Unscientific Australia

The other night I was watching TV when on came a piece about Chris Mooney’s and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s book Unscientific America. I haven’t said anything about it because Chris promised me he’d send me a copy, and I haven’t yet received it (miscommunication at the publisher).

Chris acquitted himself very well as you can see here. He said nothing with which I would disagree, and certainly nothing that would justify the response to his book that PZ Mosquito and Larry Moran have been giving. Since I haven’t read the book, I can’t speak to this yet, but if the problem they have is that Chris thinks scientists don’t communicate well to the public, well, not only I but several of the scientists interviewed in the segment agree.

Chris’ interview has triggered off a reaction by the AGW skeptics here, too, and Chris replies at his blog.

But I will say this: I was the media person for a tertiary institution for five years, the publishing guy for a large university for eight, and the communications director for a medical research institution for ten. I’ve seen a lot of scientists communicating science. Even with training and the very best of intentions (and believe me, if anyone ought to be able to deal with public communication in difficult contexts, it was the public spokesperson for the medical institute I worked for) they do a fairly poor job. It’s not their fault: the media themselves are simply not designed to get information across. Instead they are designed (that is, they evolved) to get attitudes across, and information is secondary. Science won’t pass that filter easily, if at all.

Several of my favourite writers, like Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong, work very hard to communicate science and they have a fine grasp of how much information can be pumped through the attitudinal firehose. Think of it like this: at the end of that hose is a filter with very small holes in it, and only the smallest of factoids can pass through, though a great volume of attitude can. No scientist would be comfortable with such small items of information when dealing with an important topic.

A parallel case occurs when philosophers go public: the arguments get lost in bite sized assertions that are vaguely connected but not in a way any professional philosopher would be happy with. Some venues, like the New Yorker or other magazines that permit the writing of 3000 word articles, can carry the bandwidth needed to get a full argument or a good presentation of facts and theory, but few have the patience to read this unless they are already inclined to read such material. In other words, they aren’t the target audience.

So I am prepared to give a lot more credence to Chris’ and his colleagues claims that there is a place for science journalism in communication that scientists simply cannot fill, than PZ or Larry or the other critics. But I also think this, too, is a losing proposition. If the communications medium is wrong for the task, doing what little can be done well will have, in the end, the smallest impact on the problem of science literacy and critical thinking in the wider community.

Perhaps we simply can’t achieve scientific literacy that way. I tend to think that early and consistent good scientific education is what is needed. Even if only a minority of the population ends up understanding science well enough to see through stupid antivaxxers and vitamin supplement detoxers and anti-global warmers, if that minority passes some threshold, like a herd immunity due to vaccination, it will deflate the widespread purveyance of these falsehoods, and expose the interests behind them to ridicule.

But calling for better education itself becomes a political football. I don’t know what the solution is. I do not think the media, whether print or broadcast or electronic, is the solution, but it is important. Perhaps we win this by increments and persistence. Perhaps we don’t, and eventually we lose the social benefits of knowledge. If that happens, I’m moving to a country that does value science. I speak a little German, maybe…

When and if the book turns up, I’ll tell you what I think. In the meantime, consider this my statement of intent and belief. Like my views on accommodationism, I don’t think it will remain unremarked.

Late note: Tim Lambert demolishes the lies of Marohasy that Chris reported on his blog. Tim shows how those active in climate research are almost to a person convinced of anthropogenic global warming.