney don't seem to understood, that perhaps those "christians who get angry" are not at all the audience, which is "in sight". Perhaps it is just the ones, who dont get angry, who learn something about issue AND see how those "certain christians" get angry, and think those two things together.
Perhaps anyone isn't trying to teach those "angering" christians anything. Have you ever got denialist to conform he is wrong? No, that is not going to happen. "Doubt is their product", and if you don't get them angry and comment them, that doubt is going to be very selling product.
And perhaps that is why Nisbet and Mooney are on their rally? That they understood this? I am not sure.
I was a regular reader of Daily Kos back when Markos was writing his book. And based on what he was talking about, and more importantly, the questions he was asking of his readership, he was definitely interested in "framing". Then he went out and talked to Democrats who were doing well in "Red" states, and his tone changed. The book he ended up writing, Crashing the Gate wasn't about framing, in part, I gather, because framing had little to offer the Democrats.
I really believe there's a lesson here. "Framing" worked for one side - it worked for Rove, it works for the creationists. I get the sense that "framing" either only works as an attack, not a counterattack, or it only works when you're selling lies.
M&N jumped the shark on Expelled, and now Nisbet is falling in the water with his comment expelling. (Funny that he links to Chad Orzel under the name "the "screechy monkey" problem", as IIRC Orzel has a documented history of starting yelling when he gets upset.)
Yes, framing works best when you are trying to sell a lie, as for example when AFAIU the tobacco industry delayed smoke bans with ~ 30 years with their "inconclusive evidence" frame. It can never the less be useful in small scale ("what you got 1 in 5 walks away from" as opposed to "your cancer has 80 % mortality rate"), but I'm quite sure it is best used in a limited fashion around science and not only because it is a successful tool for tools. (To frame it properly.)
I think 'screechy monkeys' is the term Chad Orzel uses to describe uppity atheists or loudmouth biologists (and you have to take him seriously since he has a sidebar on his page telling us how intelligent other people think he is).
In a way there is an irony in that Nisbet is actually leading a lot of scientists to the realization that 'framing' might be a useful way of communicating science in the short term to the non scientific literate community - its just that the more you look into it its the attack style 'framing' - spin - of the republican right that is the model with all the evidence rather than the hush-hush conciliatory model that Nisbet prefers to 'teach' us.
Nisbet, however, completely ignores the medium and long term - in replies to messages to him he has said to the effect he doesn't think promoting critical thinking in the populace as a whole is a useful strategy.
I think "screechy monkeys" in this instance doesn't refer to "uppity atheists" per se, rather a particular flavour of commenter on science blogs. I have some sympathy with his view.
John Scalzi originally (I think) discussed the screechy monkey phenomenon that seems at times to define the internet:
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004739.html
Anyhoo, Martin wrote:
Nisbet, however, completely ignores the medium and long term - in replies to messages to him he has said to the effect he doesn't think promoting critical thinking in the populace as a whole is a useful strategy.
Does he? In this video, in which Nisbet looks strangely like Hank Azaria, he says that increasing science literacy is an important long term strategy. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, as Matt isn't an especially good speaker (he says "right" far too much) and I don't like not being able to see his slides. However, for a minute or so from around 3 minutes in, he talks about science education and science literacy being important, but shouldn't be the only focus, particularly not in the short term:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RULIL2zUHpE
I personally think that framing is an interesting subject, but Nisbet has pretty much poisoned the well by conflating the concept of framing with his particular don't-rock-the-boat strategy and his particular preferred frames.
Matt completely jumped the shark with his comment policy posting, in which he says the policy is
Keep it substantive, serious minded, on topic, and respectful.
and then he immediately says
Somewhat curiously, the only time I actually have to take action to enforce the comment policy is when a swarm of ardent faithful from PZ Myers' blog suddenly surges over here to complain about any criticism of PZ or any suggestion that diverts from the path of militant atheism. It's what physicist Chad Orzel describes in this post as the "screechy monkey" problem.
We're supposed to keep it "respectful" but he can call us a "swarm" of "ardently faithful" "militant" "screechy monkeys."
After that he only lets 9 comments through, none of them responding as he deserves for being such a flaming hypocrite.
Hyeesh.
Several of us engaged with Mooney on his blog---respectfully and seriously, IMHO---but after reiterating his basic position, he pretty much backed out and clammed up without addressing the serious issues we raised, "at least for now."
He was somewhat condescending about it, but nowhere near Nisbet's level.
Oh, well.
Post a Comment