Laura Bowater

Last week I saw a renowned Portuguese science populariser performing a “smackdown” on a climate change denier on the Fundação Manuel dos Santos’ Q&A discussion program. The presenter even mocked the fact that the scientist had brought graphs! Knockout blow. And yet … it left the audience cold. Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing, changing minds, and winning people over to a better, brighter future?

ANSWER: Yes you clown! Charts, diagrams, figures are an excellent way to convey lots of information. Remember the saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words”. If it leaves you cold it’s because either you don’t understand it, or likely disagree with it without evidence to back you up.

“I doubt it somehow. There are a couple of things here. And I don’t think it’s as simple as people rejecting science. First, people don’t like being told what to do.”

ANSWER: Come on, that’s what people go to school for, to sit in a classroom and be taught things. And in science classes, a lot of this is being told what we know so far about how things work. What you are really saying is people don’t want to admit that others know more than them, but we freely accept that when we are young and in a classroom.

“This is part of what some other expert was driving at when he said people had had enough of experts. We rely on doctors and nurses to make us better, and on financial planners to help us invest. We expect scientists to research new cures for disease, or simply to find out how things work. We expect the government to try to do the best for most of the people most of the time, and weather forecasters to at least tell us what today was like even if they struggle with tomorrow. But when these experts tell us how to live our lives – or even worse, what to think – something rebels. Especially when there is even the merest whiff of controversy or uncertainty. Back in your box, we say, and stick to what you’re good at.

ANSWER: This is not telling people how to think, it is offering evidence for them to think about. All you are saying is people don’t want to have to think. They would like to stick their old facts or what they just believe and not be challenged. Intellectual laziness, it’s why people reject evolution, radiometric dating that things are billions or millions of years old, all because for them, they think the world is a few thousands of years old.

“People want to feel wanted and loved. That there is someone who will listen to them. To feel part of a family. The physicist Sabine Hossenfelder gets this. Between contracts one time, she set up a “talk to a physicist” service. Fifty dollars gets you 20 minutes with a quantum physicist … who will listen to whatever crazy idea you have, and help you understand a little more about the world. How many science communicators do you know who will take the time to listen to their audience? Who are willing to step outside their cosy little bubble and make an effort to reach people where they are, where they are confused and hurting; where they need?”

ANSWER: Sorry, science is not about love, it’s about straightforward rational thought. So, with about 40% of the country, or say nearly 140 million people who believe in creationism, we should just talk to them one on one. 140 Million People! Wow, that’s one of the most ridiculous ideas that I have ever heard.

“Most science communication isn’t about persuading people; it’s self-affirmation for those already on the inside. Look at us, it says, aren’t we clever? We are exclusive, we are a gang, we are family. That’s not communication. It’s not changing minds and it’s certainly not winning hearts and minds. It’s tribalism.

ANSWER: Sorry, it’s pretty obvious by this point you are relatively clueless about science communication. Science communication is about proving a point or discovery. So yes, we do that with lots of graphs and figures and diagrams and photos, to provide proof of what we are saying. Lay people just don’t realize that what they are is intellectually lazy, unwilling to change what they “know”, while scientists do that on a regular basis.

ANSWER Part 2: As for the view that they are saying “aren’t we clever”, just rounds out the petulant talking points you have here. People are so poorly trained in the sciences right now that we have to import scientists. Think about this, when an idiot congressman goes out and brings back a snowball, because it’s winter in DC and we had snow, and he holds it up as proof that there is no global warming because it snowed., Shortly after that lots of people post and share it everywhere as proof that there is no global warming, rather even think about it for a few seconds and say “Hold on, isn’t that just proof that there are things called SEASONS”.

How to you speak one on one with people so far removed from rational thought?… (plus d'informations)