My Slate exchange with Michael Specter has drawn some additional attention; Curtis Brainard of Columbia Journalism Review glosses as follows:
Specter and Mooney don’t agree about everything, and that’s what makes their ongoing conversation at Slate’s Book Club so interesting. The discussion, focusing on Denialism, began Thursday with a review from Mooney that was mostly laudatory, but raised a few good questions. Specter responded, and Mooney weighed in again on Friday morning; we’re now awaiting a fourth installment from Specter.
That fourth installment is now up and it is here. Some highlights: 1) Specter things I’m too pessimistic in questioning whether President Obama would lead a national dialogue on synthetic biology; 2) Specter is much harder than I am the NIH’s office to study complementary and alternative medicine; 3) Specter is less sold than I on the importance of scientists filling the “communication gap,” though he agrees that approach has its merits; 4) Specter is more optimistic than I am about the ongoing possibility of journalism to elevate and enlighten us with respect to science.
To that end, he closes with a great quotation from Milton’s Areopagitica, one I’d forgotten until this jogged my memory:
Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
Well, sadly, I did, that’s who–or at least, I question whether the encounters are “free and open” these days.
After Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America, I think a growing thesis of mine is that truth really does not win in open encounters, a lot of the time. In fact, truth loses big time, and we need to understand how and why. But that’s a much, much longer post…
November 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
So, I attended one of the “dialogs” that the CDC held to discuss H1N1 vaccination strategies. It was FULL of anti-science anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. The crank-bat-signal went out over their networks and the thing was largely dominated by their agenda. First question when they opened the floor to questions: “It is known that Baxter released…” Sigh.
I do blame scientists for not being there. And I spoke with a guy from CDC about that, and he said scientists have been absent from this sort of thing for years. So part of this is our fault. We’re letting the conversation be driven by activated cranks.
On the other hand–let’s say you open the conversation. You’re gonna get the same thing. This kind of discussion doesn’t draw the middle/undecided/unaligned. I’ve seen it.
We need to create a science defenders network that works like the crank bat signals.
November 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
There’s the Areopagitica, but also Federalist 10:
Madison and the rest were concerned about this sufficiently that this matter was debated quite a bit. They didn’t say “let Truth and Falsehood grapple” and that was that…
November 7th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
What great comments. I wonder who is willing to spend money to create the “science defenders network”? Remember Marc Morano’s salary?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/10/marc-moranos-salary-134000/
I’ve said it before, and will say it again–there is no money, no career, in being a “counter-Morano.” So why would anyone do it?
Jon–yeah. I think Milton is wonderfuly poetic and stirring…and tragically naive, in retrospect.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
The Slate back-and-forth is a good format. For what it’s worth, I agree with you on 1) and 2) and with Specter on 3).
But the really important issue is 4): will journalism save us? I’d like to think that it will, mainly because someone has to, but that may be wishful thinking (and self-serving at that, since I’m a science writer).
I acutely share your concern that the internet has made it easier than ever for people to surround themselves with opinions that reinforce their own, and that this is a particularly worrisome when traditional journalism is under such stress. I’m still hoping for a new business model that provides authoritative, quality journalism.
Or maybe a charitable model? I donate to NPR, and subscribe to the New York Times in paper even though I’ve often read the interesting stories the night before on the web. Will that be enough?
November 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Agreed, there’s no current mechanism for science defenders. I think that the science societies/organizations ought to either have them (AAAS, for example), or several of them should come together to fund it.
I’m kinda surprised Gates hasn’t done it. But that would only draw the same animosity the current associations with Gates yields.
http://food.change.org/blog/view/science_front_and_center_at_usda Mistrust by association.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I wonder who is willing to spend money to create the “science defenders network”?
I would look to the emerging interests looking for progressive policies regarding climate change. Some of those interests are not very established, like solar energy. But look at all the names in this article, for instance. These companies all have an interest in accurate science winning out, plus who could fault them for supporting it? Especially if we’re talking about reputable scientists. (My two cents anyway…)
November 8th, 2009 at 5:30 am
If I recall aright, Milton had as low a regard for innocence as Twain. Pussyfooting gets us nowhere. For whatever issue we espouse we need to be out, loud and proud. If you’re afraid to be a target you give your followers nothing to aim at.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Only now am I beginning to understand why truth loses. At first, I thought that the Buddhists I work with and, especially, my own friends would be on my side in the fight against young-earth creationism. Sadly, these people tell me that one person’s opinion on the age of the earth is as valid as the next, that they don’t care about the age of the earth, that they have better things to do, etc. And these are people who work in biotech!!! I can only imagine what people of no scientific training/education are thinking. It’s a sad and lonely life being a science advocate.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
[...] The discussion, focusing on Denialism , began Thursday with a review from Mooney that was mostly laudatory, but raised a few good questions. Specter responded, and Mooney weighed in again on Friday morning; we’re now awaiting a fourth …This Blog [...]