Blog prompt #2

"One could argue that the more educated people are, the more they’ll understand media pieces about science and be able to follow public debates about scientific issues.  But the ASR article we read for class today suggests that there’s a limit, namely that education does little good if people have a powerful political or social reason to mistrust science and if they have easily available arguments to challenge scientific consensus.  How can the ASR findings help you become better science writers?  Better scientists?  Better citizens?"

To start with, the ASR findings remind you to remember that people will not necessarily react in the way you might expect them to means that you can calculate for that, which allows you to be able to reach people even when they might prove closed to the ideas you were attempting to impart. If you realize that you cannot take the tack of simply telling them that something is so, then you either have to find a different way of phrasing it, or manage to convince them of something without being able to rely upon what is said by scientists or most of the scientific evidence. 

These come down to the same necessity of thinking, in a way. In my experience, if you can manage to simplify something enough, without dumbing it down to the point that it becomes condescending, you can manage to at least get the concept across to most people. They will not necessarily believe that it is true, but a succession of enough simple concepts is somewhat more irrefutable than a large, abstract concept like global warming. Many people automatically distrust the idea, not only because it has not in fact been proven, but also because there has been so much argument and so much contention over it. So when attempting to get your point across, you cannot simply say that "global warming is happening." Not only is that not true, but its likely to turn people off to whatever you may be writing, saying, or doing. But, for example if you say that "over the last several years, measurements have shown a steady global increase in temperature on average", or that "observations have shown that the polar ice caps have been steadily shrinking", you have not said anything that is untrue, and people are left to draw their own conclusions about the state of the world. This affects  almost equally scientific research, citizenship, and scientific journalism. 

As its been said in class - "Question everything." Its a good basis for science, science writing, and citizenship. Keep in mind that people will not always believe what you say, just because you say that its from scientists. Hell, people may disbelieve what you're saying because its from scientists. But invariably, people will draw their own conclusions, some of them in direct opposition to what scientists or science writers may believe. However, the job of the citizen is to be informed, in all essence. Its the jobs of the scientist and the writer (or science writer) to convey that information and ensure that the public is informed. That is what we must always keep in mind as science writers. Our job is not to convince the readers of what WE think is right; We must realistically assume that we can be wrong, even are likely wrong about the conclusions we draw. We can only present the data in the long ring - question the data, question the scientists. Question their motives, biases, assumptions, hypotheses, question their math if you have to. Equally important, its the job of the scientist as much as the science writer to be objective with their findings - keep in mind that people will not believe - show the data and how it was found, giving people no credence to be able to say that something was hidden, or a factor was thrown out because they don't believe in the same god. 

But above all, never assume that you are right because others are wrong. Objectivity is what this study brings to the table, and everyone should have some.