The question is this:Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. DUH.
Over the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years, in a diverse and pluralistic society that has to reach collective decisions relatively quickly regarding political debates over global warming, the teaching of evolutionary science in science class (and only evolutionary science), stem cell research etc...what's the best way to engage the broader public by way of the media?
While remaining true to the underlying science, you have to recast messages in a way that connect to people's social identity. And yes, in the United States, that means connecting to people of diverse faiths.
Do you honestly think this is news? You think youre bringing novel ideas to the table? What??
I guess this is our major difference in opinion. If I understand you correctly, you see this as appeasing religion. I don't see it that way.Here is a real problem, that you and Chris are either unable or unwilling to address. Brace yourself here: I am not Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins will always play an important role. As we write at the Washington Post, we agree with him on evolution and admire his books. Indeed, our credentials as skeptics and defenders of science are well established.
I am a 5'8" chick with blue eyes, long brown hair, and (Ive been told) a *cute* voice, that wears polo shirts from Old Navy. Im not how most Christians/Muslims/etc would picture an 'atheist', so I can slide in cognito through even the most fundamentalist theistic environments.
And I have difficulty getting past the Iron Curtain gate keepers.
Stop enabling their behaviors by 'blaming' atheism. Oh, or even better idea, why dont you all focus your energies on solving the Iron Curtain problem, rather than pointing out the sky is blue.
One tool is to understand how to frame issues--not spin the facts--but recast a complex topic in a way that makes it meaningful to a non-traditional audience. In addition, you have to figure out the media platforms that reach these non-traditional audiences.Like blogs. Like books. Again, thanks for that fantastic revelation.
As Ive said before, this blog is an outlet for my frustration at being stopped over and over and OVER by the Iron Curtain. Its currently the only way I can reach non-traditional audiences.
Fine. Ive already offered to help these endeavors. Wheres your script? Wheres your director? Lets go.
That means for example the religious news beat, entertainment media, blockbuster movies, targeted documentaries, and places on the Web where people are not expecting to find science-related information. It even means reaching people interpersonally, as I layout in my latest column for Skeptical Inquirer Online.
In these contexts, it is often most effective, to remain true to the science, but sometimes not actually talk about it.We're just gonna pretend you didnt say that.
Not all of the themes addressed here can be sorted out in the blogosphere. After all, every medium has limitations. Indeed, Chris and I are trying to work across mediums--including magazines, newspapers, blogs, radio, and public presentations--to raise attention to what we see as a partial answer to a very specific question that a lot of people are trying to figure out.This is the phrase that would have made me throw my drink at you if we were 'talking about it over beers.'
We even want to go the old fashioned route and talk about it over beers or over the phone.
Aw gee, Chris and you are trying to work across mediums. If only other people would take your lead! If only there were science magazines! If only there were science sections in newspapers! If only there were science blogs! If only there were science podcasts! If only there were science public presentations! If only scientists talked with their friends about science over beers and over the phone!
Lets raise our glasses to Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney, True American Science Pioneers!
My question has officially been answered. Nisbet and Mooney are that naive.