How are you 'Framing' Science when you speak?

[beskeptical]

When I have more time later tonight I'll expand on the "Framing" terminology which some of you are undoubtedly starting to hear used in various circles. But I started the thread to discuss the statements we make and how they reinforce or undermine the value of the scientific process and the perception people have of that process.

This editorial in Sky and Telescope points out one of those issues. In a hearing on Capitol Hill last week the quote was used that some in the anti-science crowd have "a predatory relationship with the uncertainty of science", (Dr Rick Piltz, former head of the GAO). This needs to be addressed, in particular statements we in the science community make that cloud the issue continually.

It is common to be repeatedly explaining the difference between a theory and an hypothesis and the general nature of scientific proof vs the casual use of the word. The need to continually repeat this explanation reflects a failure to teach it to the general public. One contribution to that failure is the words we ourselves are using to discuss science.

Another common mistake (in my opinion) we continually make is repeating such things as, “scientific evidence can be found to support both sides”, and, “there will always be political pressure influencing scientific research.” If skeptics and scientists lack confidence in the process you can imagine how confident the general public is. Before you say, "but it's true", think about how you can separate out the distortion of scientific research from the scientific process in your discussion of this "truth".

Instead of repeating and thus reinforcing the false claim science can be found to support both sides of an issue, be it global warming or trial evidence, we must instead use our voice to educate the public about the ways research results are distorted to falsely support conclusions. For example instead of only saying scientists are brought in to support both sides in a trial, add that one side may just be paying someone to claim what a very small minority of the scientists think and that the actual evidence is really overwhelming on one side. Or if the science is equivocal, say so while making it clear this is a specific case and not all cases are equivocal even if two scientific opinions are presented. We need to be making statements that reinforce the reliability of the scientific process.

Clarify what is meant when “proved” is not the conclusion. 'Overwhelming evidence' and 'majority consensus' are terms that can counter predatory attacks on the uncertainty of science. Expose the fact some scientists are presenting minority opinions as if they were supported by more scientists than really hold that opinion. Teach people how to verify what the evidence actually does support when divergent claims are made rather than just giving up with the belief such practices are merely part of life. They are but that doesn't mean complacency is warranted.

These are just a few examples. The issue of confidence in the scientific process is of utmost importance. How we describe science can either reinforce the reliability or the unreliability of the scientific process.

[sarongsong]

...The issue of confidence in the scientific process is of utmost importance. How we describe science can either reinforce the reliability or the unreliability of the scientific process.

One glaring stumble-block to clarification occurred 7 years ago when I first heard the term "sound science", which unfortunately turned out to be political double-speak, used repeatedly since in the popular media.

[beskeptical]

That so goes with Bush's new claim that he has supported the science of global warming all along.

There are many people co-opting scientific terminology for non-science claims. I'm not sure how to address that but it most certainly contributes on it's own to undermining the integrity of science.

[3rdvogon]

That so goes with Bush's new claim that he has supported the science of global warming all along.

There are many people co-opting scientific terminology for non-science claims. I'm not sure how to address that but it most certainly contributes on it's own to undermining the integrity of science.

I think that one problem we will need to address actually goes back to the accepted form of reasoning in society today and not science itself.

We need to examine more how most people in society actually think today and if necessary change "the way we think" and this can be to some extent separate from science itself.

Now this may sound a little confusing so I will try to elaborate what I mean. Take for example the word TRUTH as used in common English. There was a time probably 30 or more years ago where most people did not question what "The Truth" was. Whilst the truth of a particular event or incident might at times be hard to find most people accepted that there was an Absolute Truth ready to be discovered somewhere and that was quite simply "What actually happened".

Now in more recent decades people have tended to talk about TRUTH in much more relative terms. They talk of MY Truth or OUR Truth. Ethnic minorities and members of particular faiths will often refer to THEIR Truth as though it should be given equal or superior value to some other more analytical Truth. I suppose one contributing fact to this has been the post 1960s idea that individuals and minorities matter that they must be free to express themselves and develop in their own way and not be hammered into a common social standard like square pegs into round holes.

Truth is no longer the detailed forensic explanation of what actually happened but instead has become intertwined with what people are prepared to accept. In other words Truth is like politics or fashion it is what the majority are prepared to tolerate or support.

Politicians and Political Activists have of course been willing to exploit this shift in thinking as it serves their purposes. Media people who live in a world of Image and Perception also find the idea attractive. There is much more for them to debate and argue about if Truth is not absolute. As a result of all this the whole idea of an absolute truth has fallen out of favour in popular culture, becoming as unfashionable as being reserved and hiding your emotions, all helped along by the likes of Jerry Springer and Oprah, sensation and sensationalism are seen as good, whereas absolute truth is boring.

These people who like to discredit the idea of absolute truth often like to cite the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics (even if they know little else about it) as a sort of scientific justification for their position.

As a result we (at least in the western world today) have a lot of people who are not only ignorant of Science and the Scientific method but their whole mind-set is warped into a sort of politicised thinking that what is true is what the overall masses believe it to be. I think until we start to change the way people are taught to think about even everyday problems as children and get them to observe what is really there rather than what they want to be there then any other attempts to get the message of science to the masses will founder.

OK end of rant - (I will now try and hide my pointed ears under my hat)

[parallaxicality]

There are a number of issues you've raised there B.

As regards terminology, I've always been very careful in my editing of Wikipedia to diffrentiate between "theoretical" and "hypothetical". The misuse of the term "theory" has more to do with philology than science. Words, as they expand into the wider sphere, adopt new variations of meaning as they are applied to different situations. The word "catastrophe" for instance, originally meant the climax of a play, but has expanded to include its better known connotations. This process is perfectly natural and impossible to control or curtail (look at the pathetic efforts of the Acadamie Francaise to see what happens when you try). When a policeman has a theory, or when a kid looking for his lost bike has a theory, obviously this should not be seen as scientifically valid, and strictly, they are referring to a hypothesis. Science demands strict definitions for the words it employs. It is the responsiblility of scientists, and, perhaps more importantly, science journalists, to maintain the strict separation between "theory" and "hypothesis" in conveying the nature of science to the public.

[Swift]

A very interesting discussion.

One idea I read recently (I believe in one of the evolution/ID threads) was about the misuse of the word believe. For example, Jane Scientist, while discussing the moon landings, will say something along the lines of "We believe the moon landings took place because of ....". I have to admit I've done that. But it confuses the evidence for some theory (evolution, moon landings, etc.) with a "belief" in something like Intelligent Design, for which there is no evidence. We need to be more careful in our phrasing, and say things like "It is shown that the moon landings took place because of....".

[beskeptical]

...As a result we (at least in the western world today) have a lot of people who are not only ignorant of Science and the Scientific method but their whole mind-set is warped into a sort of politicised thinking that what is true is what the overall masses believe it to be. I think until we start to change the way people are taught to think about even everyday problems as children and get them to observe what is really there rather than what they want to be there then any other attempts to get the message of science to the masses will founder....

The words we choose when discussing science can reinforce the warped mind set, or they can reinforce the reliability of the scientific process.

Educating people in critical thinking and in understanding the language of science (proof is a math term for example) is an additional need. Using more precise language and clarity in what we say is needed in addition to the education process.

[beskeptical]

There are a number of issues you've raised there B.

As regards terminology, I've always been very careful in my editing of Wikipedia to diffrentiate between "theoretical" and "hypothetical". The misuse of the term "theory" has more to do with philology than science. Words, as they expand into the wider sphere, adopt new variations of meaning as they are applied to different situations. The word "catastrophe" for instance, originally meant the climax of a play, but has expanded to include its better known connotations. This process is perfectly natural and impossible to control or curtail (look at the pathetic efforts of the Acadamie Francaise to see what happens when you try). When a policeman has a theory, or when a kid looking for his lost bike has a theory, obviously this should not be seen as scientifically valid, and strictly, they are referring to a hypothesis. Science demands strict definitions for the words it employs. It is the responsiblility of scientists, and, perhaps more importantly, science journalists, to maintain the strict separation between "theory" and "hypothesis" in conveying the nature of science to the public.

The correct use of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' is extremely important and one correction that should be made immediately. Theory is a little shorter. Don't be that lazy. Take the time to write or say hypothesis. It matters.

Why? Because every time the words are interchanged, teaching the difference is undermined. It's no wonder we find ourselves explaining over and over what a theory is and isn't. After we explain it, no reinforcement occurs of the lesson. It takes reinforcement to teach a new concept.

I even think we should point out the correction every time we see the error and have a chance to point it out.

[beskeptical]

A very interesting discussion.

One idea I read recently (I believe in one of the evolution/ID threads) was about the misuse of the word believe. For example, Jane Scientist, while discussing the moon landings, will say something along the lines of "We believe the moon landings took place because of ....". I have to admit I've done that. But it confuses the evidence for some theory (evolution, moon landings, etc.) with a "belief" in something like Intelligent Design, for which there is no evidence. We need to be more careful in our phrasing, and say things like "It is shown that the moon landings took place because of....".

The evidence supports....the evidence shows or indicates...

Good point. I often struggle with how to state my conclusions without using the word, belief. I've tried to think in my mind how to distinguish between statements of faith and statements of conclusions. It isn't easy.

One person mentioned in another forum that the manual isn't written yet. So I'm collecting ideas. We need problem solving and then we need research to test if our language changes have had the desired effect. That's another point. We should be treating this problem as we do other problems. That is to use the scientific process to find and test solutions.

[parallaxicality]

The problem is that so much of what we determine in science are ultimately beliefs. I'm reminded of the BA's dissection of astrology on his site. His attack is brilliant, and absolutely correct- if you accept the belief fundamental to the practice of science, the doctrine of uniformity. Without the doctrine of uniformity, science would be impossible because experimentation would be meaningless. But ultimately, as David Hume noted, uniformity is a faith, not a fact, and a faith that religion, by definition, does not accept. Religions (and astrology is, for all intents and purposes, a folk religion) would have no meaning without some kind of cosmic exceptionalism in the affairs of humanity. I've been having trouble reconciling this; if science has no meaning without uniformity, how do you respond to a creationist who does not accept unifority on principle?

[beskeptical]

Maybe you are having trouble reconciling it because it's wrong, parall.

Not achieving perfection doesn't change the scientific process into faith. And a good understanding of science and the scientific process takes the imperfection into consideration. I find your philosophical argument flawed.

[Irishman]

What is "the doctrine of uniformity"? The concept that the universe behaves consistently? That if I repeat an experiment with the exact same variables, then I will get the exact same results?

Yes that is an assumption for science. But it is one that is validated by the success of science. And it is one that is validated by our personal experiences in living. We wake up and down is always down, never to the left. The day sky is still blue (unless it's cloudy), and water has the annoying tendency to be wet (annoying when you want otherwise). If the universe did not have this tendency, life would be fundamentally different, because life experience would be meaningless. "Today, water tastes green, and the sky feels salty."

[hhEb09'1]

One idea I read recently (I believe in one of the evolution/ID threads) was about the misuse of the word believe. For example, Jane Scientist, while discussing the moon landings, will say something along the lines of "We believe the moon landings took place because of ....". I have to admit I've done that. But it confuses the evidence for some theory (evolution, moon landings, etc.) with a "belief" in something like Intelligent Design, for which there is no evidence. We need to be more careful in our phrasing, and say things like "It is shown that the moon landings took place because of....".

I just say "When the moon landings took place..."

[Ken G]

But ultimately, as David Hume noted, uniformity is a faith, not a fact, and a faith that religion, by definition, does not accept.

That is true. What is generally being missed here is that there is a big difference between believing that the principle of uniformity is an inviolable truth and the belief that it is a useful assumption. Science does not require the former, so is not based on faith, it only requires the latter, so is based on experience (as also pointed out by Irishman). The usefulness of science rests on uniformity, and the clear fact that science is useful demonstrates the power of that assumption. It is not required that it be "true", only "useful" (or, if you prefer, in science truth is usefulness)-- that's the fundamental truth of science that seems to be least well recognized in debates of this nature.

Religions (and astrology is, for all intents and purposes, a folk religion) would have no meaning without some kind of cosmic exceptionalism in the affairs of humanity. I've been having trouble reconciling this; if science has no meaning without uniformity, how do you respond to a creationist who does not accept unifority on principle?

You cannot respond, you have no common basis for discussion. So shift the discussion to where you do have a common basis-- ask them if they agree that science is useful, and its usefulness stems from its assumptions and methodology. That is as close to "truth" as you'll ever get without a common philosophy.

[beskeptical]

You can see (maybe) from this discussion how the words we use can undermine or support the position science is not a religion.

Consider especially what the listener hears is not necessarily what you meant. I think this is also analogous to teaching a grammar lesson then using bad grammar the rest of the day. We teach science, we debate these concepts and constantly clarify them, then the rest of the day we use grammar that is inconsistent with the scientific principles we just taught.

[Ken G]

I agree, if you are saying that a lot of the conflict with nonscientists stems from the "we're right because we have science on our side", "no we're right because we have God on our side" flavor to the debate. The result will be eternal misunderstanding until both sides sit down and start defining their terms a lot more carefully, looking for common ground when possible and identifying irreconcilable differences in the terms when necessary. If, for example, we made a rule that you have to speak in English when using the scientific perspective, French when taking the religious perspective, and Spanish when trying to forge whatever bridge is possible, then I think it would suddenly be much easier to appreciate the nuances of the different meanings of words like "truth" and "verite" and "verdad".

[Amber Robot]

I just say "When the moon landings took place..."

Yeah, it's like when I say "when my father went to law school." Except that the evidence for the moon landings is more convincing.

[Ken G]

Which do you think was more difficult to accomplish?