Thanks to Mike McRae (@tribalscientist on Twitter) for this timely essay!
A butterfly flapping its wings might cause a typhoon in China, but if it suggests showing its cleavage, just what can we expect? Going on the recent Boobquake event, natural disasters are the least of our concerns; of bigger concern is the controversy on how skeptics should approach public engagement.
Going on the aggressive responses from a number of skeptics, it’s hard to see how a rather flippant, cheeky protest against the ignorant remarks of a Muslim cleric could be seen as anything more than a bit of fun. If you oppose it, you must be a little uptight, or repressed, or a prude, right?
There is another side to this that needs considering, one that has less to do with Boobquake – The Cheeky Protest, and more to do with Boobquake – Engaging the Public in Science.
The difference between the two is subtle. So subtle, in fact, few people seemed to recognise the shift at all, and in defence state in the same breath that the event was just showing how silly the imam’s claim is and it got people interested in science. There is a key difference between these statements that reflects a serious problem in how skeptics engage with the public, however. To understand it, we need to go back a couple of decades to several studies performed in the US and the UK.
To summarise the results of these investigations into public attitudes on science – which appear to have remained relatively consistent over the years – people rather like science. Compared with how people describe their interest in fields such as sporting news, contemporary politics and new films, scientific discoveries in medicine and technology blow the rest out of the water. The problem, therefore, isn’t in how to get the public’s attention in regards to things that have a ‘sciencey’ look-and-feel about them. It’s that most people confess they just don’t get how science works.
While people claim to like science, few have a memory for fundamental scientific facts. The oft-cited results of one such study highlight how few Americans and Brits know the Earth has one complete orbit around the Sun each year (25% and 28% respectively in 1988). About a third of Brits knew that electrons were smaller than atoms, while about 37% of Americans knew that humans didn’t coexist with dinosaurs[1].
Times change, however – the study also reported that only 23% of the British public knew of a claimed link between fossil fuel burning and potential global warming, a figure that has since tripled thanks to varied media focus and educational programs. This is not the same as saying the same percentage of people agrees with the claim, mind you – knowing the claim exists is not the same as embracing it personally. However it does show that the fundamental facts depend on what the public find to be relevant to their everyday lives and aren’t necessarily beyond learning them.
In addition, public confidence in their understanding of science is low. While an individual prefer to read news reports about the latest innovations in science, they also claim to not be very well informed about it. This comes across as something of a paradox. How can you read a lot about something and still not feel as if you’ve got a good grasp of it, yet still continue to like it?
By and large, science communicators – a term that covers those who contextualise the results of science for diverse members of the larger community, such as science journalists, marketers, outreach officers and educators – have come to accept that there is a great difference between science as a product and science as a process.
The former is relatively easy to sell. It’s also incredibly easy to spin, hyperbolise and manipulate. Presented with a barrage of seemingly conflicting information, people sense this and so take their daily dose of science with a grain of salt, expecting that today’s cause of cancer will ironically be tomorrow’s cure and today’s global warming will be tomorrow’s global cooling. They’ll happily come to the table and gobble it up if the price is right, telling you how much they like it, but don’t expect them to ask who cooked it.
For skeptics, this should be a perfect niche. Skepticism is primarily concerned with the values and thinking that go into the scientific methodology. But it’s science communication’s hard problem.
Unfortunately, skeptics are quick to return to the mistakes made by communicators and educators. In the past, it’s been believed that people believe the wrong thing because they simply don’t know any better. Hence, if you ‘fill the deficit’, there’s a good chance they’ll come around. The deficit model of education continues to be a robust myth employed desperately by people hoping to get people to abandon their naïve and ignorant ways, and yet continues to fail. Delivered to the choir, it has the appearance of success by putting words to what they already suspected, without truly creating a new way of thinking.
Even worse are the outreach efforts that have no real prior goal other than a vague sense of improvement in the public’s awareness of how silly something sounds and how sensible science must be. In February 2010, protests were held in various cities around the world against the sale of homeopathic treatments in general pharmacies, nominally in the British owned ‘Boots’ chain. The so-called ’10:23’ suicide staged the swallowing of a quantity of homeopathic pills to show the passing public how ineffective they were.
It’s difficult to know precisely what the goal was. Was it just a protest? Was it to convince the public that homeopathic tablets didn’t work? To embarrass the pharmacies to stop selling them? A hopeful mix of results? This depends on who you ask, ultimately.
Like Boobquake, expressing concerns about the impact of such outreach efforts is more often than not rewarded with defensive cries of ‘it’s just a bit of fun showing how silly it is’ or ‘get a sense of humour’. And if they were just intended as a show-piece tantrum drawing attention to how a group of individuals feel about something, then that would be fine. Protests in the name of feminism or against ideas perceived as oppressive, dangerous or just plain silly have a rather self-evident, simple goal – to advertise to the world that a group of people don’t agree with it.
However, for skeptics who actually desire a public change in attitude and have hope that the next generation will have a better grasp of critical thinking, protests and stunts shouldn’t be considered as part of the solution. What’s more, they should be considered as potentially counterproductive, sacrificing the very things that make science so useful for a grab for headlines and nodding heads. In the very least, they should be treated as if they will actually produce some form of results.
Dismissing criticism of such events is no different than those who defend religion, alternative medicine or a belief in fairies as in the least harmless and at the most productive thanks to the mere possibility of their illusionary benefits. Placebo protests are fundamentally little different to placebo medicines, and demand the very same critical evaluation for evidence.
There will be more Boobquakes, homeopathic suicides and similar skeptic protests in the future. They’re simple and get a response that satisfies our confirmation-biased brains. Such events aren’t intrinsically good or bad. But to claim they’re useful for engaging the public in science, promoting skepticism or encouraging more people to think critically simply isn’t supported by the evidence.
[1] Durant, J.R., Evans, G.A., Thomas, G.P., (1989), The public understand of science, Nature 340: 13 – 14
Excellent piece. Is there any research underway of planned to help us determine what works, how we could be measuring outcomes and designing campaigns/outreach?
Seems to me to be an ideal topic for any of the TAM’s.
There is ongoing research in various fields exploring the topics relevant to public engagement and how to effectively change epistemology. Journal of Science Communication is a good starting point (http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/01) for a selection of academic research, as is engaging with science outreach communities like the BA or Academy of Sciences or investigating the work done by groups like Australia’s CPAS (Centre for Public Awareness of Science). There are also a wide variety of education journals and associations that evaluate and investigate methods and programs for teaching scientific thinking. I strongly recommend skeptic groups to network with existing science outreach initiatives and look at ways of pooling resources for achieving shared goals.
I think there’s an interesting point in this essay, but it’s buried under an incoherent ramble of a central argument, which is a shame.
The valid point is that many skeptic and wider science communication efforts are dismal when it comes to assessing impact. Either it’s not done, or it’s done in unscientific ways.
But statements like “protests and stunts shouldn’t be considered as part of the solution” are just irrational, and you’ve presented no evidence to support them, or your criticism of either boobquake or 10:23. Which is a bit shoddy.
Martin: Many thanks for the feedback. On reflection, I feel I should retract the words ‘part of’ for that statement, as you’re correct that it is unsupportable. There might well be a way of engaging a protest that does not impede aims to change epistemology. Admittedly, I haven’t seen one, and suspect that the very nature of protests and stunts is antagonistic to teaching critical thinking. However you are correct, and I should state that they should not in their own right be THE solution, leaving room for the possibility of a protest or stunt that might be done in such a way that people can still learn to appreciate effective evaluation skills.
A significant problem with protests is that they arise from a passionate need for people to accept your conclusion over another, or to join you in your disapproval of a particular conclusion. This emotional plea might have been reached rationally by the protester, however it is put forward on emotional grounds. 10:23 was a perfect example, which engaged in a strawman argument of homeopathy to try to convey a feeling of ‘silliness’ of the practice in order to elicit a response from the public. There was zero critical thinking behind their message and any hope of teaching good critical thinking skills on the back of this would need to deal with the fact that a personal stance on something sounding ‘silly’ is irrelevant on whether it is true or not – it’s the facts that matter. Hence the protest relied on an emotional response that would need to be rebutted afterward anyway.
In my current line of writing (a national sustainability education resource), I need to deal with the hyperbole and emotional greenwashing that are a constant focus of green groups and the media. In personally engaging with the public during the course of this program I’ve found it difficult getting past the pessimistic impression of the world turning into a dessicated wasteland and feeling optimistic about adaptation and innovation. Concepts such as choosing green bags over plastic (which is actually a lot more energy intense and resource-dependent) has been a decision made thanks to protests and stunts, and not the result of good critical thinking. Hence protests – while well intentioned – have sacrificed the very evaluative tools needed for making good decisions in order to say simply ‘believe me because it feels good/ feels right!’.
Ultimately I think skeptic communicators should consider avoiding protests and stunts as motivators for public engagement. While you’re correct in suggesting that there is no evidence that they cannot ever be possibly useful, from my personal experience I feel more ground would be gained through investing resources into education programs and resources and public engagement events that are well thought out, with proper assessment, than to put a heap of hope into a cheap grab for headlines.
And another four paragraphs of unevidence opinions. You still haven’t backed up any of your criticism of 10:23 or Boobquake – both of whom you seem to have a real ideological problem with – and you’re still making irrational sweeping statements about the benefits or otherwise of protests and stunts. It’s all from a position of ignorance, because you don’t appear to have spoken to anyone from Boobquake or 10:23 in writing this piece, yet you feel able to make quite offensive comments about their supposed lack of critical thinking.
Yes, it is opinion. Most certainly. And if I was making a clear claim rather than highlighting a deficit of evidence, you would have a point in requesting how I arrived at that claim.
I think it’s clear that I’ve stated there seems to be no evidence of protests or stunts providing benefits by way of educating people in critical thinking; i.e. changing epistemology. It might be hidden away somewhere, true, however my criticisms aren’t exactly novel, and yet most critical responses I do get are attacking my gall in daring to raise the question rather than presenting me with anything substantial that might lead me to change my views. Hence if by ‘ignorance’ you mean those behind 10:23 or Boobquake have not personally shared their secret stash of goals and evaluations, then count me ignorant. Otherwise, unless you can point out something specific that I’ve misunderstood about their efforts, I have to disagree.
In any case, my criticisms are based on logic if nothing else: protests such as these – by their very nature – aim to promote a conclusion through emotional reasoning, not a critical thinking process. The evidence for this is reflected in 10:23′s protest – a strawman claim that encourages people to think homeopathy is bunk because it sounds silly. Perhaps that is an offensive thought to those who wish to believe they are benefiting education in critical thinking. As a skeptic, would you truly avoid criticising the claims of another for want of evidence, based on your personal values and experience, purely because it might be offensive?
Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Your initial criticism was indeed valid and prompted me to rethink, which was appreciated.
This reminds me of Bigfoot debates in some ways, when skeptics and believers go back and forth.
The person making the initial claim (i.e. Bigfoot exists or 10:23 was educational) are the ones who need to provide proof.
When a skeptic asks for proof of these claims, and instead is met with “Well, what proof do you have that Bigfoot DOES NOT exist (or 10:23 was NOT educational), the believer seems to be missing the point that they made the original claim.
Do Boobquake and 10:23 not at least provide historical data? Was there a spike in earthquake activity during Boobquake? Did anyone suffer sever consequences from overdosing on sugar pills or water? (and there are homeopaths who argue that some effect should be noticed when unsymptomatic people take their remedies)
Whilst the two events may not provide evidence, and certainly not proof, they surely have some relevance as data for when someone makes claims about hedonistic earthquakes or homeopathic provings.
I did like the QED vodka video on YouTube demonstrating how homeopathic ‘cures’ are made. Most people I talk to have absolutely no idea how they are prepared. I have referred the video to many friends as a teaching tool. But of course, these were not ‘true believers’, just people who took them, because it had been recommended by one.
Hello, I was wondering if any of you has an experience or tryed this supplement. They make some bald claims and I don’t know what to believe about it, I’ve watched the videos and i can say i’m a bit impressed. Can anyone share if they had an experience with this “miracle soultion” they call MMS? I found it on this website cancercure.themmsmiracle.info but seems there is an entire culture around the world.
I kind of find myself in great need, i’m a bit ill and my father has cancer so i am willing to try anything that could heal this cancer. I would really appreciate your oppinions.