framing theories… or theory framing
November 15th, 2007
Opinion
A blogging biochemist, Larry Moran at Sandwalk, has an issue with the idea of scientists “framing” science so the average layman has a better understanding of the subject. In some respects, I agree (at least I think I’m in agreement with Larry) that this is a bad idea. While some scientific principles and concepts are often complex and difficult to comprehend, “dumbing” things up for the non-scientist is a bad thing to do for a lot of reasons. On the other hand, scientists, with typical hubris, take pride in the complexity of their specialty and sometimes go out of their way to make things seem more complex than they really are.
There are a couple of explanations for this: because principles and concepts are often detailed (and thus complex) developing shorthand notation facilitates communication within the specialty – but at the expense of an ease of understanding for those not within the specialty. And, since we tend to take ourselves seriously, adding this complexity adds value to the “expertise” within the specialty: self-aggrandizement, intentional or otherwise.
Scientists often lack good communication skills with the general public – if for no other reason than communication is not their specialty. For both the scientist and the general public, this should always be kept in mind. Communicating ideas is the marketing of ideas, and as noted here earlier, honesty in marketing builds trust. So “framing” is a bad idea.
Larry Moran makes an interesting point on a topic being discussed in the blogsphere: the “theory” of evolution being sort of a misnomer seized upon by the proponents of creationism and Intelligent Design – that unlike these “beliefs”, evolution is only a theory. Clive Thompson wants to drop the term “theory of evolution” and adopt the phrase “law of evolution”. Larry disagrees.
OK. So let’s take this same issue to another hot topic: global warming. How often do you hear climate scientists refer to their subject as the “theory of global warming”? Not a chance. And incidentally, you don’t hear the deniers jumping on that semantic either. Comparing global warming and evolution may seem like a stretch but the point being made is this: has global warming been “framed” by the scientists or is it only a theory? Because it’s about to become a law.
It’s time to realize that we’re simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We’re never going to fully communicate what’s beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.
You decide.
xx