How To Communicate Science to a Polarized US Audience

Prescott writes "Given the divisions in the US around subjects like evolution and climate change, scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public. Speakers at the recent AAAS meeting talked about how scientific information is delivered to and understood by a public that interprets it via personal beliefs, religious and otherwise. 'The talks were organized by Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communications who is a proponent of the framing of science, in which communications techniques borrowed from the political realm are applied to promote scientific understanding. As such, a number of speakers advocated specific frames for publicly controversial scientific issues. Unfortunately, the use of those frames appears likely to generate controversy within the scientific community, and several speakers noted that science faces challenges that go well beyond communicating knowledge to the public. There were some hints of a way forward that might work for both the scientific community and the public, but the challenges appear significant.'"

Science of Political Agenda?

[Simple-Simmian (710342)]

Science needs to talk about science and not political agendas.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[darjen (879890)]

How can science avoid talking about political agendas when most research funding comes from the political arena?

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Russ Nelson (33911)]

How can science avoid talking about political agendas when most research funding comes from the political arena?

That would kinda point to the solution to THAT problem, now wouldn't it? Separation of science and state would seem to be a requirement. It's worked great for religion, speech, the press, assembly, &etc.

Remember Ross Perot?

[Shivetya (243324)]

Many pundits made fun of his presentations but they worked because he didn't insult the audience.

I look at this issue this way.
1. Many of the people don't care, don't even try to inform them.
2. Don't insult the rest by assuming anything
3. Don't come at it from the angle that religious beliefs cloud their judgment, the approach I have seen from some anti-religious showed more ignorance than die-hard believers

The real questions, how to present this in school in an environment hostile to achievement? I think religions are the least of our problems with upcoming generations. The real problem is this idea that we cannot acknowledge the fact that some kids are genuinely better than others. Worse is getting past the idea that hard work really does pay off. I can't tell you how many kids won't put the effort forward because they are told it doesn't matter. Hell a school system which does not celebrate hard work is not going to do squat with science.

You were right in a way, keep the politicians away from science and the schools and the problem might solve itself. Politicians do as much if not more damage to the acceptance science than religious zealots... While one may not want it the other burdens it with too many requirements to overcome

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Precisely. Newton didn't care that the Catholic Church became angry when he said the earth is Not the center of the universe.

He just spoke the truth and passed on the knowledge to anyone who would listen.

Perhaps we should have some forum on transmitting accurate historical information to a deeply confused audience.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[hal2814 (725639)]

Did Netwon give up when the Germans bomber Pearl Harbor?! Hell no! And it ain't over now because when the going gets tough.... ...uh... ...the tough get going! Who's with me? What the fuck happened to the scientists I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to talk science to a polarized US audience, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[snarkh (118018)]

Newton said the Earth was not the center of the Universe?
You are not confusing him with Copernicus, by any chance?

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[by Anonymous Coward]

As a somewhat non-conformist Anglican, living in the Enlightenment era, he likely wouldn't have given a flying one *what* the Catholic Church thought.

However, he possibly *did* care that somebody didn't even do the fundamental research to be able to distinguish between himself and Galileo.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[mbone (558574)]

Precisely. Newton didn't care that the Catholic Church became angry when he said the earth is Not the center of the universe.

First, Newton lived in Protestant England. He didn't have to care about the Pope. Second, Newton did care a lot about the opinion of others, which is why his Alchemical and mystical writings were hidden for so long.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[rlp (11898)]

Newton didn't care that the Catholic Church became angry when he said the earth is Not the center of the universe.

No, Newton said that Leibniz was not the center of the universe.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[bendodge (998616)]

Galileo != Copernicus. I know they looked a lot alike, but trust me, they were different people.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Ethanol-fueled (1125189)]

Superstition is alive and well in the modern world. People across the globe pray to ghosts and spirits on a daily basis.

Can I have some of what he's smoking?

[mcmonkey (96054)]

it's not like we're moving into an era dominated by superstition

What's it like in your world? And can you beam me up? Cause down here on Earth, we're not moving into an era dominated by superstition; we're already there.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[UncHellMatt (790153)]

Well, the information may in fact be pervasive, however getting someone to look at it, accept it or even be willing to discuss it is another matter altogether.

Case in point, I met someone who was a die hard "believer" who was attempting to get me to "believe". Yes, he actually believed (or so he claimed) that the world was created by a god about 6000 years ago. He said that the tools used today to carbon date objects were "flawed" and that "scientists simply made machines that looked like they did something [he didn't get it when I asked if they go "PING!"... go figure], but all they did was churn out answers the scientists want", and that mankind couldn't measure the speed of light (after I'd pointed out that we could easily find objects in the sky well over 6k light years away, and if they were in fact several million/billion light years away, how could the light be reaching us if the universe were only 6k years old?). I explained that he himself could measure the speed of light with rather simply tools, and suggested he look into the methods used by folks like Armand Fizeau. Needless to say, the guy just said "No, I don't need to. It's all in the Bible."

What I'm getting at is that you can't communicate to some people, regardless of how good your data is, your evidence, or your argument. If a person flat out refuses to hear counter to their belief because of "faith", there is nothing you can do. Faith is, after all, accepting something as fact which observation and evidence prove to be false.

"If a person walks on water, they'll sink."

"No, the Bible said Christ did."

"OK, if a person can, and you've got faith, the Charles is right over there. Knock yourself out."

"I'm not Christ!"

"No shit. You're no Einstein, either."

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[amRadioHed (463061)]

Correction, accepting something as fact despite a lack of evidence is faith. Accepting something as fact despite evidence to the contrary is foolishness.

Too many Christians can't get that right but one of those traits the Bible commends while the other is harshly criticized.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[martyros (588782)]

In fact, the faith the Bible extols is never accepting something as fact despite a lack of evidence. Nor is it refusing to reason. No one is condemned in the Bible for not believing what they don't know. They're condemned for not believing what they do or could know, or in abandoning the knowledge that they have.

Have you ever seriously asked why people are willing to believe in Christianity over Evolution? The main reason, as far as I can tell is that belief in evolution has no perceived impact on their lives. Christianity gives them hope, comfort, healing, strength, a way to understand the world, a way to improve themselves and their life. They have direct, first-hand experience of this help to them. Evolution gives them none of that; worse, it tells them that there's no real hope at all: they're just animals, doing what animals do; there's no hope for anything other than this life, and no hope even for humanity in the long run. Given the choice between some insulting theoretical interpretation of the past which they've never had any personal experience with, and a life-giving present help and future hope they have had experience with, is it any wonder that they chose Christianity over evolution?

There are lots of intelligent Christians who don't believe that it's necessary to cho0se -- who believe that God created the world and that the Bible is God's word, but still believe in evolution as the basic way most species became the way they are. Those who do believe in evolution believe it because they themselves have some experience in it -- they've at least talked to scientists and studied geology, history, biology, and so on.

Until people attempting to persuade people about evolution realize where people who believe in Christianity are coming from, there's not much real hope of doing it. People like Dawkins seem to think that people believe in Christianity only because they don't know any better, and that if they just showed them evidence or asserted their authority as scientists, people should just accept what they say. But many people's faith in Christianity actually rests on a solid foundation of experience, evidence and reason (not at all "believing in somthing despite lack of evidence"), compared with which all the clever arguments about bones and canyons and radioactive stuff is just an illusion.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Kelz (611260)]

But its so much EASIER to just call them stupid.

You can walk on water....

[Roger W Moore (538166)]

"If a person walks on water, they'll sink."

Really? Up in Canada we regularly walk on water, although usually only from November to March. Now if you remember Christ was around 2,000 years ago before all this global warming....

On a more serious note though it illustrates the point that, looked at in a different context, things are not always as impossible as they may at first seem.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Russ Nelson (33911)]

In early 2007, I was consulting in India, when a bunch of superstitious idiots tasted the (polluted) water coming from Mahim Creek into the ocean. It tasted sweet, not salty! Of course that was probably due to contamination from some chemical like antifreeze or something. Yet there are these idiots, proclaiming a miracle by one of India's gods. Some Indian scientist looked at the water and said "Holy fucking gods, you morons are DRINKING THIS STUFF??" or something like that. Did that stop them? Nope. The only thing that stopped them was when the pollution disappated and the water turned salty again.

I don't blame Indians for this, of course. There are a-scientific morons everywhere. Some of them even post on Slashdot.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Dareth (47614)]

What kind of idiot would drink something that was harmful them just because it was sweet and tasted good?!?
*POP* Damn this Coca Cola is good, gotta get my fix of this...
Okay, back to my rant... I mean really, that has to be the definition of stupid!

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[flaming error (1041742)]

I just modded up a whole bunch of comments and now I'm going to lose them all. Sorry folks.

I generally think this post is spot on. Humanity has been religious since prehistory, and that suggests there is some kind of evolutionary benefit to it. Presumably it offers some practical advice on living one's life.

But I disagree here:
  > there is just as much need for the scientific community to acknowledge that
  > there are things that science cannot answer as there is for the religious community
  > to stop interpreting things in such a literal and close-minded fashion.

Religion and Science clash when they try to do each others' jobs. If there's a question to which current science doesn't have an answer, and we let religion answer it for us, then once science does figure out the answer, the religious will of course reject it.

Science should be wide open to all curiosity, humble enough to know its limitations, and bold enough to say what it knows. Religion should provide pathways for philosophy, service, and self-improvement. Using religion to fill in science's blanks just sets us up for these social disasters we've seen time after time.

Re:Science of Political Agenda?

[Red Flayer (890720)]

I'll bite.

Like how "CO2 causes man-made climate change", when, in fact, CO2, when the ocean...ya know...that 3/4 of the Earth's surface, spews CO2, it cools, not heats the surface air. It's an 'inconvenient truth', but is core to the problems with this, the world's biggest hoax.

Colling the atmosphere by venting of CO2 from ocean water is immaterial, since it does not change the net energy of the system (earth + atmosphere). In the long run, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would result in more energy, and hence higher temperatures, in the atmosphere. And even if it did matter, then it would still be idiotic to wantonly release CO2 in to the atmosphere, since that would shift the equilibrium of CO2... and more CO2 would remain dissolved in the ocean... hence less cooling effect.

But those lucky enough to survive that barrage had to also clear the acid rain, who, media types were convinced, would prevent children from playing outside, as early as 1980.

Maybe you are unaware that the reason acid rain is less of a problem now is precisely because of legislation enacted to prevent it? I visited lakes in the 80s in Wisconsin that could not support much life because of acidity from acid rain. We're damn lucky that it became a big enough issue that we took action.

And let's not forget that large, invisible barrier with a hole in it, by which sending money to Washington and voting Democratic was the only way to survive. The nearly world-class hoax of the ozone hole. Such a non-event.

Funny, it was a Republican administration that oversaw banning of CFCs. And also, a non-event because action was taken.

I think you're either trolling, or willfully ignorant. Any of the examples you mentioned would have become a real problem if action had not been taken. Your argument is not supported by your evidence -- it's refuted by your evidence. Never mind the 'vote Democratic' claptrap you've inserted that doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with your points.

For someone of a scientific bent, you're sorely lacking in logical thought.

How?

[geek42 (592158)]

Use small words.

Re:How?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Better advise: don't be pretentious.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Meoward (665631)]

Agreed. Don't say "you're as dense as a Pomeranian" when "as a dog" will do.

Maybe not the best example

[Guppy (12314)]

Don't say "you're as dense as a Pomeranian" when "as a dog" will do.

In all fairness, I'd like to point out the overall density of Pomeranians is pretty low, as they are mostly comprised of Foof, with only a small core of actual Dog.

Better science fiction?

[CRCulver (715279)]

If we could have more realistic science fiction television and films (what happened to that planned movie of KSR's Red Mars [amazon.com] ), then people might learn science principles through osmosis. Too bad now it's all sounds in space and warp speeds. People get a large part of their exposure to science the future of technology through what is essentially fantasy.

My little how-to

[sokoban (142301)]

When communicating with a highly polarized audience, I harken back to my days studying freshman chemistry and the old saying that "like dissolves like".

Therefore, communicating with a highly polar audience requires a highly polar solvent. I find that ethanol works wonders in that regard.

Who exactly proposed this?

[arth1 (260657)]

Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views? As far as I can tell, this would only benefit the religious as a marker for what they don't have to believe in or allow taught.

Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Who exactly proposed this?

[iluvcapra (782887)]

Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?

Most of the present conflicts that the AAAS is considering are not science versus non-science, but science versus a belief system wedded to scientism. I think they know they've really dropped the ball -- the real problem isn't that people don't know what acids and bases are, it's that they don't know why and they assume any system with big terminology and internal consistency is science, too.

Re:Who exactly proposed this?

[arth1 (260657)]

You can't bridge the gap between two fundamentally opposed ideas. It's not like you can meet halfway and decide on half-truths both can live with.
I have to agree with professor Larry Moran here, commenting on Nisbet:

As we've seen during the framing debates on various blogs, Nisbet & Mooney seem to be incapable of making the distinction between explaining science and what you do with that knowledge. Evolutionists have done a good job of explaining evolution. If Nisbet & Mooney don't think this is true then I challenge them to come up with a better way of describing the science of evolutionary biology.

What they're upset about is the fact that a segment of the population doesn't buy the scientific explanation. That's true, but it doesn't matter how well you explain it to those people, they still won't accept it. They won't accept it even it's economically beneficial and leads to medical advances.

Why won't they accept it? Because it's against their religion. How do we change their minds? Part of the solution is to show them that their religion is false if it conflicts with science. This doesn't have anything to do with explaining the facts of science. It has to do with fighting superstition and anti-science attitudes.

Also see this blog [blogspot.com].

Regards,
--
*Art

Kinda Simple

[explosivejared (1186049)]

When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.

Also, avoid divisive figures. It's possible to talk about climatology without bringing up Al Gore, in fact we'd all probably be a little better off if we didn't. No disrespect to the man's scientific endeavors, but it's probably best to leave Richard Dawkins out of your discourse as well. Figures like Dawkins and Gore only add political, religious, and whatever other fires to already testy subjects. You have to stress the point that science isn't based on emotion and feeling. In short, keep it academic and logical. Don't use ad hominems or appeals to emotion.

Re:Kinda Simple

[jamie (78724)]

The problem with avoiding "divisive" figures is that anyone becomes "divisive" when the other side (i.e. the anti-scientific side) attacks them. Then any effort anyone makes to correct the record becomes part of the "controversy."

If you jettison anyone fighting for your side (i.e. science) as soon as they are attacked, you will very soon run out of smart people like Gore and Dawkins. We get a Sagan once a generation, and to remain above the fray he had to go so far as refusing to denounce astrology. That was his choice, but I think more smart people should denounce astrology, and other dumb things, and I will support them when they do, even if they get attacked.

Re:Kinda Simple

[immcintosh (1089551)]

Nonsense, Dawkins is exceedingly smart. What he doesn't have is extensive training in the philosophy of religion, which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective. What Dawkins is, however, is an evolutionary biologist, so you can somewhat understand his ardor in fighting against anti-evolutionary religious zealotry.

Re:Kinda Simple

[Scrameustache (459504)]

When discussing evolution, natural selection, abiogenesis, cosmology, climatology etc. just don't be jerks. Speak with a level head and a personable tone. Speak to what you can prove scientifcally, and don't make things personal by introducing subjectivity. Keep in mind who you are speaking to.

We're speaking to shrill jerks [wikipedia.org] incapable of objectivity who take observed facts about reality as personal insults.

Simple, really...

[pla (258480)]

scientists face challenges in how to communicate good science to a polarized US public.

I consider this a non-issue. How do you explain science that may conflict with personal beliefs? "Welcome to wrongville, population: You. I'll give you a free bus ticket out, but if you don't want to ride, please feel free to go to the edge of a cliff and disbelieve in gravity".

Less irreverently... You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it".

Re:Simple, really...

[nebaz (453974)]

I wish I could consider this a non-issue. Unfortunately, people with these beliefs vote, and often elect people with these beliefs, who set policies and enact laws that affect the scientific community as a whole. Whether or not it concerns cutting off funding for scientific research, or mandating stupid policies at the local school board level, you can't just dismiss these people. They will affect your life, sooner or later.

I think there's only one way:

[Descalzo (898339)]

There's only one way to talk science to a polarized audience:
Make it about the science only. Tell what you know and how you know it. Tell what makes you think that it is the way you think it is.

I think the real problem with, for example, talking about Global Climate Change, is that people don't discuss it as a scientific issue, but as a moral or political idea. If you're going to discuss science, discuss the science only, and then make sure everyone knows when you change the subject to politics or religion.

Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so

[mcmonkey (96054)]

Matthew Nisbet, a professor of communications who is a proponent of the framing of science, in which communications techniques borrowed from the political realm are applied to promote scientific understanding

I hope the summary is wrong, cause it makes this guy sounds like an idiot. Communications techniques borrowed from the political realm will not help to promote scientific understanding, because those techniques were not designed to promote understanding.

Politicians don't want you to understand them. They want you to feel like they understand you. They want you to feel protected by them, or to feel afraid of the other guy. The last thing any politician wants is to promote understanding.

The feelings politicians target with their communications techniques have no place in science. If you feel the Earth is 6000 years old, science isn't going to try to make you feel understood, because science doesn't understand your feelings. If the science says our climate is warming, it doesn't matter if you're happy all those wacky liberals in California are facing 100 years of drought. Science doesn't care.

Re:Perhaps rasta-fy the science 10% or so

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

Communications techniques borrowed from the political realm will not help to promote scientific understanding, because those techniques were not designed to promote understanding.

I need to consider it for a while, but could this be a case of the street finding it's own use? You think Berners-Lee had amazon.com in mind when he created HTML?

Poli-comm may not have been designed to promote understanding, but that does not mean it cannot be used as such by clever people. I can see how methods designed to obscure facts and be use to instead reveal them.

Are people really debating the science?

[mark_jabroni (547666)]

Many viewpoints that are portrayed as anti-science are nothing of the sort.

Many people, for example, accept global warming while at the same time relying on economic estimates that say guarding against global warming would be more expensive than dealing with it. For rejecting a "Manhattan Project" sized government response they are dubbed "anti-science" even though they accept the science.

Likewise, people that are opposed to stem-cell research on ethical grounds are called "anti-science". These people, again, do not doubt that the science they oppose is sound. They have moral objections that should be easier to understand than the science, but evidently aren't.

Communicating science to a national audience

[dillon_rinker (17944)]

How to communicate science to a national audience
1. Show the evidence.
. . . That's pretty much it.

How NOT to commmunicate science to a national audience
1. Tell the theory.
2. If people think "theory" = "guess", call them stupid.
3. Force children to learn that their parents' beliefs are wrong.
(The last step is essential if your goal is to NOT communicate science.)

Do not annoy the pig

[PPH (736903)]

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
-- Robert Heinlein

It's a social problem

[Bob-taro (996889)]

If slashdot is any indication of the communication skills and social expectations of scientists then I think the scientists might be the ones that need to develop an understanding -- of people. People are not always logical. Even technical people are influenced by emotion. I offer as evidence OS preference flame wars -- if we were purely logical we would just share FACTS regarding each OS and not get into flame wars (but it's just the OTHER people being illogical, right?).

In the context of this article, what is the goal of communication? It it just to convey information or to convince people or to persuade them to take some action? Whatever the goal is you need to realize that some people won't listen/agree/act and that doesn't necessarily make them idiots. Try to see if from their point of view: you hear some guy claiming to be very qualified saying something you don't quite understand that possibly conflicts with your world view. What are you going to do? Get your own Ph.D. and do your own research so you can see if the guy really knows what he's talking about? No, you've got your own life to live so you've just got to decide at the time -- Is this something I need to care about? Is this guy really qualified? Is he biased AGAINST what I believe in a way that would influence his interpretation of the facts? Is he being paid to say this? I'm sure most of you ask yourself these questions when you hear about research "proving" something you don't agree with (or "disproving" something you did agree with).

Give the People What they Want

[toddhisattva (127032)]

This discrepancy, Miller suggested, is the result of a deep discomfort with the fact that evolution is grounded in the random occurrence of mutations. Fundamentally, people don't want to think they were the product of a chain of accidents.

This is a problem with the Lawful Good character alignment ;-)

They need to feel embraced by Nature and Nature's God. Randomness and chaos scares them.

We should point out that each and every random mutation obeys the Laws of Chemistry and the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Mathematics as far as we know.

That mutations happen in accordance with Natural Laws.

Are the Laws of Chemistry random? No, they derive from the Laws of Physics. Are the Laws of Physics random? We do not know, many physicists say they seem "dialed in," so this question is still in the province of metaphysics, and far removed from questions regarding biological evolution. This should be taught in a way that does not smell of a passed buck; students should be encouraged to explore these questions with faculty whose subjects are closer to physics and philosophy.

From mathematics, biology teachers should teach a proper understanding of the word "random." That random processes can at least be modeled with mathematics, and math is all about Laws and Proofs and other certainties which should appeal to the Lawful Good Authoritarian mindset. Get out the 2d6 and show how 7 is the peak of their Gaussian distribution! That "random" is not scary at all and obeys Mathematical Laws.

As an aside, usually the Republicans promote freer markets. If you can understand Adam Smith, you can understand biological evolution! Crappy companies go out of business, crappy species go extinct. Public tastes are often inexplicable and at least as random as any mutation (the solution space is larger, as a base pair can mutate to only one of three other pairs). Many ideas of trade and evolution are quite parallel, even running on the same conceptual engine, selfishness.

The selfishness of genes leads directly to Cain's Question and answers in the affirmative: from the gene's viewpoint we are certainly our brother's keeper.

Stipulating some game theoretic insights, many other Moral Laws can be derived - the Prisoner's Dilemma brings forth some reasons for cooperation.

And always, when a student's question is really beyond what the teacher and even science knows, the answer should be "I don't know" or "we don't know." Honesty and no buck passing! They may need a knowledge gap to house their God, and a militantly agnostic attitude should be taken by teachers when the students ask Those Big Questions. Did God "dial in" the physical constants? We do not know we are literally agnostic.

Re:sad state of affairs.

[Langalf (557561)]

A good first step for scientists would be to not consider all Christians as fundamentalist wackos. The fundies are very vocal, but they do NOT represent the majority opinion, or the time-honored opinion. Ignore them and communicate with the reasonable people (Yes, there are reasonable religious people).

Re:sad state of affairs.

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

That sort of muddy clouded rubbish is surely out of date in todays world

If you assume the USA + Europe = The World and ignore the rest of it. And I don;t think I've heard anyone talk about velociraptors playing with children outside of jokes and few kooks.

Okay, my views may not be representative of society as a whole - but possibly /. will be as sympathetic an audience as I can find.

I'm sorry, but that is bizarre. You know you're being unfair and painting a diverse nation with a broad stereotype brush, but instead of maybe modulating your attitude to one that's a bit healthier and more productive, you, by deliberate design, simply go somewhere that your bigoted view will be better accepted.

From my viewpoint all religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous as each other - no matter what they preach, what religion they follow, what they wear or what country they come from. Sometimes the danger is more subtle then other times. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.

I conclude you have no sense of scale.

And this is from a Christopher Hitchens fan who agree that "religion poisons everything."

Draw a rude picture of Jesus and post it. OK, now draw a rude picture of Mohammad.

Re:Media exaggeration

[DrVomact (726065)]

The main reason science doesn't get taught effectively in the US is plain old laziness, apathy, and stupidity.

I have to agree with you there. It really doesn't matter all that much whether the public schools teach evolution or not...there are very few teachers in these schools who are remotely qualified to teach just about any subject. I would put more of the blame on the educational establishment—particularly the NEA (National Education Associaton) than on the parents. They've been brainwashed into believing that it's solely the State's prerogative to educate their kids.

That's why we home-schooled our youngest daughter. Yes, both my wife and I are Christians, so I guess we're unqualified "religious nuts" in your view. We did teach her Biology, including the standard scientific accounts of evolution. I communicated to her my opinion that faith in divine creation isn't at odds with science in this (or any) regard. After all, God could will evolution to take place, could he not? (I understand this is similar to the Catholic Church's official opinion on the subject.) In any case, it's probably too late for you to call the cops and have her taken away from us...she's almost 18 now, and Junior at the University of Texas (Dallas).

Re:And the Point Is?

[wizardforce (1005805)]

Why do scientists think they need to communicate science to the general populace?

an educated population is needed for future generations to advance science. Not only that but these same people are going to be making important decisions about our world- decisions that don't just affect them, but everyone around them. Do you really feel comfortable leaving important decisions about pollution, scientific education etc. to the scientifically ignorant?

Re:Science consists of looking at the evidence...

[Belial6 (794905)]

This is a good point, and one that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a perfect example. Al Gore "Framed" the subject. Also know as lying. This created a situation where the facts became irrelevant because one side of the discussion was holding up the movie as "proof", while the other side was pointing out the huge factual inaccuracies, or just plain stupidity of the content. Any actual scientific discussion got lost in the "framing".