Ecolog: For the record, I agree with Meiss. Apparently I misunderstood him; if I misinterpreted him, I "regret the error." Meiss also observes correctly that the thread wandered off the subject. Perhaps the journalism issue should be split from the original thread (whilst preserving the relationship), perhaps by re-labeling it "Communication Scientific Public Informed Journalism" or some such logical subject-line that will best serve those searching the archive at some future date?
But whatever the discussion, I do hope that the dissemination of information, scientific and otherwise, becomes more than propaganda; if the public is going to better informed, "it" will have to catch onto the concept, central to intellectual (and scientific) integrity, that the quest is the thing, not the "answer," not even the "fact." Scientists, like the discussants on this thread, do have a responsibility, as Meiss suggests, to be fully responsive to the points raised in the communication upon which the response is based, and not to digress and divert attention from it. At one time, especially in scholarly discourse, this custom was scrupulously observed. Scientists, and even science writers and other journalists, if they are not mere demagogues, would be well-advised to restore this discipline to their discourse. That may be the first prerequisite for "communicating scientific thought to the general public;" if so, it would seem that discourse among scientists and scholars deserves no less. And scientists, above all, should welcome public criticism--and respond to it on point, as just outlined. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Meiss" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > Something weird is happening on this thread. The original post > related to how scientists should communicate their research results to the > general public. The implicit assumption behind this question is that > communication with the public is *not the same as* communication among > scientist themselves. About twenty posts ago I made statements that embrace > this assumption but that assault our cherished ideals that people should be > persuaded by logic and evidence. I made reasoned arguments based on the > history of Nazi Germany, experience from our own neighborhoods, and studies > on the higiene behavior of health-care workers. I suggest that VOLUME and > REPETITION are what count, not logic and reason. My post was completely > ignored by everyone except Wayne T., who hoped I wasn't serious. > This could mean that list-followers thought my observations were so > obviously correct that they didn't require comment, or were so ridiculous > that they didn't merit comment, or that people just didn't know what to > say. In a way, it proves the point I was advancing: I was logical and > presented evidence (albeit anecdotal) and was ignored. Meanwhile, an > emotional discussion of journalistic practice, through REPETITION, diverted > the thread. > So I'll throw it out there again: the truth content of your > message doesn't relate to whether it is accepted by the public or not. It > how often they hear it that matters. That doesn't mean you have to lie. > Tell the truth as your research reveals it, and tell it over and over and > over. The fact that liars will be using the same tactic means that you have > to increase the din even more. Advertisers know this. Why can't scientists > figure it out? > > Martin M. Meiss > > 2011/4/11 Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> > >> Judith S. Weis wrote: >> >> > Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer >> of >> > the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who >> has >> > nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious >> > journals? I don't!! >> >> Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk >> in which both independent scientists and government >> regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study >> Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. >> >> This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current >> thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that >> university scientists have more of a credibility problem >> in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather >> than communications problem. >> >> Paul Cherubini >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. >
