[Coral-List] getting science to the public clearly and unambiguously is difficult

[Dennis Hubbard]

All:

*As a long-standing, card-carrying scientist, I do not believe in
either **evolution
or climate change. *

In the first case, the developing data - and in the second case, the
long-standing and growing body of information, leave me with no valid
reason to reject the hypothesis that both are real. In the absence of data
to reject the validity of either evolution or climate change, I am left
with the position that evolution and climate change remain as the best
explanations based on available data.

Regarding the latter, as it is usually set as a foil to religion, science
has no way to objectively argue for or against the existence of a god, so
it is not a matter of choosing one over the other. In fact, I have had some
thoroughly enjoyable discussions with creationists (or, more to the point,
biblical literalists) who openly acknowledge the strength of the data and
admit that their position is based on their perspective or their beliefs -
that's faith, and I have no beef with people of faith who openly admit that
this is the sole  basis for their perspectives - as long as they don't tell
me I have to teach the bible as an alternative to evolution.Thinking about
climate change, I doubt there is any data that would convince an "honest
disbeliever" that climate changes is either "real" or "us". Conversely
there is little that could shake my conclusion that it is a real and
pressing problem... and is to a significant extent "us". The problem, as
evidenced in the long-standing discussion here, is "what do we do"? Parsing
out population, exploitation, tourism, divers, everyone but divers, bad
management, prohibitive costs... or whatever seems more like arguing over
the existence of God than science. Regarding the views expressed here, my
response is "all of the above" - so let's move on to solutions we can sell
to the Walmart shoppers who have neither the time nor the money to
participate in our discussions.

The Grinch of Oberlin

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Michael Newkirk <michaeljnewkirk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have read many good points. What sticks out to me is Doug's last email,
> which highlighted discourse.
>
> I am not a coral scientist. My academic training is in kinesiology and
> applied linguistics and will hopefully soon be moving into biomechanics in
> a research capacity. During my master's training, I became quite fond of
> discourse analysis and sociolinguistics. Overall, I do believe that much of
> the problem is a discourse problem, and unfortunately, the media (and other
> factors and bodies) don't give sound science a fighting chance in the minds
> of "everyday evening news watchers."
>
> Doug hit the nail on the head with "Scientists believe...," which injects
> the idea that scientists could choose not to believe something. I am from
> the Southern U.S., so I've heard people say a world of things about
> scientists. Likewise, because scientists are thought to *believe* in
> science, it is also thought that they must believe in their results.
> Separating the interpretation of data from belief is essentially the key
> battleground for scientists today, particularly those trying to address
> issues that impact our lives---like coral scientists.
>
> The mistake that the scientific community makes, in my opinion, is that it
> appears that some feel that fine-tuning methods and creating more robust
> data and modeling will finally win the public over. My experience teaching
> research methods, research communication, and other subjects elucidated for
> me the simple fact that not everyone can grasp the methods employed to
> arrive at the data on which scientific conclusions are based.
>
> Whenever there is an evening news segment that has a scientific debate, I
> often can't decide whether or not I'll watch it. I almost always end up
> watching it just to analyze the discourse. Invariably, the segment starts
> with "Scientists believe," but then state that "But other scientists
> believe that..." Of course there is no context. So, many people are led to
> think that the world of science is at a halt on a particular issue when in
> fact, most scientists on the topic might be in agreement, and very few may
> have contradictory evidence. I know that I'm not telling any of you
> anything new when I say that how the "naysayer studies" (as the media
> portray them) are designed and the data collected is rarely discussed, if
> at all.
>
> What doesn't get debated as much---it seems---are findings with physical
> evidence that everyday folks find "tangible." This type of evidence is
> often encased in other discoursal structures like "Scientists have found,"
> "Scientists have discovered," etc. The tone of delivery can sometimes be
> different, and there is usually little commentary from newscasters, which
> tells viewers that it is not "debatable." The sequence of reports in a
> newscast can also influence viewers, which perhaps should also be taken up
> in research.
>
> Another area that seems to trip people up is the field of medicine, as
> health and healthcare are some of the primary avenues in which we engage
> science, and passionately so. The concept of a diagnosis is a touchy
> subject. Although diagnostic equipment is amazing these days, we can
> imagine how hurt some people feel when they have the scare of their lives
> only to find out that the diagnosis was incorrect (no disease, different
> disease than previously thought, etc.). They spread their story and their
> distrust of the medical profession to others and to other areas of science,
> which I have seen and heard myself. Coral science is likely one of the
> branches of study caught in the middle, painted unfairly with the same
> brush of some other type of experience with science/scientists.
>
> I think that a good strategy for the scientific community is conducting
> multi-disciplinary studies with linguistics and education to change the
> present narrative. If any of you find this research direction interesting,
> please feel free to contact me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michael.
> Chief Editor, WordsRU
> Academic Research Editor
> Dept. of Mech. Eng., NCKU Taiwan
> Dept. of Greenery, Natn'l Univ. of Taiwan
> http://www.editors.ca/profile/9229/michael-newkirk
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Douglas Fenner <
> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> >     One small thing that might be part of the problem is that way too
> often
> > the media and many of us, refer to "scientific opinion" or "scientists
> > believe that."  Both of those statements are compatible with a world view
> > that scientists are just like everyone else, they have their own opinions
> > or beliefs, and theirs are no better than anyone else's.  That manifests
> > itself in the frequent statements of climate deniers that scientists just
> > have a different religion than other people, and that they stick to their
> > beliefs no matter what (just like deniers, though they don't point that
> out
> > about themselves).  All this omits a critical difference between science
> > and other ways of knowing.  And that is the role of evidence, and the
> > quality and quantity of evidence.  Science isn't just based on blind
> faith,
> > it is based on hard empirical evidence, and the testing and rejecting of
> > alternative hypotheses.  It has a long history of the refinement of the
> > logic of understanding the strength of different kinds of evidence,
> > including hypothesis-testing and the use of statistics.  This is not to
> say
> > that there are no other ways of knowing that have value, far from it.
> > There are lots of things that science can't test, or for which evidence
> > available is limited in various ways.  There are other ways of knowing
> that
> > use different rules of evidence, such as the legal profession.  BUT,
> > science is not just about opinion and belief, without a basis in
> evidence,
> > fact and logic.  Testing ideas against the real world, instead of
> clinging
> > to beliefs in spite of all the evidence.  Steve was just using the term
> > "scientific opinion" and there certainly is a role of "expert opinion",
> > that's one that is informed by the evidence and logic.
> >        The important difference is that science is based on the strongest
> > evidence available, and many beliefs out there are not.  Many are called
> > "pseudoscience", and there are many others as well, politics is often
> full
> > of them.  I advocate referring to "scientific evidence" as much as
> possible
> > instead of "scientists believe" because otherwise the public easily
> > discounts the quality and quantity of evidence that statements are based
> > on, and that is a critical difference between science and many other
> > thought systems.  I think we shoot ourselves in the foot when we say
> > "scientific opinion" or "scientists believe", we have a much stronger
> base
> > than that.
> >       Cheers,  Doug
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Steve Mussman <sealab at earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > Interesting thoughts on what is characterized as a significant level of
> > > ineffectual communication on the part of the scientific community in
> > their
> > > attempts to explain science (including coral science) to the broader
> > public
> > > at large. I seem to have come full circle on this one. After years of
> > > focusing on what coral scientists (and the diving industry) could do to
> > > convey science to the public more persuasively, I am now convinced that
> > we
> > > are focusing on the wrong point of contention. The science by now is
> > clear,
> > > well supported and to anyone with an open mind, quite convincingly
> > > articulated. I no longer believe that it would change anything even if
> > > every coral scientist suddenly became an activist dedicating their
> lives
> > to
> > > more effectively communicating "the message".
> > >
> > > An upcoming editorial in Scientific American perhaps points to the real
> > > problem at hand.
> > >
> > > http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/scientific-american-sounds-
> > > alarm-on-trump-he-takes-antiscience-to-previously-unexplored-terrain/
> > >
> > > We have to recognize that a significant percentage of the population
> > > (American and elsewhere) is behaving as if The Enlightenment never
> > > happened. For many, tribal influences are supplanting science as the
> most
> > > reliable sources of knowledge and wisdom. This is not just a phenomenon
> > > typified by the relatively uneducated. As the above mentioned editorial
> > > emphasizes, we now have a major party candidate for president who has
> to
> > > some degree successfully used anti-science rhetoric to gain popular
> > > support. On a personal level, I know of too many thoughtful,
> > well-educated
> > > individuals who simply reject scientific opinion because they are
> > > influenced more by other forms of cultural pedagogy. To me if this
> > analysis
> > > holds true, we are really confronting a different problem requiring a
> > focus
> > > not so much on getting the message out, but on re-establishing the
> > > authoritative nature of the source itself (science). As writer Shawn
> Otto
> > > has warned, " . . . the new science denialism is creating an
> > >  existential crisis like few the country has faced before".
> > >
> > > In that light, in order for coral reefs to survive, we may be in need
> of
> > > more than an effective scientific message. We may in fact be in need
> of a
> > > full-blown campaign to restore the symbolic legitimacy of science.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Peter Sale <sale at uwindsor.ca>
> > > >Sent: Aug 19, 2016 3:13 PM
> > > >To: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> > > >Subject: [Coral-List] getting science to the public clearly and
> > > unambiguously is difficult
> > > >
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >A lot of comments on coral-list lately, spurred initially by the
> recent
> > > papers by Josh Cinner et al in Nature and by John Bruno and Abel
> Valdivia
> > > in Scientific Reports that seemingly contradicted each other, and the
> > > attempt to explain them by journalist Johnny Langenheim in The
> Guardian.
> > > (Langenheim's conclusion - that they are both correct - did not really
> > help
> > > clarify!)  Cinner et al, evaluated global patterns in reef fish biomass
> > and
> > > concluded there were some 'bright spots' around the world where reefs
> > were
> > > doing much better than expected, and therefore that local management
> was
> > > important for reef sustainability.  Bruno and Valdivia, using a global
> > > analysis of coral cover and algal cover concluded that density of local
> > > human population (used as a proxy for local impacts) had essentially
> zero
> > > effect on reef quality, which was overwhelmingly being determined by
> > global
> > > impacts such as climate change.
> > > >
> > > >I have just put up the first of two posts looking at the wider issue
> of
> > > why it seems so difficult to convey science to the public and have it
> > > understood.  I do not claim to be an expert, but perhaps I am
> identifying
> > > some of the issues (beyond deliberate distortion or obfuscation) that
> > play
> > > a role.  In Part 1, I talk about the nature of science, and the nature
> of
> > > the way humans think.  Part 2, which will be up in about 10 days looks
> at
> > > the changing nature of the scientific endeavor, and the role of the
> > media.
> > > Both of these contribute to the distortions, the exaggerations, and the
> > > general air of confusion that surrounds stories about science as
> received
> > > by the public (including other scientists).  I've illustrated with
> > examples
> > > of confusion around ecology of coral reefs, including the
> > > Cinner/Bruno/Langenheim example, and make some tentative suggestions
> for
> > > what scientists might do to improve the situation.  Mostly it comes
> down
> > to
> > > being better scientists by taking special car
> > >  e
> > > >  to communicate accurately and precisely, while still communicating
> in
> > > ways that are effective and interesting.  This means less arm-waving
> and
> > > exaggeration, less effort to create effective sound-bites, and less use
> > of
> > > catchy jargon, coupled with a far greater effort to communicate in an
> > > engaging and interesting way.  I admit that it may now be too late to
> > make
> > > these corrections - we all seem increasingly locked into a
> communication
> > > style that compresses every thought to 140 characters or a cute photo.
> > > Time will tell..  Part 1 is at http://wp.me/p5UInC-B4
> > > >
> > > >Peter Sale
> > > >Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus)
> > > >University of Windsor
> > > >
> > > >e-mail:                  sale at uwindsor.ca<mailto:sale at uwindsor.ca>
> > > >web:                      www.petersalebooks.com<http://
> > > www.petersalebooks..com/>
> > > >Twitter:                @PeterSale3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Coral-List mailing list
> > > >Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > >http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Coral-List mailing list
> > > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Fenner
> > Contractor for NOAA NMFS, and consultant
> > "have regulator, will travel"
> > PO Box 7390
> > Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799  USA
> >
> > phone 1 684 622-7084
> >
> > Join the International Society for Reef Studies.  Membership includes a
> > subscription to the journal Coral Reefs, and there are discounts for pdf
> > subscriptions and developing countries.  Coral Reefs is the only journal
> > that is ALL coral reef articles, and it has amazingly LOW prices compared
> > to other journals.  Check it out!  www.fit.edu/isrs/
> >
> > "Belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."- Jim
> Beever.
> >   "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own
> facts."-
> > Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
> >
> > NASA: sea ice settling into 'new normal'
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a465bdcb-fd72-30c8-86e1-
> > e6993d007ff0/nasa%3A-sea-ice-settling-into.html
> > Arctic sea ice has stabilized over the last 10 years or so.  But then,
> the
> > average world surface temperature hit a high in 1998 (El Nino year) and
> did
> > not break that for over 10 years.  But now surface temperatures are
> > breaking all time records every year and in most months.  So unless the
> > laws of physics and the melting temperature of water change, soon Arctic
> > sea ice will begin setting new lows.
> >
> > Earth's hot streak continues with warmest May since at least 1880.
> > https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-just-phoning-now-may-193634823.html
> >
> >
> > website:  http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
> >
> > blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>



-- 
Dennis Hubbard
Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
(440) 775-8346

* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
 Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"