Martin (I apologize to all list members who might be offended and to the
moderator for not being able to express myself more effectively), but it
sounds to me like you are suggesting that we "baffle 'em with b.s." If
that is how providing help to activists works, then those some people
are just as likely to be persuaded in an opposite direction by the next
glib voice that comes along -- and that might (is very likely to be) the
anti anti-environmental shill.
I'm sorry that I can't agree that helping to keep people ignorant
furthers any good cause.
David Mc
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Martin Meiss wrote:
It seems to me that many, though not all, posts on this thread are
taking a rather narrow view of "communication." When a scientist
publishes
an article describing his/her research, is this merely broadcasting
methods,
data, and interpretation? Of course not. Every utterance, spoken or
written, has context and subtext. The very same article in different
journals has different meaning because of context: it is paired with
different articles, is seen as reflecting a different editorial
philosophy,
and has an audience that will interpret it differently.
With regard to subtext, every scientific utterance
characterizes
the utterer, affects his/her ranking in the competitive sea of
academic or
corporate or even freelance science. It affects chances of getting
tenure,
promotions, prestige, pay raises, and dates on Friday night. Most
writers
will pick their words, consciously or unconsciously, with these social
factors in mind. Sometimes that might favor stilted, pompous
verbiage,
sometimes concrete, to-the-point Anglo-Saxon karate chops.
Is being hard to understand a bad thing when addressing the
general
public? Not necessarily, depending on what your goals are. Do you
want
the public to understand ecology, or do you want them to support your
vision
of environmental activism? These are not necessarily the same thing.
Some
part of your audience will be more impressed, more motivated, if you
use
words they don't understand, because they will think it proves you're
really
smart and must know what you're talking about, even if *they* don't.
These
people's votes count just as much as the votes of those with deeper
insight.
If you use familiar words that everyone understands, some of
your
audience will think, "Hey, that's just common sense. Anybody knows
that.
This fellow's not so smart." They might *agree with you*, but it
takes *
inspiration* to make people go out and ring doorbells with petitions,
or
attend public hearings on environmental issues, or open their
checkbooks.
This is an area where pragmatism and idealism can well come to
blows. What side are you on? Does it vary from time to time, or
issue to
issue?
2010/1/20 Jonathan Nelson
As scientists, we should always consider the accuracy and precision
of
our work. Science is wondering and testing and sharing, over and over
again. Our communication is part of the sharing phase; we must make
sure our words convey our messages.
Sometimes jargon, baroque phrasing, and other tools are appropriate,
but we should only choose them when we need them (occasionally, for
example, in short messages between specialists, or in deliberate
signalling to an audience that the definition of a particular word is
important).
For me, convoluted phrases and dictionary words are often the result
of laziness. I might be able to speak more clearly, but I'm hedging,
avoiding a commitment to a meaning I'm not sure I'll support next
week. Every time I notice myself speaking this way, I know I need to
try harder: my message is weak, and my understanding might be weak
too.
