Café Scientifique and the Public Understanding of Science
Since my friend Carl lent me Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion my mind has been primed for delving deeper into evolutionary theory. Last week I had the good fortune of finding myself at the Bell Museum’s Café Scientifique lecture/discussion series (held at the immaculate Varsity Theatre); the topic: Evolutionary Biology. The idea behind these events is to engage the public with scientific researchers in an informal way. A superb idea.
For a full report on the event I suggest Greg Laden’s blogpost. Suffice to say I had a blast. After the event Carl (who invited me in the first place) and I ran into the panelists and organizers at the Kitty Kat Club, which offered another layer of interaction to understand this volatile topic. I enjoyed it most when the discussion looked at the historical, social, political, and - to a lesser extent - philosophical, aspects of the topic. While I did learn new stuff about evolution, it was thankfully a discussion that did not get too technical.
To boil it down, the reoccurring theme was the evident divide between public understanding and scientific understanding. The mere fact that something in the vicinity of over 50% of the American population believes that the earth is a mere 6,000 years old (in accordance to a literal reading of the Bible) is somewhat of a shock. Of course put in perspective this is understandable, and needs to be understood or we’re kind of fucked.
A tangential Google search lead me to – of all people – Scott Adam’s blogpost about the subject of Intelligent Design and he offers a smart(-light-on-the-)ass point of view about why the public is not convinced by evolution. It’s a little more than coincidental that Adam’s post is in response to a blogpost by PZ Myers (I apologize for initially misspelling it: Meyers), one of the more outspoken panelists at the Café.
Myer’s could be the poster-child for scientists who should be shoed away whenever a layperson wants to know something about science. Don’t get me wrong, what little I know about the man I can say he’s well intentioned and is – above all else – intellectually genuine. But he’s got no tact, absolutely none for the uninitiated. To put it another way, scientists seem to lack the kind of communication skills needed to present science to the public – and who can blame them they probably should be doing other things. And yet we need this now more than ever.
How can we bridge this gap? Dilbert might be a good start.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:37
Please allow me to add to the confusion…
I think PZ Myers is a good communicator of science. He is also something of a star (I mean most of us, no matter how long we do this science thing, don’t do things that elicit a response from a Famous Sunday Comics guy. You’re quite a star if DILBERT reads YOU).
And what PZ does is he slays (mainly) christian dragons by meeting them on their own terms. I would bet that if you took a biology class from him, you would find out that he is an excellent communicator.
My belief is that scientists often are good communicators, and I’m not buying that excuse anymore. The culture of science has involved ignoring the problem of the public perception of evolution, and disdaining those who engage in this discussion, and science is not paying for that.
(You would think we would learn from the inquisition!)
February 20th, 2007 at 10:20
Lame.
sciencest’s? is that like sex among scientists?
Dilbert? Scott Adams is proud of his ignorance and spouts philosophical mumblings that go nowhere. Is he being funny? Obtuse? Who knows… but he does nothing to further knowledge of evolution and science.
There are answers to all of those tough questions the uniniated public has about evolution. They’re not all fully understood or easily explained but the answers are there. Scientists like PZ get frustrated when people in the public hold onto their ignorace and pretend the answers aren’t there.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:31
If someone asks a scientist “what is evolution / can you explain the theory of evolution to me”, what need has the scientist for “tact” in his response?
Where and how do you think PZ Myers should display “tact”?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:06
Misspelling a person’s name is not tactful.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:34
“Meyer’s could be the poster-child for scientists who should be shoed away whenever a layperson wants to know something about science.”
No, he can “dumb it down” to any level, I assure you. Last year, he spoke to my 10th grade biology class (his daughter is a classmate of mine) and I understood perfectly fine despite my very limited knowledge on the subject. I am in the top portion of my class, but in the discussions that followed it was obvious the vast majority of my classmates understood as well.
February 20th, 2007 at 13:22
Are you flippin’ kidding me? Dilbert is a complete fool whose “scientific” or “philosophical” posts are so maddeningly inane that I find it utterly insane to suggest that he is the best “bridge” to the gap between scientists and non-scientists. Dilbert’s blog has about as much substance as a single empty calorie.
And the fact that you say that Dilbert’s approach is better than Pharyngula’s makes this post all the more laughable! PZ Meyers has been a great science blogger for a long, long time, and he is among the most popular of the science bloggers–if not THE most popular. PZ has written informative scientific pieces on everything from evolution to the advantages and disadvantages of having a large penis.
I’m not a scientist myself, and I find PZ’s writing to be very clear, persuasive, and accurate. He is a hell of a lot more credible than Adams in writing about scientific issues! Adams doesn’t even write anything worthwhile at all. At best, he posts ridiculously absurd “thought experiments” that are so thoroughly dumb that he must resort to saying it was all a joke when people call him on his bullcrap. PZ, being a real scientist, unfortunately doesn’t have the luxury of crying out, “It was all a joke, I write comics for a living!” if someone attempts to refute one of his arguments, though.
February 20th, 2007 at 14:25
Given a choice between a touchy cartoonist who may or may not know much about science and especially biology, and a cranky, curmudgeonly biologist whose writing often soars but who always shows deepest respect for getting the science right, I have no problems going for the curmudgeon and accuracy in science.
Clint Eastwood isn’t loved for his tact. John Wayne wasn’t loved for his tact. You don’t win NASCAR races with tact. No coach winning the Super Bowl has ever been commended for tact. Sometimes, as Churchill noted, one must do what is necessary.
February 20th, 2007 at 18:16
PZ Myers is one of the best science communicators to lay people that I know. Richard Dawkins is another.
I don’t share their crusading approach against religion; and have been critical of both on that matter from time to time; but deep down I think this helps more than it hinders. Some folks may get turned off; but others get invigorated. They are both passionate and get to grips with questions that are of wide interest to lay people, though they cannot be resolved just by empirical scientific methods.
The attempt to talk about science while being careful to avoid saying anything one way or the other on the major metaphysical debates taking place in the wider community is useful for those already motivated to figure out the science for its own sake.
But such people, I suggest, are not the major problem. And the nice conciliatory approach tends to leave many lay people uninterested. Speak up for or against God, however, and you get their attention; especially if it is done tactlessly. Combine it with first rate science and you motivate them to consider the question in that light… and this is all good.
Many people are highly critical of the anti-religious views of Myers and Dawkins. That’s fine: the good thing is that they have been motivated to think on the matter. Even better: a debate motivated by these tactless provocateurs is going to going to be dealing with some first rate science writing.
February 20th, 2007 at 19:18
PZ “well intentioned?”
My ass.
Equating him with Eastwood and Wayne? Past laughable and onward to pathological.
February 20th, 2007 at 19:51
The gap keeps getting widened by people who not only don’t-understand, but actively, knowingly and deliberately maintain and widen the gap. Have you any idea how miserably frustrating it is to hear people keep pushing the same nonsensical and - incidentally - provably untrue rubbish?
Tact and good scientists - and for that matter, even atheism staying quiet and underground - have done nothing good and have let the world get to this point. Maybe being loud about it will actually help. On top of that, P.Z. is actually RIGHT.
Scott Adams, on the other hand, wrote in foreword to that piece of “philosophy”, said “oh, and something in here is deliberately wrong, but I’m not gonna tell you what”. Yeah. I’d rather have PZ as my lecturer, thanks.
February 20th, 2007 at 20:27
I appreciate what each responder has said.
In light of this I’m inclined to elaborate.
My actual first impression of Myers was that he’s probably a great teacher, and it makes sense that others have corroborated this above. I think the world needs his brutal honesty. But it needs more than just brutal honesty. What Myers does is not bad, but it’s not enough – well, his response to Scott Adams was pretty bad (see: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/ ), I mean he more or less retorted in the exact manner that Adams predicted (making his stance reactionary instead of well-reasoned).
Now Scott Adam’s goal is to frustrate and entertain people, and he seems to be doing quite a good job considering how popular he is. His point of view isn’t entirely sincere, it’s really a water-down provocation wrapped in semi-fact. But he’s got the ability and skill to appeal to a mass-audience in a way that no scientist does. Making people laugh is the first way to get them on your side.
I was raised in a Catholic family, I was required to attend church every sunday till I moved out of the house, and I attended public high school where we learned about evolution: not once in those 18 years did I ever get the impression that these two belief systems were incompatible. In fact I took for granted how much sense evolution makes, and by extension I assumed that the rest of the population did too. I was literally quite surprised by the recent case in Kentucky and everything that’s followed. I think it’s more than just biblical literalism at play.
There is a concerned misinformation effort (apparently coming in waves every so often since the The Origin of Species was published) on the part of Creationists and Intelligent Designers to gather a critical mass against evolution. The people who are susceptible to buying into this are apparently plentiful and will not take kindly to be called stupid or wrong about their world-view.
Raising mass consciousness requires craft and diligence, it takes more PR than empathic reasoning. I shouldn’t have said scientists aren’t good communicators, I should say they aren’t populist communicators. And evolution could use a populist voice. Myers and Richard Dawkins are a start, but I fear they come on
totoo strong for certain moderate majority.As someone who does communications for a dayjob this problem has intrigued me for the past couple of weeks – but I must admit there isn’t a clear answer. I mean, posters? Probably not.
February 20th, 2007 at 22:15
Ok, mf’s point is taken, but holy f*@cking crap!
Now I must quote,
“I fear they come on to strong for certain moderate majority.As someone who does communications for a dayjob this problem has intrigued me for the past couple of weeks”
Are you kidding? “to strong”? I hope you meant “too strong”. This is NOT nitpicking. If you’re going to imply literacy as your strong point then please be literate. F*@kin’ A. Credibility should start with literacy.
February 20th, 2007 at 22:39
@Albere
Thanks, spelling and grammar have never been my strong point. I should qualify that with my speciality is not in the textual side of communication, but the irony still stands: my writing needs work (one reason for starting this blog).