Archive for the ‘in theory’ Category
Post & Ramirez (2018): Scientists’ (mis)perceptions of press bias induce advocacy in response
In my overarching project Unilateral Disarmament in the “War on Science” I claim that (4) cognitive biases lead scientists to faulty perceptions of attacks on science, and that (3) in response, scientists adopt communication strategies which, far from alleviating, tend to exacerbate the “war.”
This study by Post & Ramirez of German climate scientists provides some intriguing evidence for these two claims.
Responsibility for polar bear arguments
Harvey et al., “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy” (2017) identifies an argumentative strategy used by those who question the links between climate change, arctic sea ice, and declining polar bear populations (TWQ):
the main strategy of denier blogs is therefore to focus on topics that are showy and in which it is therefore easy to generate public interest. These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW in general; in other words, they represent keystone dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”
Stripping this of its mixed metaphors, the claim is: TWQ claim that by refuting the arguments about polar bears put forward by those on the side of the authors (or angels, TOTSOTA), they are refuting the existence and significance of AGW.
I think this is an accurate statement of one TWQ argumentative strategy which (unlike Harvey et al.) I will document below. However, Harvey et al. are mistaken in taking this strategy to be illegitimate. Quite the contrary: the TWQ strategy is a well-justified and strategic response to the case made by TOTSOTA. To throw in another metaphor: TWQ polar bear arguments are TOTSOTA chickens coming home to roost.
Unilateral Disarmament in the “War on Science”
Here is the thesis that I’m nailing to the cathedral door.
Some scientists perceive themselves as an embattled minority, fending off attacks from a public whose declining trust in science has been manufactured by self-interested adversaries aided by an easily-duped press. This perception is largely unfounded. When scientists communicate to the public from this point of view, they don’t contribute usefully to public deliberations. In fact, they add more toxins to the already polluted science communication environment. There has to be a better way.
This is a story that the public is anti-science–I want to promote an anti-“anti-science” story. Or put dramatically, I want to promote unilateral disarmament in the so-called war against science.
To make a case for this thesis, I aim to advance discussion of the following questions:
1. What does the anti-science story look like, in detail? How frequent is it, who is telling it, for what purposes?
2. Which aspects of the anti-science story are largely true, which speculative, and which false? For example, a small number of scientists have been targeted for harassment–that is true, and reprehensible. But is there evidence for a decline in trust, a significant role for “denialists,” or misbehavior by the press?
3. How does the anti-science story influence scientists’ public communication? How does it influence the reception and impact of scientists’ public communication?
4. Why do scientists find the “anti-science” story so attractive?–especially the speculative/false bits? Are there psychological biases in play, e.g., the false polarization effect?
5. What are approaches to communicating in the face of deep disagreement and even hostility that aren’t based on the anti-science story?
6. How can scientists be engaged in reflection on and discussion of this topic?
Scientists: Don’t feed the trolls
We all know how internet trolling works. The troll writes something outrageous, which provokes the readers to respond with outrage, which amuses the troll and his cohorts. We also know the solution: don’t feed the trolls.
Yes, this applies to science communication, too.
Some communication principles for an e-salon
There are going to be a thousand diverse ways to run a worthwhile blog on a controversial topic. As long as the blog community is willing to try things out, reflect on their experiences and then enforce their own standards through modeling and (civil) correction, I think they’re likely to come up a with their own workable practices.
Judith Curry in 1688?
Still, it’s not like the online world is completely separate from the world of face-to-face communication, and the blogosphere can draw from communication skills already well-developed and understood in “meat-space” contexts. I’ve done a series of posts, for example, on how debate can work online (here and here).
Similarly, in a very interesting post, Judith Curry has identified her objective on her own blog as translating an old communication activity into a new setting:
I am striving for something different, sort of an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.
Three hundred plus years ago, another prominent woman wrote extensively about salon communication; let’s see what we can learn from her.
