Those who are convinced (by, say, recent electoral campaign events) that actually being persuasive is an important part of communication, and who are further convinced that persuasion, especially in the political sphere, often involves something rather more than a clear statement of the facts and the evidence supporting those facts, might be interested in a book I read earlier this year called _Stop Being Such a Scientist_. It is authored by a oceanographer, Randy Olson, who quit his tenured position at an eastern university in order to go to UCLA film school and then to make documentaries about ocean degradation and climate change. What (he reports) he learned very quickly was that the kinds of materials that go into the typical scientific conference presentation are not terribly effective when one's aim is to inform and persuade non-academic humans of the importance of some natural phenomenon (such as climate change). Pre-emptive caveat: I don't agree with everything he says. The scientist/scholar in me still reflexively goes for the "What is the evidence?" move. But I do think that he outlines in pretty clear form why scientists and scholars have had so much difficulty getting heard in the public arena, even on issues where they clearly know more about the topic than everyone else in the room.
Some of it might even be useful in the classroom. Chris ================= Mike Palij wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:53:26 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: > >> Mike Palij wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:08:11 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >>> >>>> Mike Palij wrote: >>>> A quick search of the internet shows that there are several books that >>>> allege to be historical research and to provide public records in support >>>> of the contention that African-Americans served in the Confederate army. >>>> >>> And what would be demonstrated even if it were true? >>> >>> First, if a claim is being made, shouldn't we determine whether it >>> is true or not? Or is the truth irrelevant? >>> >> Please Mike, please don't ever get into a public debate with >> creationists. They'll eat you for lunch. >> > > Thanks for the advice. Allow me to give you a couple of pieces of > advice: > > (1) Don't bring a knife to a gunfight > (2) Don't bring a gun to snowball fight > > I'm sure you'll understand how to put these pearls of wisdom to > use in your life. Returning to the issue at hand, namely, is the > truth irrelevant, I take your lack of response to this point as > indicating that you do think that there are situations where the > truth is irrelevant. I find this a surprising position for an academic > psychologist to take but perhaps my expectations for academic > psychologists is too high. If Chris really believes that the truth > is irrelevant then consider what would happen if appeared int the > following situations: > > (A) One public forum where real science and intelligent design (aka > creation science) were argued was in court over the Dover PA school > board to attempt to get intelligent design included in the biology courses. > The PBS series NOVA has a lovely two part program on the > court case which was taken to be, to use a hackneyed phrase, > a "teachable moment" by providing the facts about evolution as > well as factually establishing that intelligent design was little more > than creation science in a re-packaged format. It might be of > benefit to some to see the program or to see it again to see how > facts and the truth do matter. See: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html > > (B) Given the excited tone of Chris' response, I infer that perhaps > he did not really think through his position and what he wanted to > say. That he was shooting from the lip instead of responding > thoughtfully. If he had been thoughtful, he would have realized > that the truth should not be compromised but he should have added > the qualifier that there are groups of people who will not accept > scientific facts and analysis as being true. One is unlikely to persuade > "true believers" of the facts of a situation when it conflicts with their > beliefs but one might be able to use their own beliefs and analyses to > show the flaws, inconsistencies, and departure from reality of their > beliefs. This requires a knowledge not only of science but also knowledge > of the belief systems that one has to argue against. This is hard work > and some may not be up to the task. > > The key difference between (A) and (B) above is that the context of > the argument or discussion. The context in (A) forces the two sides to > engage in facts and logical analysis. That was the reason why this > argument was made in court because a rational neutral arbiter could > keep both sides focused on the facts. The context in (B) is unspecified > but implies that there is no rational neutral arbiter to keep the two > side focused on the facts. In such a case, it is unclear what the goal is. > Is it to convince the greatest number of people observing the argument? > Is it to convince the other side of the utter silliness of their position? > Well, > depending upon what the goal is of a side, one side may use facts or they may > have to use various persuasive techniques (e.g., emotional appeals) to > sway an audience (if the local audience is of concern -- sometimes the > argument is made for audience far away, such as for one's "base" or > the commnity that one views as being a part of). > > I guess if the truth doesn't matter, one just wants "to win" according to > some arbitrary criteria, one can probably do something like this: > > >> Never let a disingenuous opponent set the terms of the debate. >> Attack the presumptions underlying their questions. Force their >> real aims out into the open. In this case, the truth of the matter >> (interesting as it might be in an actual scholarly discussion) is a >> mere distraction. The matter at issue is not whether African-Americans >> fought for the Confederacy. It is, instead, whether the Confederacy >> was a noble entity unfairly set upon ignoble northern interests, >> and should now be viewed as having been a victim. Which is why >> my counter amounted to asking why it should matter whether >> *slaves* (note that, for obvious rhetorical reasons, this term is not >> included in the original claim) fought for the confederacy? If slaves >> did indeed fight for the Confederacy, would that show that the >> Confederacy was good (the presumed intent of the one claiming such)? >> Or would it simply show that slaves are slaves who can be forced, >> even, to give up their lives in defense of their own enslavement. >> > > Notice that in Chris' last sentence he presumes to know why > African-Americans might have served in the Confederate army. He > cites no sources and probably has not examined the historical research > literarture on the subject. To be charitable, he is just speculating about > the reasons (an unchariatable account would be to say that he is > making stuff up). It appears that Chris is not interested in the facts, only > in attacking the assumed position he thinks the other side has. Of course, > there is the question of whom Chris is responding to? Is he responding > to the foolish author of a 4th grade social studies textbook who admits > that she may have made statements of error, as pointed out in the > Washington Post article that Linda Tollefsrud provided a link to? > If he is, I'd recommend to Chris "don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". > The problem here, as I see it, is an incompetent author and an uncaring > publisher put out a textbook that should probably be pulled and revised > before being used in a classroom. I think this argument is won on > the facts. > > If Chris is directing his comments towards the "Sons of Confederate > Veterans" or other organizations that appear to be providing evidence that > African-Americans served in the Confederate army, then perhaps his > comments might have some merit if one is only interested in ideological > battles and not in establishing what the facts are and what were the > circumstances surrounding them. In this case, if the opposition actually > do have facts to back up their arguments while Chris only has his ideology, > well, let me provide a piece of advice: don't bring a knife to a gunfight. > > I may regret the following request but since we have a historian at a > southern college on the Tips list, I would ask that Louis Schmier provide > some commentary, if he thinks it relevant, to the issues being discussed > here. I assume that he had been exposed to these issues both professionally > and personally, given that he has lived in Georgia for a significant period > of time. > So, Louis, do you know what the facts are? What have been the explanations > provided for them? > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0da&n=T&l=tips&o=5856 > or send a blank email to > leave-5856-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=5865 or send a blank email to leave-5865-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
