Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, part 1 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 5:30 pm
   30 Sep 2008

   Simple Question
   
   What has global warming made worse in 2008 compared to 1958?

   Permalink

2. 

   frankbi Posted 10:35 pm
   30 Sep 2008

   Well...jabailo: For you, you mean?
   
   -- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

   Permalink

3. 

   gmobus Posted 1:41 am
   01 Oct 2008

   Between the devil and the deep blue seaOne might interpret this thesis in several ways, each with implications on how to move forward in communicating with the general population. In one interpretation we would conclude that the average person is so unintelligent that the nuances and logic of scientific argument is beyond their ken. In that case they should be treated like cattle and prodded to move in the right direction.
   But another interpretation is that people are intelligent enough but just ignorant. In that case there should be rhetoric that also educates the masses and pulls them along in the right direction. In this case the question becomes one of time. It takes time to educate people.
   I think you have to choose one or the other basic premise as to why only simple words and persuasion based on repeating seems to be the only way forward.
   My thesis pertains to the idea that most people are generally intelligent enough to have learned how science works and what scientific arguments mean. But humans have not evolved a sufficient level of sapience -- the basis of wisdom -- to have good (minimally biased and morally motivated) judgments. And as much of a result is that our education system is quite deficient. Lacking adequate sapience, the majority of human beings continue to fail to grasp their need to understand the real world as it actually works. They prefer to rely on religious dogma and/or ideology.
   The big question, then, is: Is it really feasible to convince people to understand and do the right thing to avoid a bad future? I suspect it is an open question (I have no answer certainly). And the consequence is it is hard to know how much effort to put to trying to convince people, vs. putting effort into preparing for an inevitable future.
   Question Everything
   
   
   
   George Mobus,
   
   Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
   
   University of Washington Tacoma,
   
   and Professional Student for Life

   Permalink

4. 

   Colin Wright Posted 2:27 am
   01 Oct 2008

   What public debate?Joe writes:"Anyone who wants to understand -- and change -- the politics of global warming, must understand why the deniers, delayers, and inactivists are so persuasive in the public debate and why scientists and scientific-minded people are not"
   But there is no debate. If I turn on TV, read the newspaper, search for public events, I never see any. Gloomy subjects like ecosystem collapse don't sell advertising. Our media environment is toxic and not in the public interest. Even the best rhetorical speakers (like Tim Flannery) can make little impact in such a world.
   One partial solution: Reclaim the Media, as part of a democratic awakening that challenges corporate power.

   Permalink

5. 

   frankbi Posted 3:23 am
   01 Oct 2008

   The two functions of repetitiongmobus:
   I think you have to choose one or the other basic premise as to why only simple words and persuasion based on repeating seems to be the only way forward.
   The way I see it, repetition serves two functions:
   (1) to force the repeated idea into people's minds, and
   
   (2) to crowd out other ideas so that they don't even get a hearing.
   Sometimes I wonder whether we're giving a bit too much credit to the inactivists' supposed "rhetorical prowess". Well, it's part of the story, but another part of the story is the existence of climate trolls, sockpuppets, and strawman sockpuppets who spam forums with illogical garbage 405 times a day just for the sake of it.
   This doesn't even require much rhetorical skill; it just needs lots of brute force, lots of time, and lots of Cheetos.
   
   -- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

   Permalink

6. 

   wendigo Posted 4:57 am
   01 Oct 2008

   why scientists aren't persuasiveI think there are several contributing factors as to why scientists aren't more persuasive.  Off the top of my head:
   
   
    The American public is largely science-illiterate.
    People want easy answers.  Deniers give easy answers.  Scientists give complicated answers.
    Scientists hesitate to use concrete words such as "will", and instead usually use less certain words like "may", because there is usually some amount of statistical uncertainty in any scientific study.  Deniers have no problem using concrete words to forward their agenda.
    Most scientists are not very good at oratory (try staying awake at any scientific conference, even if you are interested in what is being presented).  Most (or at least many) deniers are windbags.
    Our leaders over the past 8 years have been obviously and publicly anti-science.
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   sindark Posted 5:26 am
   01 Oct 2008

   Related quotesSome quotations on scientific communication:
   "Unlike the search for knowledge, which is accepted as a legitimate practice, the search for
   
   allies must be disguised by other professional activities. Ultimately, this necessity is rooted in
   
   the larger belief that science is objective and value-free, while political life is ideological and
   
   value-driven."
   -Karen Litfin
   Take notice, this ["rash treatment of the truth"] is not due to primary research in the
   
   environmental field: this generally appears to be professionally competent and well balanced. It
   
   is due, however, to the communication of environmental knowledge, which taps deeply into
   
   our doomsday beliefs. Such propaganda is presented by many environmental organizations... and
   
   is readily picked up by the media.
   -Bjorn Lomborg
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

8. 

   frankbi Posted 2:19 pm
   01 Oct 2008

   Lomborg is his own counter-examplesindark:
   Hahahahahaha!!!!!! It's ironic that inactivists such as Lomborg keep appearing on the media talking about how the media keep repeating only "doomsday" "propaganda"!
   And of course the inactivists keep repeating, repeating, repeating this stupid canard in the media. And of course, the more it's repeated in the media, the less true it becomes.
   
   -- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

   Permalink

9. 

   frankbi Posted 2:24 pm
   01 Oct 2008

   Another counter-example to add to Lomborg's ownJustice John Hansen on a global warming debate in Avenues :
   [...] an alleged stifling of free speech -- really? How is it then that his views, and similar views expressed by others, can be readily found not only in Avenues, but in other mainstream media as well?
   People keep appearing on the media complaining about how the media are stifling their views. Yeah, right.
   
   -- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

   Permalink

10. 

    Lefcort Posted 9:48 am
    16 Oct 2008

    Why scientists aren't more persuasiveWhy scientists aren't more persuasive? Perhaps because we are not convinced.
    I am a environmental toxicologist rather than a climate scientist, but I have looked at the climate data. They are good but not great.
    There is certainly a secular warming trend but the CO2 hypothesis as the cause is just not that good. The data are not bad, just not good enough for phrases like "the debate is over".
    Irregardless of how dire the ramifications, the job of scientists is not to advocate. We report. That's it.
    Hugh Lefcort
    
    Professor
    
    Biology Department
    
    Gonzaga University

    Permalink

11. 

    StSwithin Posted 7:42 pm
    29 Oct 2008

    Rhetoric and repitition, repitition,repititionWhere did Joseph Romm get his ideas from? Repitition, repitition, repitition sounds very much like the prescription of another Joseph "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." And that Joseph, incidentally, was working for a master of rhetoric.
    Science has a bad reputation with the public precisely because it has gone for headline grabbing scare stories. An example was a prediction in 1996 that up to 10 million would die by 2010 from those already infected with vCJD. The role of science is to distill and explain the truth and nothing but the truth.

    Permalink

12. 

    sctajc Posted 1:12 pm
    07 Nov 2008

    scientists will never be good at RhetoricBrilliant scientists seem to naturally be poor on presentation skills and why they will always lose. Take for example the incredible scientist of all scientists; the scientist which every other scientist is in agreement with and learns from. Unfortunately he only publishes in such learned journals with such complex language that the layman misses out. Of course I am talking about Professor Al Gore. He produced a little known bible called 'An Inconvenient Truth' where he tried to bring the truth out. Scientifically it was prefect. No one could find a single scientific fault, but the presentation was so poor hardly anyone viewed it.

    Permalink