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.

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.

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.