Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Science Education and "Framing"
Over on Scienceblogs, there's a bit of a debate in various quarters about "Framing" in dealing with creationists and religious anti-science zealots. On one side, are those who confront the zealots directly, like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers and others, by pointing out their lies, logical flaws and egregious misunderstandings in no uncertain terms. On the other side is mainly Matt Nisbet, a communications theorist, who seems to suggest that the message would get across better by expressing scientific positions in ways that would not offend the zealots--especially not using people who would tend to offend them.
Here's a nice place to start reading up on the issue: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/04/the_trouble_with_framing_t...
And my two zlotys on the matter (also posted as a comment on Pharyngula):
I'm a tech support professional.
Anyone who deals at length with technical support organizations will probably sympathize with the feeling that technical and communications skills seem inversely proportional.
It's not quite true. The inability of technicians to communicate is no good indicator of their competence. You simply can't tell if they know what they're doing when they can't effectively talk about it. On the other hand, a technician who can give you a good floor show which makes you feel as if they are speaking the same language as you may also be able to fix your problem.
The end goal, for the problem to go away, is the primary concern. The secondary goal, of giving the person with the problem some sense of participation in the process, is actually a close second. One can fail to fix an issue and still offer a successful transaction if the user feels as though they understand the problem.
As this relates to framing, it illustrates the flaw in the concept: The majority of the people targeted in the science framing debate don't have a problem they want solved.
It is the educator/scientist with the problem that needs to be solved, i.e. that the religious zealots stop interfering with them.
In this situation, it is unlikely that any amount of framing by the scientist will have any useful effect on the problem. The zealots have their frame already and it excludes that with which they do not agree.
Should one have a hard drive issue, one cannot solve it by consulting a technician who only knows about modems, no matter how carefully one tries to frame it as a modem problem.
Or, to leave the tech support analogy, when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. Science isn't in the position of the hammer vis the zealots, but the nail. We aren't going to get anywhere by telling the hammer that we're a sort of nail.
They already know what to do with nails.
Our best bet is to keep loudly insisting that we're a screw. Or a herring. Or a bus.
Steve "Anything but a nail." James
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Web of Belief
So when I was an undergrad, I took this amazing course called philosophy of biology. Origin of Species was the textbook, and we ripped it apart chapter by chapter. (Just as an aside, after actually reading Origin, I don't think Darwin was the atheist that he is painted as being.) That was fun, but what I really took from the class was the everyone has a web of belief. And if you're trying to get them to your way of thinking, you don't stand a chance if you're striking at the center of who they are. For many people, belief in God and creationism is how they have defined themselves. So when you come from the point of view attacking their very essence, they're not going to listen to a damn thing you have to say and they will do everything they can to shut you out because you are such a threat. However, where you really stand a chance of reforming their web, so to speak, is at the edges on things that they haven't clearly made up their mind about yet. I've found that I make the most progress with people when discussing stem cells, gene therapy, the points at when a person begins and ceases to exist, what physical aspects of the brain make a person who they are, and how amazing it is that our genes are exactly the same genes found in other animals. I avoid the word evolution, but then when you get down to it, all the evidence points that way and I don't have use that dirty word.
In summary, if you want a soundbite's worth of attention, attack creationism and argue evolution. But if you want a discussion and want to get people thinking, let them find their own way there.
Post new comment