Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people?

I would say far more than that.

people in most fields have to "dumb down" when communicating with a wider audience, and unless you are good at using analogy you may not be able to explain the point you are making easily.

If you haven't had training in dealing with the media, you may not think to double check that they have understood you, and you may not ask to see a copy before it goes to press so that you can check, and once they have reported you as saying "x" when you actually said "y" it becomes very difficult to retract it ... the public tends to see YOU as changing your mind, rather than inaccurate reporting in the first place..

scientific agencies/research institutes should employ a media officer who puts out authorised media releases (as politicians do), and these should be the source of all media reports on scientific issues.

that way they could guarantee more accurate media coverage of scientific issues.

 

Yeah, look at scientists when they're being interviewed by the media and they'll say that they came up with a theory blah blah blah and whatever and it leads people to think that a theory is something scientists come up with a 3am in the morning on their 7th cup of coffee when in actual fact the scientist was trying to use the word theory in the more common and not scientific way. He was actually talking about coming up with a hypothesis.

It is one of those areas, science, where they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if they do and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if they don't.

If they use scientific words then people go, "Stupid scientist is talking a bunch of gobblygook," and if they "dumb" it down for the audience people think that they are actually being spoken to in scientific terminology and then when they hear another scientist speaking in "gobblygook" they apply the dumbed down version of the terms to that.

 

Agreed Cass - if one wants examples of experts unable to get the message across successfully one has to go no further than the medical field where miscommunication is rife - and made worse by so called "internet experts" who tell you they have "researched the problem fully" and now "know more than the so-called "experts"

 

I can't remember how many people have told me that my doctors are wrong about why I get tachycardia and PVCs, migraines, etc. They know because they looked it up.

 

that pretty well sums it up.

thats why they need specially trained communication experts to deal with PR.

 

I think Richard Dawkins explains the differences between theory, fact, hypothesis, etc really well and explains them then in layman terms to compare the scientific terms with the layman versions, like theory is as close to the layman term fact that science can get, etc. The problem is that the right wing antiscience types see him as an atheist first and a scientist a very distant, well, last and so they just ignore what he says.

 

absolutely!

I have come across them so many times ... and I am amazed at how many multiple health problems some of these people seem to have, when if they spent a bit of time getting out and getting some exercise, instead of searching the internet for reasons why they aren't feeling the best, half of their problems would disappear.

 

A couple of months ago the NTEU had a list of words, and showed what scientists mean by these words, and what the general public thinks they mean. I will have to find it. there are about twelve words and it would be really useful to refer to it in the discussions we have here.

don't know if it is online though.

 

Let me guess, theory means guess, fact means proven, law means proven theory?

 

theory meant idea, I think

when I go back to work I will dig it out.

remind me if I forget!

 

That is right - and homeopathy will fix it for you!!

 

Yeah! There are a couple that translate to "get off your bum" Unfortunatley many of these are chronic conditions that end with being treated with the current flavour of the month - which used to be a benzodiazepam, then went to SSRI and now is slow release opiate - but please do not confuse my cynicism with refusal to consider either alternate diagnoses or alternate therapies - for these conditions

 

the alternate therapies that work for these conditions are generally getting exercise, eating properly and getting a life.

sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but in alot of cases these are the most effective treatments.

I DO understand that there are chemical components to depression, however exercise IS a very important therapy even so, as it releases endorphins.

but probably the most important thing is that people who choose to live a healthy lifestyle feel like they are taking control of their lives, and that is a major feel-good boost.

that said - I understand that there are many people who do need chemical treatments for depression. sometimes this is a first step towards getting well, but it should not - in most cases, be an end in itself. Usually it should be combined with counselling, often with a CBT focus which can than help the client move on and make the choices to engage in a healthier lifestyle

 

If Al Gore died tomorrow, the world would still be warming, and we would still be responsible for it.

 

Al Gore is an ex-politician from America - end of story. America does not have the overriding influence outside of it's borders that you seem to think it has.

But in truth many scientists are very unconcerned about who is associated with an idea and are far far more likely to listen if the promoter is someone with good scientific references

It is a feature of many Denialilsts that they will associate a belief system with either a party or a personality - this is a very common human fallacy and one exploited well by the advertising industry otherwise we would never see the names of famous people endorsing products. True scientists and people with scientific slant to their thinking dismiss these associations and instead look at the facts themselves.

 

This thread has reached the limit on posts.