Comments on Communicating Expertise and Knowledge
Amid the misguided rhetoric of some who suggest that the science community cease trying to share their expertise and knowledge with the public, and the all-to-common response to expertise, I came across a thoughtful piece worth commenting on here.
Over at Pure Pedantry, Jake Young posts on the problem of expertise. He writes:
The problem of expertise is not that this special knowledge is undesirable. Special knowledge is both socially useful and personally satisfying. Rather the problem of expertise is a social problem, namely how those who know better should relate to those who don’t.
I really urge you to go to Pure Pedantry and read the entire post. Jake makes an interesting suggestion to distinguish expertise into descriptive and normative components, and the non-transitive property of norms in human life.
While Jake makes a strong argument however, and experts should restrain themselves in making normative statements that alienate the “know-nothings,” there is something to be said for the “inquiry-based approach” that new Editor-in-Chief of Science Bruce Alberts advocated last week. One could (and often does) argue that the principal problematic aspect of pseudoscience is the opposition to inquiry and empiricism, and that appears to be based on false claims of normative expertise. That is, it is very difficult to counter the opposition to open and informed inquiry without making normative statements. Alberts reflects this fact with the following comment:
Scientists share a common way of reaching conclusions that is based not only on evidence and logic, but also requires honesty, creativity, and openness to new ideas. The scientific community can thus often work together across cultures, bridging political divides. Such collaborations have mostly focused on the discovery of new knowledge about the natural world. But scientists can also collaborate effectively on developing and promulgating a form of science education for all students that builds scientific habits of mind.
When scientists are working on open inquiry and empirical evidence in this manner, they are working on entirely different presumptions about the world than pseudoscience proponents. One can try to deal with the inconsistencies of underlying presumptions, but even scientists may have difficulty examining the merits and demerits of their own presumptions - much less laypersons unaccustomed to questioning even the outcomes of their presumptions. The system breaks down.
So what Jake appears to be pointing out is the caveats to watch out for, and rightly so. Indeed we should be following both Jake’s suggestion and Alberts’ suggestion at the same time - promoting inquiry and discussion of descriptive expertise by kinesthetic instruction of the scientific method. We must trust that understanding of the scientific method itself will unlock doors to greater rationality in the layperson’s mind, which he or she will then choose to walk through on their own accord.
(Hat tips to John Wilkins and Larry Moran)
molecular biology
Below is a quote taken from the bbgm blog (http://mndoci.com/blog/2008/01/01/changing-minds/). Furteher commented on the sciphu weblog (http://sciphu.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/a-qoute-to-guide-us/). Fewer words, but same conclusion. To prevail, science must move out of its ivory tower where rules are rigid and simple but logical, and into the real world where nothing is simple and less is logical.
“It is very easy for us to believe, as scientists, that science is the be all and end all, and anything that diverges from hard science is not to be taken seriously. However, over the past few years, I have come to realize that such an approach only results in alienation and a barrier between science and society. My mind on the importance of science in society and for our future has not changed one bit. What has changed is how it fits into the fabric of our future. In a world full of inequality and agendas, our conversation with the world, as scientists and scientific thinkers, should focus on making science more accessible. Does that mean we compromise on the quality of our science? Absolutely not, but we should not be naive enough, or perhaps arrogant enough to think that just because we have fact on our side, everyone is going to subscribe to our point of view.”
I nearly didn’t read the linked article because it was written by Chris Mooney.n Ever since he drank the Nisbet-laced Kool-aid (I swear, if I hear “framing” one more time…) it seems like he just wants us scientists to essentially lay back and take it whenever someone criticizes our science. Sorry Chris, but that just ain’t gonna happen.
Sciphu,
Thank you for the link. What Deepak has to say really resonates, and I think that the best part of his post was what followed the section you quoted, where Deepak said:
At the same time, there is a lot of ideological resistance to science that will always exist. You cannot negotiate or persuade such people, so far as I can see.
Chad,
I hear you. “Framing” has long become a catch-word for “PR bullshit.”
[...] we want is for the public to treat science like a list of facts to memorize. As I said recently on Bitesize Bio, what we want above all is to be promoting inquiry and discussion of descriptive expertise by [...]