The Crank-Theory-PhD Thesis

Someone beat me to it:

No matter how wacky the idea is, you can usually find a handful of cranks with Ph.D.s to back you up!

The corrections I'd make is that it's not "usually," it's "always, if the idea is well-known" and that the Ph.D.'s will even be in the academic field that's most relevant to the crank theory. I'm sure someone could create an equation that as a theory approaches pure wackiness, the number of Ph.D. holders willing to support the theory approaches but never reaches zero.

I used to think that creationism is the one exception, but I've since heard of one or two people with biology Ph.D.s from real universities, not the fake religious ones, that will openly advocate it.

Global warming skeptics hate to be compared to creationists (except for the ones who are also creationists, like Roy Spencer), but having a few experts in a field back an idea rejected by the broad consensus doesn't give the idea much credibility.

Wingnut award voting is ongoing at The Poor Man

Vote here for all categories, or here specifically for science nonsense. Lots of tough, tough choices, but I tended to vote for those who might actually be a little embarrassed about their misdeeds. Maybe Easterbrook will eventually come around.

What "Expelled" tells us about the whole science-framing thing

I think the moronic creationist pseudo-documentary, Expelled, tells us the anti-science framing crowd can be wrong even when they're right.

The science framers, mostly Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet, want to spin the discussion of science (in a good way, supposedly) to appeal the most to the target audience. The anti-framers, people like PZ Myers and Greg Laden, say science shouldn't be spun, a cacophony of voices is just fine, and strident opposition to stupidity is effective. The debate plays out repeatedly at the scienceblogs.com websites.

As of today, Expelled has made $6.6 million, and will certainly be the fifth highest-grossing political documentary in history. The pro-framers have said the anti-framers should shut up about the movie, and argued that constantly talking about it has made it successful. The anti-framers claim the movie isn't successful.

The anti-framers are wrong on two counts. First, the movie's clearly successful by any non-ridiculous standards. Second, one of the framing concepts is that people will not accept any fact that contradicts their mental model of the world, and the anti-framers' refusal to acknowledge the movie's commercial success is itself a proof of this framing concept.

Despite all this, I throw in with the anti-framers in general. I think science is or at least should be more like a cacophony of opinions being tested out, and science communication should reflect that. And strident opposition to creationist nonsense can be refreshing. But the anti-framers need to acknowledge the evidence wherever it goes, and not acknowledging it here is ridiculous.

One tangential point I haven't seen raised: when to see Expelled. I don't think there's much point in seeing it, but if people do want to, they shouldn't go until after it's been in the theater where they're thinking of going for over two weeks. Expelled's producers get a much bigger cut of ticket revenues in the first two weeks, so waiting reduces the amount they take in.

Nisbet and Copernicus' Foreword

Not sure yet what I think of the Nisbet-Mooney framing science thing (see Stoat for a pithy writeup).

I heard Nisbet asked on a public radio program how he would've advised Copernicus way back when:

BROOKE GLADSTONE: How would you have advised Copernicus to advance his highly controversial and unpopular sun-centered theory of the solar system?

MATTHEW NISBET: Well, again, you know, there are certain ideas that come about in science that clash so strongly against prevailing world views that any type of short-term communication effort is going to run up against a wall.

Actually, there was a way around the clash - in the editing process of Copernicus' original De Revolutionibus, someone else added a foreword describing the book as a mathematical exercise, and not necessarily meant to describe reality ("these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable"). Sounds like a framing attempt to me, to get an idea out to the audience without provoking a too-strong counter-reaction. Was that a good move?

Maybe this example is unfair to the N-M thesis, which could recognize "bad" frames that sacrifice too much in the way in the way of accuracy. Still....

The other problem with frames is that as their use gets more widespread, people will get better at deconstructing frames, especially the awkward and obvious frames, the ones that scientists would use. When people realize that a scientist is trying to push psychological buttons, that might not play well.

My little suggestion is to minimize the framing when talking straight science, and then pull out all the stops when talking science policy. Not sure if that idea really works though.