Global climate change, childhood vaccinations, evolution, heliocentrism: in most areas of scientific inquiry, you will find its detractors. Thanks to the echo chambers afforded by the likes of cable news (always hungry to frame all issues as right/left controversies) and the web (where anyone with the bandwidth can stand on the shoulders of giants, if only to throw rocks at their heads), these detractors are getting larger platforms from which to mount their offensives. The problem with science is that it relies too heavily on the scientific method, on empirical data, on the cool, unblinking logic of the microscope and slide rule… and too little on the rhetorical arts. Such is the argument forwarded by Erin Biba in her column in this month’s WIRED, “Why Science Needs to Step Up Its PR Game.” A snippet:
“Scientists hate the word spin. They get bent out of shape by the concept that they should frame their message,” says Jennifer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a National Academy of Sciences program that helps connect the entertainment industry with technical consultants. “They feel that the facts should speak for themselves. They’re not wrong; they’re just not realistic.”
To spin or not to spin… while the white-coats are trying to figure that one out, I should add that some scientists tend to think that denial is a potentially insurmountable force, perhaps even hardwired in our brains. See: “Living in Denial: Why Sensible People Reject the Truth.” *sigh!* With such scientific evidence mounting against the powers of persuasion, why even bother?