Those of you here who are fans of Pharyngula (or read this post and GifS) will know about the “framing” controversy that has played out in a number of places, mainly ScienceBlogs.com, over the past year. “Framing” is an idea that has been promoted by communications prof Matt Nisbet, with journalist (and The Republican War on Science author) Chris Mooney providing significant support. What the idea actually entails remains unclear to this day–it’s proponents have vacillated from “keep in mind who your audience is when dealing with science controversies” to “don’t bother talking about reason and evidence” and “critics of religion really need to shut up.”
Recently, PZ Myers finally got fed up with Nisbet and gave him a good old “fuck you,” mainly because Nisbet made clear he’d rather there not be a debate at all. Mooney was at first shocked, just shocked, that PZ had used a naughty word, but then made some vague admissions that mistakes were made, and declared he would begin a series of posts to work out the differences that existed among various partners in the debate. However, the posts didn’t really address the dispute, and people got impatient, though they offered serious criticisms whenever it looked like the key issues were up for discussion. Then Mooney called the whole thing off.
To see how that happened, read this thread. All of it. I don’t normally read entire blog threads, but this is an exception: you get to see the contrast between Mooney, his opponents, and how he tried to portray them. His rationale for calling off the discussion was that his critics were “hectoring and just plain relentless.” As several posters point out in the thread, the comments that Mooney so criticizes actually included a lot of substantial points. And MH’s comment is priceless:
And one final thought: do you think all this would have got so heated if you’d engaged your commenters as your peers rather than your audience?
The above points are not what makes this a decisive rout, though. What makes this a decisive rout is that Mooney appears to have been trying to apply his own “framing” advice, and it blew up in his face. Rather than address the points of contention, he focused on trying to get people to ignore them by saying “we all actually agree on far more than we disagree.” This was entirely disingenuous–PZ himself had already listed points of agreement a year ago, and someone pointed this out. Mooney thought he could get out of the mess he had gotten himself into by manipulating people with PR tricks, they didn’t fall for it, and he simply gave up.
Let this be a lesson learned: Yes, people can be ignorant. Yes, they can have their perceptions skewed by dogma. However, they aren’t stupid in the sense of being unable to eventually see through simple PR tricks. When it comes to dealing with religious people, we need to focus on improving their ability to think about the world, not treating them as marks for manipulation.
Uncredible Halq:
I’ll get to that thread after bit. I just need to say this about arguing with fuckedupmenatlists about science. When they denounce the science that brought us the internal combustion engine, polio vaccine, television, frozen food and about a zillion other things that the vast majority of those whankers accept, daily, into their lives–and stop using those items–: Then, I might listen to their nonsensical arguments re: ID/Creationism being credible counters to the Theory of Evolution.
As several Pharyngula regulars pointed out at the time, “framing” is not a new concept; it’s basically keeping your given target audience in mind when composing a message for or a dialogue with them. Myers’ blog is - well, a blog, which he describes right from the get-go as “evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” Sometimes he rants; sometimes he presents a topic for discussion; sometimes he asks questions; sometimes he issues a call to action; sometimes he just shares something funny. He’s not nor does he pretend to be some sort of atheist or scientist messiah, and he only represents “science” in that he is a professional, working scientist.
Ultimately, his blog is simply himself, out there for anyone who would like to see, and at least as of this time, he still has freedom of speech.
But Nisbet and Mooney seem to want to conduct scientific discussion and education within the same frame that theists are constantly trying to squeeze atheists into, that we’re all warriors in a battle of theism/religion-vs.-atheism. Their approach seems to me to buy into the false theistic claim that atheism (and the field of science by association) is just another belief system, that not collecting stamps is as much a hobby as collecting stamps. Also, as some Pharyngulites have noticed, Nisbet seems to envision himself as some sort of glorious leader in the conflict, as the messianic peacemaker who will ultimately unite all sides in a blissful future, and thus seems eager to nudge anyone else who appears to be any kind of spokesperson out of the limelight completely.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the experts in framing have by and large failed at - well - framing…
Amazing to me that Nisbit is unable to recognize that part of the reason the ID’ers have been able to achieve the unwarranted success they have so far is because the scientific community has largely been taking his approach, until recently. Being “good atheists/scientists/empiricists” rings of “not being a busy-body woman” or “being a good nigger.” By and large, I.D.ers have no more respect for subdued, “non-offensive” dialogue than they do for in-your-face confrontation (some of them probably have even less respect for Nisbit’s approach). And you’re certainly not going to get the fence-sitters attention by presenting politically correct presentations of the facts. Make the I.D.ers “theories” look as ridiculous as they really are.
And is it just me, or did anyone find Nisbit’s post, imploring PZ and Dawkins to not attend the “Expelled” screening/represent the scientific community to be more than a bit patronizing and presumptuous?
Fritzy is dead on correct; it is the lack of the scientific community to stop this nonsense, and the lack of the US educational system to fully endorse real science, that has lead to this nonsense. I swear, the next time a creotard asks me if I really believe I came from a monkey, I will strangle them and show how they are really just a chemical reaction, now being deprived of an essential molecule.
There comes a point when reasoning simply fails. How many times can you show evidence for evolutionary theory to someone, and have them ignore it, before you simply need to resort to ridicule? Ben Stein was on Glen Beck a while back and said that he didn’t understand why scientists wouldn’t simply give ID equal room and open it for debate. WTF? Hasn’t the scientific community destroyed this nonsense “theory” time and again, yet here we are, the liars for jeebus continue to deny evidence and logical, reasonable arguments, and then of course play the persecution card.
Ridicule is all that will work at this point; we have to just make as much fun of these people as possible, expose their nonsense for others to see, and at the same time, show how well supported evolutionary theory is. Demonstrate why flu shots are necessary every year, explain the superbug (hello, prediction by theory anyone?), target those on the fence. I’m not too convinced that the die hard fundies will ever see the light, but it is those who sit on the fence we need to go after.
Ok, end rant
Eve: the issue is not what PZ says on his blog. Nisbet was more concerned about what PZ says to the media when they call him to interview him about the incident and the film. That was the point where Nisbet said openly that he would prefer PZ defer to other spokespeople - specifically, people who are religious (Ken Miller, etc). THAT was what, in the end, was horribly insulting to PZ (and ALL atheists) and PZ called Matt on it.
It never had anything to do with the blog, but everything to do with the mass media.
Everyone is pretty much on the money. All I can add is that Nisbet is a hack.
Eve said:
That rocks! I plan to share that with my compadres in our corporate “Freethinkers” group.
The biggest problem I have with “framing” is the idea that someone today is trying to take credit for something that as far as I can tell EVERYONE does and has done ever since someone wanted to convince a tribe to move upstream for more game to hunt. I always thought it was called “being tactful”.
I found it insulting the first time I heard this “suggestion” on some board, which is to say, how they suggested it was rather patronizing. I mean they came across all in one go as suggesting that this was a new idea that we hadn’t heard of, that we COULDN’T think of it on our own, and that were were “rude” all at once.
For anyone capable of seeing though “framing”, it’s insulting, not a way to “bridge the gap and open dialog”.
I prefer talking to someone politely rather than being incredibly rude when I talk to them. That’s my style mainly because I can’t help but care perhaps too much about what they think. HOWEVER, I also care about the truth, more so in fact. I don’t think one needs to resort to PR speak to get a message across in a polite fasion. I don’t think that saying my idea politely means I need to layer a very brief non-statement with paragraph upon paragraph of “I was raised by a coal miner” style speeches no one cares about just to say “hey I’m like you”. It’s rude to go to that extreme.
Rather, I’ll just say what I think and try to be polite about it as is my style. In this case, I’d actually probably come off sounding more or less like a robot describing the data outright. I’d still probably offend, but what matters to me is that I stated it in the nicest way possible without being inefficient, pandering, patronizing, and above all leaving out what I intend to get across.
Hallq is right - we ought to try and appeal to peoples instictual tendancy to think logically and question obvious manipulation. When people think more, they become atheists!