Comments on: On Framing . . . http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Trinifar http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177&cpage=1#comment-8798 Trinifar Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:01:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4177#comment-8798 That a lot of negative reaction has come from the science bloggers who have been involved in the religion vs atheism and the creationism vs evolution "wars" seems sadly predictable. They are pissed off at the state of science in the public mind and at the same time these topics fuel their angry energy. Still they are trumped by the climate change issue which for many of us is more immediate and has, to say the least, more dramatic consequences for a much larger group of people (everyone on the planet). I'm sure they eventually they'll come around both on what topics are important and how to address them. And not all scientists are biologists. And not all biologists are angry. We still have EO Wilson and Ken Miller. :-) That a lot of negative reaction has come from the science bloggers who have been involved in the religion vs atheism and the creationism vs evolution “wars” seems sadly predictable. They are pissed off at the state of science in the public mind and at the same time these topics fuel their angry energy.

Still they are trumped by the climate change issue which for many of us is more immediate and has, to say the least, more dramatic consequences for a much larger group of people (everyone on the planet).

I’m sure they eventually they’ll come around both on what topics are important and how to address them. And not all scientists are biologists. And not all biologists are angry. We still have EO Wilson and Ken Miller. :-)

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177&cpage=1#comment-8797 kevin v Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:57:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4177#comment-8797 Matt -- watching evolution-vs-ID play out in the blogospace has been one of my biggest fascinations with science-related blogging since it started (really less than 3 years ago). Climate change is now well-represented, but evolution was **the** topic in science blogging for a long time and I could never figure out why, with so many topics to discuss, that particular one rose to such flame-war heights. It might be simply be explained by the Duncan Watts-type research: what rises is essentially random: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15wwlnidealab.t.html PZ won't like being compared to Madonna in Watts' usage (see the article), of course, but seems as good an explanation as any for why evolution still commands more notice than anything. Matt — watching evolution-vs-ID play out in the blogospace has been one of my biggest fascinations with science-related blogging since it started (really less than 3 years ago). Climate change is now well-represented, but evolution was **the** topic in science blogging for a long time and I could never figure out why, with so many topics to discuss, that particular one rose to such flame-war heights. It might be simply be explained by the Duncan Watts-type research: what rises is essentially random: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/magazine/15wwlnidealab.t.html

PZ won’t like being compared to Madonna in Watts’ usage (see the article), of course, but seems as good an explanation as any for why evolution still commands more notice than anything.

]]> By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177&cpage=1#comment-8796 David Bruggeman Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:05:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4177#comment-8796 The whole kerfuffle has been a demonstration of how those posing the arguments or presenting the evidence aren't the only ones framing things. Various parts of an audience will frame what they receive, and rarely will there be a one-to-one correspondence between them and the presenters. While Nisbet and Mooney's argument is (at least in part) that people need to take this into account, the challenge becomes getting into the frame(s) of your audience. That may be even harder for researchers to do than accepting that they need to frame their work, or that they already frame their work. The whole kerfuffle has been a demonstration of how those posing the arguments or presenting the evidence aren’t the only ones framing things. Various parts of an audience will frame what they receive, and rarely will there be a one-to-one correspondence between them and the presenters.

While Nisbet and Mooney’s argument is (at least in part) that people need to take this into account, the challenge becomes getting into the frame(s) of your audience. That may be even harder for researchers to do than accepting that they need to frame their work, or that they already frame their work.

]]> By: Eric http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177&cpage=1#comment-8795 Eric Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:52:47 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4177#comment-8795 I agree that this is where Mooney and Nisbet have come up short. They have made their case in a manner that will not convince most scientists and put many on the defensive. This is a handicap they will have to overcome if, at some point in the future, they follow up on their blistering critique with a set of actionable and constructive recommendations. I agree that this is where Mooney and Nisbet have come up short. They have made their case in a manner that will not convince most scientists and put many on the defensive.

This is a handicap they will have to overcome if, at some point in the future, they follow up on their blistering critique with a set of actionable and constructive recommendations.

]]> By: Matthew C. Nisbet http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177&cpage=1#comment-8794 Matthew C. Nisbet Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:16:38 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4177#comment-8794 Important to also keep in mind that the criticism is coming from a selection of scientists and non-scientists who write blogs. Representativeness is definitely in doubt. Important to also keep in mind that the criticism is coming from a selection of scientists and non-scientists who write blogs. Representativeness is definitely in doubt.

]]> By: Matthew C. Nisbet http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4177&cpage=1#comment-8793 Matthew C. Nisbet Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:13:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4177#comment-8793 Roger, One thing did interest me in comparing the blog impact of our somewhat differently cast arguments at Science and at the WPost. In our Science commentary we buried the discussion of evolution at the back end, and yet a blog clamor erupted that eclipsed the WPost article. Indeed, with the Science piece, the almost exclusive focus of blogger critics was on our suggestions relative to evolution, rather than the more prominent focus in our commentary on climate change. (Despite the article being published on the day of the IPCC release. Go figure.) Roger,

One thing did interest me in comparing the blog impact of our somewhat differently cast arguments at Science and at the WPost.

In our Science commentary we buried the discussion of evolution at the back end, and yet a blog clamor erupted that eclipsed the WPost article.

Indeed, with the Science piece, the almost exclusive focus of blogger critics was on our suggestions relative to evolution, rather than the more prominent focus in our commentary on climate change.

(Despite the article being published on the day of the IPCC release. Go figure.)

]]>