blogstorehomehomeLinkshome

Aug

15

How To Communicate Science

Filed Under Rants

Communication

I don’t have a lot of time to post today, so I thought I’d base my post off of something Brian over at Laelaps wrote earlier, on the subject of communicating science.

One point he made that really caught my attention was that we are basically fighting the same battles as we were in the ’20s. In nearly a century, we haven’t even been able to put the “it’s only a theory” farce to bed. As Brian points out, this demonstrates our failure to communicate even very basic scientific concepts to the public. If we are not even able to communicate the scientific meaning of “theory,” how are we supposed to explain something as complicated as evolution?

Here’s how I see it, and this applies to fights over evolution particularly, but certainly not exclusively. The science blogosphere has two major themes. One is writing about scientific issues, like new research. This is important, because conversation between science enthusiasts is a major function of the network we’ve built. The other is what I’ll call humourous attack mode. A creationist will say something outrageous, and science bloggers will hit back. This isn’t a bad thing either. Humour is a powerful weapon.

However, I would propose the addition of a third major category to our communication, and I’ll call it the “philosophy of science.” Brian Switek, being miles ahead of me in most things, alludes to this concept in the fourth paragraph of his post.

I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb here, and if anyone disagrees with me, please reply in the comments. Most peope who deny science or plead ignorance to it are fully aware of the facts, or at least have easy access to them. The reason they reject it is because they lack the philosophical framework to understand it. Because they misunderstand the very purpose of science, they cannot see the facts in a proper context.

This ignorance is not a completely natural thing. Creationists have fought a long campaign to define science as a direct attempt to destroy religion, and in many ways, they have succeeded. I think it’s time that we start defining the purpose of science ourselves. We sometimes even aid the opposition. By demonstrating how science can replace or disprove religion, we add weight to the long standing misinterpretation of science’s purpose. Science does not exist to disprove religion

So to conclude, if we want to communicate science more effectively, we need to change what we write about. I’m not saying we should stop blogging about research, or stop calling attention to creationist’s crazy antics. What I’m saying is that we should also devote some time to explaining the very basic concepts that form the underpinnings of science.

Instead of simply tearing down creationism, let’s try to build up science, and make our science writing less about religion, and more about science.

Comments

One Response to “How To Communicate Science”

  1. Glendon Mellow on August 15th, 2008 6:24 pm

    Interesting.

    I think in practice I tend to behave as you suggest in your last line, and focus on the science more than debunking religious claims. However, I think the Pharyngula and Evolved Rationals of the world are fighting the front on a very important front.

    As I think you agree, it takes many voices to battle, and many strategies to make the point come across.

    In my day-job as a manager of about 20 people, I’ve come to realise over the years some people respond well to written instructions, some to verbal instructions, and some step-by-step and some by giving them the gist of what I need. Everyone hears and listens differently. A blog like yours is fun and informative and mainly non-confrontational. A lot of people will respond to that.

Leave a Reply