(iStockphoto)
We blogged recently about the challenges of communicating scientific uncertainty to the public, especially when it comes to climate science. The October 2011 issue of Physics Today contains yet another article addressing the very same concept. From the article:
Scientists typically fail to craft simple, clear messages and repeat them often. They commonly overdo the level of detail, and people can have difficulty sorting out what is important. In short, the more you say, the less they hear. And scientists tend to speak in code. We encourage them to speak in plain language and choose their words with care. Many words that seem perfectly normal to scientists are incomprehensible jargon to the wider world. And there are usually simpler substitutes.
We particularly like the table provided at the end of the article, titled “Terms that have different meanings for scientists and the public.” For example, the scientific term “uncertainty” translates to “ignorance” for the general public; the article suggests scientists use the word “range” instead. Error, which the general public reads as “mistake, wrong, incorrect,” might be better replaced by “difference from exact true number.”
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Typical – if data doesn’t work, blame the readers. The real problem is that climate change “scientists” migrated from science to politics, and the majority of people could tell. It has been one of the triumphs of the wisdom of the crowds that collective inaction was far better than any proposed action.
No one is rejecting climate science conclusions because they don’t understand the concept of scientific uncertainty. It’s because they understand the difference between scientific inquiry, and “give me all your money”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
44
The problem isn’t the research or even so much the researchers, it is that the only remedy put forward by those that embrace the research is that we should all live in a mud hut and eat seaweed. Legitimate research has been hijacked with those who have an ancillary policy position. Scientists need to team up with economists and policy makers to put forward a slate of proposals that vary from “do nothing and deal with it” to “geoengineer the planet cooler”. If the general public was able to see that they didn’t have to give up modern conveniences like cars and meat they would be more inclined to do something about climate change.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
9
“…the only remedy put forward by those that embrace the research is that we should all live in a mud hut and eat seaweed.”
Honestly, where do you people come up with this baloney? Or do you just make it out of whole cloth in your propaganda factory?
Would you kindly provide just ONE reference suggesting that we should all live in mud huts, or eat seaweed? I won’t even insist on a reference that has both.
If you do, I’ll counter it with hundreds or thousands of references suggesting things like building nuclear plants to replace coal, electric vehicles (cars & trains) to replace petroleum-using ones, telecommuting instead of burning gas and time travelling to an office, using more energy-efficient devices…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been co-opted by neo-prohibitionists that try to use blood alcohol limits as a way to stop people from drinking entirely, a large segment of the hippie tie dye crowd has latched onto global warming as a vehicle to advance its “simple life”, anti-materialistic, “whole earth” agenda. These are the people that not only reject carbon sources of energy, but also Nuclear and large hydro projects because of their associated environmental risks. Of course their low capacity, intermittent power supply works just fine with their completely impractical super energy efficient house and completely impractical super energy efficient vehicle (typically a bicycle).
The argument has come down to those that claim there is no problem vs those that want everybody to completely change their lifestyle. Gee, which argument do you think is going to win out?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
3
So already you’re backing off from the mud huts and seaweed claim. (Though I see nothing wrong with eating seaweed: ever been to a Japanese restaurant or sushi bar?)
Granted, there are some of what you call the “hippie tie dye crowd” who advocate the things you say, but they are not doing so as a solution to global warming. They were saying and doing the same things long before global warming reached the public consciousness.
As for changing lifestyles, what on earth is wrong with that? Do you think your lifestyle is perfect as it is? Do you like paying large utility bills, and burning a $4 gallon of gas every 10 or 15 miles on your hour-long daily commute? I didn’t.
Having just read the linked article, I’m appaled! What I’m reading is that the public rejects “scientific” findings about “climate change” because scientists haven’t spun the message correctly.
If only we used different words then they would get it and agree with us. I think the public is a lot smarter that they are being given credit for. Pehaps the public should respond back to these egg head scientists with “simple, clear messages and repeat them often”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
25
IMO using different words won’t force people to ‘get it’, but it may force people to use better arguments.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
5
You have a lot of faith in the public. I think we’ll see in that branding post what is really behind how people make decision.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
When 50% of the US public goes against the scientific consensus, then they aren’t as smart as you give them credit for.
The general public rejects climate change because the climate change deniers are better at spinning their message than the scientists. Climate deniers offer quick soundbites to support their arguments which makes it more convincing to the public.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
6
I don’t think climate scientists overdo the level of detail when they speak to the public. Climate activists, on the other hand, overdo the hype. For twenty-five years now, we’ve been told that we have five years left to save the planet. You can only use that line for so many decades before people stop believing you.
What would really get people to pay attention to scientists on this issue would be if, once in a very great while, they’d rebuke some of the nuttier purveyors of global-warming alarmism.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
6
To be fair we have made a lot of progress that probably pushed back several ecological meltdowns. Environmental conditions in this country were appalling 30 years ago. Today they are holding rowing events on the Cuyahoga River.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Talking more about environmental successes would also help sway the public toward the idea that the problem is not inevitable but avoidable. The second step should be to market what positive things can be done that don’t reduce quality of life.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Yeh, well…I once sent a bunch of finance and management types in paroxysm when I told them, regarding a new design, that we would “play with it”, which meant to a scientist or engineer– “Examine its character and performance so as to ascertain its capabilities and shortcomings (among other goals)”.
The list is a good start. They missed “Law”, but it turns out that the “Law” of some things is due for a tune-up by the rock-solid “Theory” of other things.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
In a way, I find these complaints amusing, because to me “scientific jargon” seems quite clear, while the various jargons used in most areas of popular culture leave me blank. Seems it’s a universal problem, not limited to science.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
2
While I completely agree with the sentiment, I don’t think this is a situation that is likely to change. In order for scientists to have constructive debates amongst themselves, specificity is a necessity. I think the purpose of educating the public about is better served by a specialist community of journalists and science writers. I know that when I’m writing for a journal, versus writing for my own blog, the writing style and the kind of thought that goes into are very different. Part of that is because I expect reviewers to be merciless, but the general public to be more curious than anything.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
exactly! the whole point of scientific jargon is that it is direct and unambiguous in a way that colloquial speak is not. Consider rigorous math: for years, mathematicians struggled with the concept of a limit because they did not have a precise definition. Once they forged a definition that was feasible, precise and abstract, there were breakthroughs in analysis. Dedekind’s cuts forged the way for Cantor’s descriptions of uncountable sets. Precision is necessary for scientific discourse; it is not incumbent on the scientist to sacrifice her/his craft for the benefit of the viewer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
Using plain language when talking to plain people doesn’t make the scientist sacrifice the esoteric craft. This isn’t a proposal for what to put in peer-reviewed journal articles. This is a proposal for what to say when you’re the talking head on the television, writing a press release, or talking to your neighbors.
The chance that someone on the Nobel committee will see your single-sentence remark in the newspaper and decide that your utterly inability to explain your work to mere mortals is proof that you’re a true, erudite scientist is both a lousy excuse for badly explaining the meaning of your work and directly harmful to science, because you’re convincing the people who control our funding sources that you’re an idiot.
I suspect, though, that the primary reason for this problem is lazy ignorance on the part of the scientists about what everyday terms like “error” mean to everyday people, combined with barely concealed contempt for the general public. After all, why should a brilliant scientist like you have to bother explaining your work to anyone except other, equally brilliant scientists?
I suggest that a better word for “theory” be found. That word can be used to dismiss solid findings as “ONLY a theory.” Further, it smacks of being nothing more than a mental, armchair exercise that is not necessarily founded on solid empirical evidence.
Or the opposite strategy can be employed and use “theory” in its correct context more often: theory of gravitation, electromagnetic theory, number theory, music theory, etc. Dismissing something as “just a theory” would hopefully just sound ridiculous.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
It has more to do with the several layers between the scientists and the public.
A quick listing of the hands of knowledge might help.
First hand knoledge- you personally ran the experiment.
Second hand knoledge- you read the scientific papers (no Physics today articles don’t qualify) or personally, discussed with the researchers involved.
Third hand knoledge- You got your info from people who had 2nd hand knowledge, (physics Today might qualify for this) but might not. With some biases and filetrs.
4th hand knoledge- You get your info from people who got it from 3rd hand. Often with more biases tossed in, little better than gossip.
And So on.
Most people (including politicians) get their info from 4th or later hand info.
During each of those steps like with the telephone game, info can become filtered and biased. With any news article it goes from scientist, to their paper, to some science editor, to a reporter, whose work then gets edited by others who never read the original paper, to come out in a 3 minute news report, which then gets picked up by pundits and politicians of BOTH sides and twisted and turned to their own purposes.
This is part of the reason why the public has lost much faith in science.