OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Science Communication

Entry 1077, on 2009-08-24 at 20:15:42 (Rating 3, Science)

I've noticed an emerging trend in recent science news, podcasts and other information sources. That is the need for science and technology to be communicated to the rest of the world so that important messages get through to the majority. Important messages might include things like: the need to minimise the activities which cause climate change, the need to look for alternative energy sources, and the need to invest in fundamental research even during a recession.

So why has this become an issue recently? It seems that people are less trusting of science than they used to be. For example, the scientific findings on climate change are intensely distrusted by many people even though there is really very little doubt about the facts on the situation.

The problem is that science and technology are really the only ways that the world's problems can be solved. Politics can't really do it, economics and business can't really do it, and religion certainly can't do it. Science is really the only hope for the majority of the world's population to continue to exist in comfort and safety.

Before anyone starts criticising me for neglecting the undoubtedly real effects of politics and economics I should say that I agree they play a part but only really to provide a mechanism of action for technology. The big revolutions have been the result of deployment of technologies like steam engines, railroads, roads, electronics, computers, and the internet. That's why the major changes in the way the world works are called things like the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and the information revolution.

The internet has been an important factor in communicating science to everyone but not always in a positive way. Because there is little review and criticism of information on the internet it can be very polarising. For anyone who was determined to deny global warming for example there are plenty of web sites to support the denial viewpoint and many of them are superficially scientific.

Of course, its also possible to only visit sites which support the scientific consensus and that is also not the best option (although its a lot better than the alternative of following conspiracy theories, faulty logic and carefully cherry-picked data). Anyone who really wants to be informed should visit both sides of the debate and evaluate the big picture. Anyone who does that fairly will undoubtedly conclude that global warming is true but the facts do change and its always worth continuing to examine both sides.

One factor which is against science is that its hard. Anyone visiting an evolution site and comparing it with a creationism site will find it much more difficult and uncertain. While there is no doubt that evolution is real there is always doubt about the details, such as the exact dating of fossils, the ancestry of species, etc. Anyone seeing this and comparing it with the totally certain way the (false) information on creationists sites is presented could easily get the wrong impression.

The problem is that science is all about uncertainty and honesty about that uncertainty. Any good scientists will look for ways to negate his own theories and if he doesn't his colleagues certainly will. Compared with this the purveyors of pseudoscience present a very united front. Even though its all fake that might not be obvious to a non-specialist who isn't familiar with examining claims critically and skeptically.

I don't think its reasonable to ask scientists to present their data in a form that is easier for the public to understand because that would be contrary to the way they usually work. That means that we need more specialist science communicators and its good to see how that is becoming a recognised academic area with many universities setting up programs in that field.

Maybe there's hope. It only takes one truly brilliant communicator, such as Carl Sagan, to make a big difference. We haven't seen anyone like Sagan since his death but, if science communication becomes a respected and serious subject itself, maybe it won't be long before we do see someone else who's almost as good.

Comment 1 (2473) by SBFL on 2009-08-29 at 23:31:20:

This nightmare is well worth reading:
How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps

Comment 2 (2474) by OJB on 2009-08-30 at 09:33:25:

Well as you know anecdotes cannot be used to reach big conclusions. I have no doubt that there are problems like this happening all the time, especially since many of the journals are published by profit-making companies, but there are plenty of occasions where well accepted theories have been overturned by new research which has been published, so the self-correcting nature of science is well established.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.