This week in my undergrad science communication course my students discussed whether it was possible to change an anti-science, denialist perspective with good communication techniques. There was a mix of perspectives, but one view was that people will believe what they want, and will disregard scientific evidence to the contrary.
I thought about this conversation while listening to an excellent NPR story by Christopher Joyce on why our current abundance of snow does not spell the death of global warming. Quite the contrary. Wonderful reporting, but does it make a difference?
In a recent Nature editorial, Dan Kahan of Yale Law School criticizes what he sees as the dominant form of science communication:
The prevailing approach is still simply to flood the public with as much sound data as possible on the assumption that the truth is bound, eventually, to drown out its competitors. If, however, the truth carries implications that threaten people’s cultural values, then holding their heads underwater is likely to harden their resistance and increase their willingness to support alternative arguments, no matter how lacking in evidence. This reaction is substantially reinforced when, as often happens, the message is put across by public communicators who are unmistakably associated with particular cultural outlooks or styles — the more so if such advocates indulge in partisan rhetoric, ridiculing opponents as corrupt or devoid of reason. This approach encourages citizens to experience scientific debates as contests between warring cultural factions — and to pick sides accordingly.
One of Kahan’s suggestions is that scientific information needs to be presented by diverse voices, so that individuals can get information from people with similar cultural backgrounds. This point was raised by one of my students as well, who argued that blogging has the potential to set up this type of communication. Young science bloggers in particular may have the opportunity to gain the ears of their friends, and help promote scientific thinking, through their social networks.
Your thoughts?
First of all, I’m a tad bitter that these intriguing classes weren’t offered when I was an AU undergrad!
Second, I agree with what Dan Kahan has to say. When public figures, such as Al Gore, advocate an environmental issue — the general public (that mainly consists of individuals with non-science backgrounds) don’t necessarily look at the issue — they look at his political career. I personally know two people who refuse to believe that global warming is an issue simply because of Al Gore, and because they disagree with his political beliefs and actions.
As a science geek, it can become rather frustrating. However, rather than getting frustrated with the general public — Dr. Posner, I think your ideas are great. Trying to communicate in other forums, such as a blogger with a Bachelor’s degree like myself, could hopefully make an impact and be a more efficient communication method. I don’t have a public political agenda, nor am I a “famous” figure (yet! ha!). That’s not to say that the communication still won’t come with negative feedback. I’ve had plenty of negative feedback with articles I post on Facebook: anti-Darwin, anti-evolution, just anti-scientific thinking in general. Which, from what we have discussed in previous blogs, can cause some younger generation bloggers to hold back their controversial viewpoints in fear of being criticized.
Every time I think about reaching the “other side” of the issue, I can’t help but think of Thomas Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
One of the main points of the book, unless I was wildly off-base, is that cross-stance arguments are essentially meaningless. When the values and perspective of the audience differ significantly from the speaker’s, it’s very hard to make any progress. This is because you have assumptions that are inherent in your argument. When the person you are trying to convince disagrees with your underlying assumptions, it doesn’t matter how solid your argument is, the two of you will never come to an agreed upon conclusion.
This is why it is so important to put the new information you are trying to impress upon your audience in terms they already understand.
As an example, this is why framing environmental conservation in religious terms (stewardship etc) seems to be such a promising idea.
What is particularly interesting about Kuhn’s argument is that it applies equally well to scientists as it does to the rest of society. Scientists who usually think they are able to objectively read the data and see what it is saying. But, in situations where the data equally supports two opposing theories, then bias, values, and all the other things that make us human become the most important factor in the debate.
A great post. I often get very frustrated with these sorts of arguments. Mind you I am as pig headed as the rest of them when it comes to arguing for science. As one man said on religulous -’forget about it people are born with their beliefs and die with their beliefs’. I totally agree.
I think it depends. There are some people who will never change their minds about things, and all the science in the world isn’t going to alter that. However there are other people who generally are unsure about the issue, and confused by all the conflicting viewpoints.
It is pretty much impossible to change the view of an “anti-science, denialist” but this is not the primary audience of programs about (say) global warming. These programs are aimed at, and will affect, people who are genuinely not sure what to feel about the issue. Communication is always important, because some people will listen, even if others are not interested.
“One of Kahan’s suggestions is that scientific information needs to be presented by diverse voices, so that individuals can get information from people with similar cultural backgrounds.”
Oh yes, definitely. That one is very important. If you continually get science information from people who all look similar, and look different too you, it can be hard to connect and a lot easier to distrust.