Home > Communication, Science and Sports > The vocabulary of public discourse

The vocabulary of public discourse

February 10, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

My last post discusses the possible harm of automatically placing science at the forefront of decision-making.  In some cases it’s simply not true that a scientific lens is the best way to analyze a problem.  It seems that we’re begging for a public vocabulary that lets us meaningfully discuss science.  We need  a way to accept the importance of facts without allowing them to stifle debate.  See for all my problems with the current discourse, I’m also sympathetic to scientists who promote it.  People shouldn’t be able to ignore facts they don’t like. It’s not okay to cherry pick data you happen to agree with.  It does matter that all the relevant experts agree with evolution and anthropogenic global warming.

The solution to this dilemma, however, is not to insist that science is the foundation of policy.  As I also discussed in my last post, doing so is scientifically inaccurate.  Engaging in this rhetoric makes us, for lack of a better phrase, somewhat hypocritical.  How can we speak about the importance of  evidence while ignoring the scientific fact that science is only sometimes the foundation of policy?

We need an intellectual framework which articulates there are instances when science is crucially important, instances when it is somewhat important, and instances when it is relatively unimportant.  Some decisions heavily rely on science while others do not.  Certain disputes are better resolved with politics rather than science and vice versa.

I’d guess that this message will not fly with many scientists.  There’s too much nuance there.  It doesn’t quite fit our science is God and you’re either with-us-or-against-us rhetoric.  My admittedly naive view is that with respect to public communication, science should be neither deified nor demonized.  We should instead strive to highlight that it has its uses and can sometimes be very helpful.

To that end, I’ll suggest yet again that science in decision-making should be thought of as team sports.  How about the image of science as a key but not superstar running back?  The opponent and game plan dictates how much we play.  Sometimes winning the game means handing us the ball 20 times a game.  Sometimes we have to sit on the bench.  How do you know when to stress the running game? By watching game film!

This image, I believe, is the most accurate one we can paint.  Before jumping to any conclusions about the role of science, we must first carefully study the situation.  Then and only then can we say whether science is the foundation or a cosmetic fixture.  Whether we’re the MVP or 6th man of the year.  But these analogies are now getting tedious and I think you get the point.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. April 7, 2010 at 4:46 pm
  2. May 24, 2010 at 10:15 pm
  3. May 25, 2010 at 9:23 pm
  4. June 9, 2010 at 11:01 pm
  5. October 1, 2010 at 7:15 am
  6. September 30, 2012 at 11:37 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: