• save boissiere house
  • Top Posts

  • The World is Talking, Are You Listening?
  • a

  • Festival of the Trees
  • Scoutle

    Connect with me at Scoutle.com

Chris Matthews

Mark Leibovich hits the nail on the head

Matthews’s bombast is radically at odds with the wry, antipolitical style fashioned by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert or the cutting and finely tuned cynicism of Matthews’s MSNBC co-worker Keith Olbermann. These hosts betray none of the reverence for politics or the rituals of Washington that Matthews does. On the contrary, they appeal to the eye-rolling tendencies of a cooler, highly educated urban cohort of the electorate that mostly dismisses an exuberant political animal like Matthews as annoyingly antiquated, like the ranting uncle at the Thanksgiving table whom the kids have learned to tune out.

That probably does a pretty good job of characterising my reaction to Chris Matthews.  And yet…

A number of people I spoke with at NBC said that Russert can be disdainful of Matthews, whose act he often sees as clownish. They also told me that Russert believes Matthews is something of a loose cannon who brings him undue headaches in his capacity as NBC’s Washington bureau chief.

While I take issue with Matthews, he beats Russert any day of the week in my book.  Matthews is odd, and a bit too much the product of his upbringing and generation.  Russert, on the other hand, just comes across as a bad journalist.

Mike Slackenery gets a job at last!

Sort of

Science communication and framing

The “framing science” debate raised its ugly head again recently. By the time I came along, the battle lines had been drawn and hardened, and everyone cared enough about the issue that I didn’t have to. At this stage, I rather doubt there’s anything I could say that would change anyone’s minds. Fundamentally, I’m lukewarm on an issue that requires passion. But a question I was asked today made me think about the difference between communicating an issue and framing an issue.

I was asked a question something along the lines of: “You’re teaching an advanced ecology course, and you are asked by a pre-med student why they should care about this stuff. How do you answer them?” There are a couple ways to approach this question. One answer stems from what a friend of mine told a pre-dental student when asked the same question – dentistry, when it comes down to it, is oral ecosystem management. More importantly, ecology is an exercise in complexity, one of the few places that you will be exposed to that level of complexity in living systems. And the human body is a complex system (and a complex ecosystem).

There are other valid reasons for making students take biological classes that they believe they will never need…the “informed citizenry” argument. Issues like climate change, GMOs and stem cells are fairly complex issues that the general public needs to know about. But they don’t work equally well for all audiences…”stem cells” isn’t going to get much traction with a pre-med student complaining about having to take a botany class. So, you say…framing matters. Right? Well…no. There really are a number of different reasons why students should take a biology class. But these are real reasons. Sometimes the correct answer is “I don’t see any reason why you should be required to take this class, and maybe you should take this up with whomever it is makes these rules.”

There are a number of good reasons why some people find evolution so challenging to their world view. Some aren’t able to cope with “dethroning” humans. Some are afraid of modernity and a world that moves at a pace they can’t relate to. (“Having been led astray by creationist lies” is, in my opinion, a reason devoid of any redeeming qualities.) You can argue that someone like PZ or Dawkins isn’t going to reach them. That’s a plausible argument, and I’d be interested in seeing the data behind such an argument. But I suspect that you are going to reach far fewer people if you don’t want to take anyone outside of their comfort zone.

The creationists have successfully framed science as atheistic and amoral. More importantly, they have communicated atheistic to mean “anti-religious” and amoral to mean immoral.*  It would be great if we could separate atheistic from anti-religious and amoral from immoral.  But if you’re arguing semantics, you’ve lost already.  The counterargument is to accept the creationist equation of atheistic with anti-religious and trot out people like Ken Miller to prove that they’re false.  While that might sway a few people, it’s fairly easy to say “but they’re not real Christians” (making, of course, “Christian” the antonym of atheistic”).  Mind you, this is different from saying “religion and science are not incompatible”.  This is unrelated to religious scientists speaking of the universe in terms of God.  The problem with saying “science is not atheistic” is that (a) it doesn’t change the playing field, and (b) it’s not true, unless you accept the other side’s redefinition of the terminology.

You change people’s minds and perceptions when you take them outside of their comfort zone.  You don’t change the way people think if you start by accepting their world view and then tinkering.  “Love the sinner” hasn’t made religious homophobes more accepting of gays.  And people who use the bible to justify homophobia aren’t convinced when you try to present the idea in the broader context.  What has worked is getting people out of the closet and into the everyday lives of the general public.  I strongly suspect that, in order to change people’s minds, you need to take them out of their comfort zones.