Art, science and love.

Cletus doesn’t understand!! (I definitely stole this photo from Chris Clarke’s flickr.)

Mooney and Nisbet wrote a piece that is getting a lot of feedback in the science community, honestly, you’d have to make it a full-time job like effort to keep up with all the posts flooding in for the piece and staying on top of things. Some people are completely misreading Mooney and Nisbet and being huge jerks. But the piece that I was more interested in was their article in the Washington Post.

As someone in a “soft science”, aka geography, I spend 1/2 of my time studying looking up terms that I find in “hard science” articles and trying to “quickly” read how certain things work to apply them to whatever it is I’m doing. But you know what, if Ashley and I started talking to our friend Andrew who is in biochem, or our friend Aaron who is in engineering about the affects of ethnic enclaves or the spatial hierarchy of needs - they wouldn’t have a clue what we were talking about - so instead of using those terms, we’d explain it differently.

What bothers me is the double standard that some “people” play. Atheists get made when religion is brought into scientific investigation and arguments - but really that is exactly what attacking religion in defence of evolution does. If there is to be an intelligent and worthy discussion of evolution in the scientific realm religion doesn’t even need to be mentioned. But time and time again people like Dawkins and PZ find that it’s their right and responsibility to be crude, outlandish and extremely critical of religion to prove their own points. Mooney and Nisbet did a good thing in criticizing this way of thought - but what happens when they even just mention it? Atheists go after them for bringing religion into the debate.

There is caution right now around labeling ones self as an atheist because it’s not entirely a desirable trait. I am in no way saying that is acceptable, but I *am* saying that there is an entire population of people who want to remain religious while attempting to understand and adopt scientific views on the world.

But instead people like PZ really makes it sound like it is a “with us or against us” type of thing.

No, science and religion cannot get along. They offer mutually contradictory explanations for the world, and it is bizarrely naive to pretend that people who believe that the literal events of Genesis are an account of the original sin of which we must be redeemed by faith in Jesus can accept a scientific explanation of human origins. The ‘frame’ there is that one side has an account of chance and complexity and an oh-so-awkward affiliation with ancient apes that is based on evidence, and the other side has threats of hellfire if you don’t believe in an Eden, a Fall, and a dead god reborn. Evolution is a strong and explicit threat to that faith.

When ever someone starts talking like this - making claims that its impossible for science and religion to settle comfortable in one brain I automatically think of my step-dad and my mother. Both are religious, one is a minister for the United Church of Canada. Neither believe that the earth was created in 7 days. Neither believe that we were just *poof* put on earth by a god or higher being.

I don’t want to put words into their mouths, as I haven’t spoken to them about it in a real sort of conversation that I can remember - but, there is a sense that they take the bible as a book of stories and laws. Stories that give an idea of how god would want them to live, and is in no way a literal depiction of how the earth was created. And I’m positive they would agree to the fact that the laws are pretty outdated for the time as they are both accepting of homosexual lifestyles and would never stone a person at the edge of town for bestiality.

So in today’s America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge. Especially on divisive issues, scientists should package their research to resonate with specific segments of the public. Data dumping — about, say, the technical details of embryology — is dull and off-putting to most people. And the Dawkins-inspired “science vs. religion” way of viewing things alienates those with strong religious convictions. Do scientists really have to portray their knowledge as a threat to the public’s beliefs? Can’t science and religion just get along? A “science and religion coexistence” message conveyed by church leaders or by scientists who have reconciled the two in their own lives might convince even many devout Christians that evolution is no real threat to faith.

This is what we refer to on the radio as “regular speak”. Talk about your topic, assume your audience is intelligent and interested, but use terms and examples that are still appealing, interesting and a little bit watered down because we’re not all experts. A problem I find quite often with scientists and people of “higher intelligence” in one area or another is that they are unwilling to dumb down their information to appeal to the average person. Alon and I had this discussion about his blog once. I told him his posts were too above average, and that he needed to start using laymen terminology if he wanted to appeal to the general public.

But he was unwilling to do this - if they weren’t smart enough for his blog - then they shouldn’t be reading it. People don’t start off as geniuses, and when scientists are using what Chris and Matt have deemed as “data dumping” it is a complete turn off for people who just don’t understand.

I think that Chris and Matt’s piece is a crucial argument that I have been missing in the whole “personal experience” debate that I find myself getting into. Empirical data is important. Extremely important. Personal experience hits home and creates a platform for people who don’t fully understand all the concepts. But people are so afraid to use personal experience in an argument because they don’t have a source to back it up.

But the fact of the matter is, you can have a back and forth discussion about abortion and the science behind it. You can talk up and down the wall if the fetus is a person, if it has a soul or whatever. But when it comes down to it - it is the personal experience of a woman that is going to get a lot of people to have sympathy and interest. Simply showing some people a picture of a fetus the size of a pin head will work -without all the scientific mumbo-jumbo. People who are neutral on the situation will gain sympathy for pro-abortion efforts when they hear the stories of women being harassed as they walk into clinics.

People need a way to relate before they become experts. I think this is why Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth was so effective for some people. He had maps to demonstrate those who would be affected, he had charts that were easy to understand, he went through the information slowly and understandably.

But this doesn’t stop extremely scientific and fact filled science debates from happening. This is NO WAY prevents the scientific community from giving lectures to one another and debating one another. But it does give a way for the students who are studying criminology and sociology a way to find information on topics that will be meaningful to them. If Sam phoned me up and said to me “Katie, I really want to learn all about the evolution of the earth” …I wouldn’t start with the small scientific facts, loaded with stupidly non-understandable terms - I’d start with explaining things as I did in the beginning of my paleontology posts. Once she has a firm ground on that, then I would work into it a bit more. (I just used Sam as an example, she might very well know just as much about the evolution of the earth as I do - I don’t know, its not something we sit around and have coffee over.)

Just as attacking religion alienates a lot of people from wanting to listen to the side of the scientific community, data dumping is an ineffective method of educating those who don’t have a science background and makes the entire conversation seem daunting when instead it should be inviting to people who know nothing about the topics.

So here is what I have to say: Scientists who are arguing that Mooney and Nisbet are crack pots need to step down and off their little pedestal. You’re not in some utopia where you can start spouting about astrophysics, and marine biology with everyone around you understanding exactly what you’re talking about. As scientists you should be held accountable for helping people understand that which you understand - which involves bearing in mind that some of those that you are educating might not understand the terms and theories you’ve spent your entire life studying. People look up to scientists, they are highly regarded - so people will listen to them, if they can understand what they’re saying.

I respect Buddhist monks, but if he starts talking to me in chinese, teaching me about his way of life - I’m not going to listen.

(crossposted @ appletree)