Scientists tend to view disagreements as matters of fact and theory that can be settled by data and logic. If the data are consistent with one view and inconsistent with another, that's the end of the story. We often complain when the public doesn't understand or doesn't get it. We figure that if we just explained ourselves more clearly, the facts would speak for themselves.1
If you've been reading this blog for more than a couple of weeks, you know that I don't buy that view of the world.
The editors of Nature agree. From yesterday's issue:
If you've been reading this blog for more than a couple of weeks, you know that I don't buy that view of the world.
The editors of Nature agree. From yesterday's issue:
The public reception of scientific ideas depends largely on two factors: people's ability to grasp factual information and the cultural lens through which that information is filtered.And this:
The lesson for today's scientists and policy-makers is simple: they cannot assume that a public presented with 'the facts' will come to the same conclusion as themselves. They must take value systems, cultural backdrops and local knowledge gaps into account and frame their arguments accordingly. Such approaches will be crucial in facing current global challenges, from recessions to pandemics and climate change. These issues will be perceived and dealt with differently by different nations -- not because they misunderstand, but because their understanding is in part locally dependent. (emphasis added)
1Elsewhere in yesterday's issue of Nature, Michael Bond describes two different attitudes towards evaluating risks: teaching the general public to evaluate risks and steering the public towards correct decisions. I'll try to offer some comments on that article some time this weekend.

Leave a comment