Update: paragraph 3 was clarified on 2007.04.27
Quite often scientists forget or ignore the fact that, being raised and fed by the rest of society, they can expect the public to remain supportive and understanding of their pursuits only if the scientists themselves make an effort to introduce their results and, on a more general level, explain how science works. This can not be done with fancy words and sweeping statements - an explanation proper has to be very carefully thought through and worded. I trust this line of thought is not new to our readers.
Scott Tremaine, the Princeton specialist on stellar and planetary dynamics, recently held a neat general-audience lecture in Leiden, in which he expressed his frustration at being quoted on a young-Earth creationist website in favor of the rubbish[1] presented on the site. Specifically, as an authority on planetary systems, he was quoted there as saying "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong"[2].
As Dr. Tremaine stated in Leiden, his quote sounds overly pessimistic of planet formation theory if taken out of context. One does not need a Masters degree in astrophysics to point out that while
Quite often scientists forget or ignore the fact that, being raised and fed by the rest of society, they can expect the public to remain supportive and understanding of their pursuits only if the scientists themselves make an effort to introduce their results and, on a more general level, explain how science works. This can not be done with fancy words and sweeping statements - an explanation proper has to be very carefully thought through and worded. I trust this line of thought is not new to our readers.
Scott Tremaine, the Princeton specialist on stellar and planetary dynamics, recently held a neat general-audience lecture in Leiden, in which he expressed his frustration at being quoted on a young-Earth creationist website in favor of the rubbish[1] presented on the site. Specifically, as an authority on planetary systems, he was quoted there as saying "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong"[2].
As Dr. Tremaine stated in Leiden, his quote sounds overly pessimistic of planet formation theory if taken out of context. One does not need a Masters degree in astrophysics to point out that while
- "planet formation is so complex that although a large number of participating subprocesses are understood very well, a fully self-consistent model of the entire process is currently out of reach" (this was kindly suggested by Dr Carsten Dominik as a more precise way of expressing the point, in the original post I put my foot in my mouth with "planet formation is messy and not easily analytically describable")
- the planetary systems so far found around other stars have turned many prior ideas of the birth and nature of these objects upside down,
there were and are general correct ideas about the planet-building process, e.g. that planets are born in disks of gas and dust around young stars. Also, the basic physics that governs collisions of dust grains - the building blocks of planets - has not changed, although the models that use it have. The main point: that such self-evident truths about planet formation did not fall under Dr. Tremaine's statement would have been obvious to a specialist. However, it was not presented to a closed circle of specialists at a meeting, but in Science Magazine for everyone to read.
This is a difficult situation. Should well-known scientists really watch their every word when engaging in communication with the public? Coming from someone as inexperienced as yours truly, this might sound naive, but I do believe they should do just that - enforce strict self-discipline in their choice of words, especially when simplifying situations or using analogies. Of course, everyone else - including students - should try their best to do the same.
Creationists and others who go about nibbling on the facade of science by way of ad hominem attacks and picking out carelessly worded thoughts from popular science texts, without entering the building to see what the facade attaches to, are all too happy to jump at phrases like "nobody knows what this is" - incidentally, the latter basic thought was caught in two public astronomy lectures by prominent scientists recently[3], in both cases a good alternative comment would have been "nobody knows what this is yet, but people are working on it and the pieces are falling into place, I'll give you the references if you're interested".
Certainly an explanation geared towards a general audience should be simple, and naturally time is always in short supply for a public lecturer. "Simple", however, does still not mean "as few words as possible".
Footnotes:
[1] Dr. Tremaine was not so explicit in voicing his judgment. Discussion on this classification of young-Earth creationist claims is welcome.
[2] See original quote in Science Magazine, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/295/5555/604b.pdf
[3] The talks: Oort Lecture in Leiden, 2007.04.18, by Dr. Scott Tremaine; Silicon Valley Astronomy Lecture, 2007.02.28, by Dr. Bruce Margon. The latter is available on iTunes as a podcast.
This is a difficult situation. Should well-known scientists really watch their every word when engaging in communication with the public? Coming from someone as inexperienced as yours truly, this might sound naive, but I do believe they should do just that - enforce strict self-discipline in their choice of words, especially when simplifying situations or using analogies. Of course, everyone else - including students - should try their best to do the same.
Creationists and others who go about nibbling on the facade of science by way of ad hominem attacks and picking out carelessly worded thoughts from popular science texts, without entering the building to see what the facade attaches to, are all too happy to jump at phrases like "nobody knows what this is" - incidentally, the latter basic thought was caught in two public astronomy lectures by prominent scientists recently[3], in both cases a good alternative comment would have been "nobody knows what this is yet, but people are working on it and the pieces are falling into place, I'll give you the references if you're interested".
Certainly an explanation geared towards a general audience should be simple, and naturally time is always in short supply for a public lecturer. "Simple", however, does still not mean "as few words as possible".
Footnotes:
[1] Dr. Tremaine was not so explicit in voicing his judgment. Discussion on this classification of young-Earth creationist claims is welcome.
[2] See original quote in Science Magazine, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/295/5555/604b.pdf
[3] The talks: Oort Lecture in Leiden, 2007.04.18, by Dr. Scott Tremaine; Silicon Valley Astronomy Lecture, 2007.02.28, by Dr. Bruce Margon. The latter is available on iTunes as a podcast.
2 comments:
Problematic.
The prescription can be achieved through self-discipline or the intervention of a third party, with the relevant authority to "overawe" the interlocutors.
If the latter is chosen as means, one runs into the difficulties encountered with any infringement of the freedom of speech. Furthermore one finds no common authority in scientific communities .
Yet the problems with infringing on freedom of speech equally apply to self-discipline. The quintessence of the problem lies in reducing utility. One does not speak as efficiently nor as creatively. Always requiring 24 words for what could be expressed in 5 (see last example) is not beneficial if one desires a substantial exchange of ideas. Furthermore, no scientist requires instruction in the fact that many areas of research lack formalization. The very necessity for finding new definitions provides work for most scientists. Yet, the way that language (and, mind you, also formal language) develops is through equivocalities: metaphors, analogies and such. Limiting the use of any of these would severely limit creativity. Both of the harms can be summed up to form a great common harm: the slow-down of scientific discoveries. Were you arguing for this?
The evil in your example does not seem to lie in the undue prolixity of scientists (never mind the fact that it is the opposite that often causes the harm) but, rather, the unhealthy selective hearing that creationists apply. They have a purpose and make themselves easy to identify and understand, yet they manage to cause much damage. This suggests that they are efficient and creative, one should not further reduce the competitiveness of scientists in facing this threat.
The solution to offer is not that of limitation, but rather positive action. One could limit communication among scientists, but this incurs the harms mentioned. Yet, the option to reduce intellectual laziness is available for even less effort! If one were to do what Dr. Tremaine did every single time they misquote a scientists, they would face an insurmountable barrage of falsification. The war would no longer be one-sided, but missiles would fly towards the creationists as often as they launch at scientists. Do I even need to ask who has the better missiles, the creationists or scientists?
Nice piece of work mihkel!
I have three things to say.
First, you cannot stop creationists or other non-scientists from quoting you wrong. They will always find a way to twist your words.
My second point is that a (real) scientist can make the story as simple as he(80%)/she(20%) likes. However, you should not send the people home with a feeling like "we don't know anything (and it might be god that did it)". This is what Tremaine did.
Although, I must say he is right; the (old) planet-models did fail in every way to predict the location of the new planets.
Still, one can not ask the general public to think like a scientist and say, "It's fine the old models don't predict the place of the planets right, this is science.".
Let me conclude with supportive word for the scientists; the creationists did not predict anything about exoplanets. Moreover, how will they explain why god made more planetary-systems, even ones without life! This does not sound very divine to me, did god also had a hard time configuring the planets right?
Post a Comment