In the left side bar, I have had a standing policy on comments for the past year. Here's what it says:
Keep it substantive, serious minded, on topic, and respectful.
Somewhat curiously, the only time I actually have to take action to enforce the comment policy is when a swarm of ardent faithful from PZ Myers' blog suddenly surges over here to complain about any criticism of PZ or any suggestion that diverts from the path of militant atheism. It's what physicist Chad Orzel describes in this post as the "screechy monkey" problem.
Politics
Comments
I generally disagree with PZ Myer's form of communication and am far from a militant atheist, but the fact that in a few lines of text, you ask people to be respectful and then call some people a swarm of screechy monkeys doesn't speak highly of your communication skills. While Chris Mooney is working through a respectful attempt to understand the opinions of others, you seem to be trying your hardest to ignore them except when you want to insult them.
I understand this topic is your research and a significant portion of your life's work. I understand that no one likes blunt criticism. Still, remember that many of these "screechy monkeys" are taxpayers who are supporting your research grants and it is your responsibility to try to communicate why your work is worth the money. Many might still disagree, but they deserve at least as much respect and you are asking from them.
Posted by: bsci | April 7, 2008 9:17 AM
bsci,
I've been very active in communicating why my research is worth the money and I have done it very effectively.
-->I've done close to three dozen presentations over the past year and talked face-to-face with several thousand scientists, policymakers, other academics, students, and lay citizens.
-->I regularly post here on the relevance of framing to a range of topics. The top tabs of the blog explain in depth the nature and application of research to science communication.
-->I've done about 40 media interviews on issues related to science communication and/or framing.
-->I followed the Science article with an article at the WPost, a longer cover feature at The Scientist, both articles I link to as PDF copies free for reading. I have also done extended interviews on the topic at the Point of Inquiry podcast.
-->I advise and consult with a range of nonprofits, organizations, and government agencies.
-->I engage almost every serious minded blog post and comment with a respectful, and usually detailed reply.
But if you read what Chad refers to as the "Screechy Monkey" problem, and if you were able to read some of the comments I have moderated at this blog, you start to get a sense of the scope of a different type of problem.
There is nothing I could explain to a small camp of very active and intensely opinionated bloggers and commenters that would generate any type of agreement. They hold to a intense ideology that makes them very different from the rest of the science policy community (my main audience). This ideology translates into different goals, their goal is mainly to promote their preferred brand of atheism.
As Chad Orzel explains, if you veer from their preferred version of atheism and their goals, you are immediately attacked either as a traitor, stupid, or in some cases, as I have been called by Greg Laden, a closet creationist.
In Laden's case, I learned my lesson last year. If you run up against his ideology, you just can't constructively engage with the guy. When the Science article first appeared and he spun it as "deeply flawed," I sent him a personal email with PDFs of past studies attached. As I recall, he later described his questioning the validity of framing as a way to create a distraction, and to refocus things on the promotion of atheism and attacks on religion.
In the fall I then traveled to Minnesota to engage in a forum and debate on framing with Greg Laden and PZ at the University of Minnesota. In response to our presentation, Laden described us as really doing our homework and offering up some really good suggestions. And then he got on his blog afterwards, and for his readers who were not there, claimed a victory and that he and PZ had whipped us.
So I have attempted a lot of serious minded engagement with the small crowd of readers in the PZ-Greg Laden Land of the blogosphere. I will continue to offer a serious critique of what I see as some of the unintended consequences of the New Atheist movement for building public trust in science. And I will also continue to offer suggestions on how atheists can move in other ways to repair their public image and to promote secularism.
Readers from PZ-Greg Laden Land are more than welcome to engage in serious minded replies, but as an editorial policy at my blog, I reserve the right to moderate the comments based on the criteria I list above.
Keep it substantive, serious minded, and respectful.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 7, 2008 10:05 AM
I've read some of your data showing that your methods for science communication have some benefit. I've yet to see you or anyone else publish a shred of data that the New Atheists are actually hurting the cause as opposed to just using a different tactic that is aimed at a different audience. If you've done actual research showing harm (not just opinion pieces), I'd be interested to see references.
I should note that, according to your comment, I am you intended audience. I am a scientist who is interested in better communication. I generally avoid PZ and Laden's blogs. You have not convinced me that you are on to something new and unique and your repeated posts that mix critiques of content with personal insults are not winning me over. Even if you dislike the people who are insulting you, you are sinking to their level and only hurting your own message.
You really need to rethink your goals of this blog and what you are trying to communication about yourself and scientific framing in this forum. You clearly have your desired audience in other, more prestigious forums, so, perhaps, the blogging format just isn't best for your style of communication.
Posted by: bsci | April 7, 2008 10:27 AM
bsci,
I don't disagree that blogs are not the best forum for a serious discussion of many of these themes.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 7, 2008 10:35 AM
In the fall I then traveled to Minnesota to engage in a forum and debate on framing with Greg Laden and PZ at the University of Minnesota. In response to our presentation, Laden described us as really doing our homework and offering up some really good suggestions. And then he got on his blog afterwards, and for his readers who were not there, claimed a victory and that he and PZ had whipped us.
You did make some really good suggestions. But there are some real differences. I recommend the following:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1365
to see an outline of some of these differences, the most important one being in the presumed time scale of change. This is something that I think we could really talk about and have an impact on. Perhaps a joining of framing approaches and educational changes would be the way to go with that.
As for claiming victory, you guys claimed victory on the spot during the "slapdown" ... PZ and I did it on our sites. We were the hosts, you were the guests. Plus, we're Minnesotans... this is our culture. (nice to your face, stab you in the back later, that sort of thing).
Posted by: Greg Laden | April 7, 2008 11:47 AM
this is off-topic for this particular post, but maybe on-topic for the blog as a whole.
People's committments are wide and varied; the discourse over science and religion reflects this. The conversation amongst Christians concerning whether or not the Bible is literally true might well have more impact on the science/religion discourse than anything else. These sorts of committments make discourse almost impossible to guide. It seems to me that `framing', as a pro-active task by scientists, is most effective in narrow, focused efforts (like getting a law passed about stem-cell research). What is unclear to me, in all this kerfuffle, is what framing science is meant to do? Is framing a way to shift the entire discourse to a particular resolution? Or is it tactics for particular issues, which then will be reflected in the discourse at large?
I hope that makes some sense.
Posted by: bill | April 7, 2008 3:34 PM
I note your criteria are all subjective.
Dr. Nisbet, do you offer a warning to those who may innocently transgress before you take action?
PS: Please believe I genuinely have tried to meet your criteria with this comment.
Posted by: John Morales | April 8, 2008 11:34 AM
Hi John,
Any application of criteria is subjective. That's the nature of an editorial policy and its the same type of moderation criteria that are applied at the blogs hosted by say the NYTimes or Washington Post.
There are 2-3 commenters that were warned with emails. When their original comments came through, I emailed them back asking them to check the comment policy in the left side bar and to try reposting. These same individuals, however, have continued a relentless personal attack or have failed to engage in a serious discussion of the issues at hand. Or after receiving a response in the comment section from me, they persist in revisiting the same questions and points over and over again. In that case, they become just noise and off topic.
I'm all for vigorous discussion and fair minded criticism, but I do not have time to deal with relentless personal assaults and attacks that have nothing to do with the substance of ideas. Nor do I have time to engage in the same circular debate with 2-3 commenters who feed on being intentionally belligerent.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | April 8, 2008 11:42 AM
Thank you for the response.
I note other blogs post a public warning and/or keep a register of offenders, which I think is more transparent and instructive to readers.
Posted by: John Morales | April 8, 2008 8:56 PM
as a follow-up to my comment of four days ago: take a look at a post on NeoCaths , or the Neo-Catholics. In particular, this writer notes:
"The Neocaths are ill at ease with modernity. They feel they have seen through the myths of secular humanism, and the liberal culture of democratic discussion which they see as relativistic. They bewail confusion and uncertainty and call for a firm voice of authority to put an end to it."
The discourse about science is influenced by discourses within Christian circles; those at the intersection of these discourses might be best positioned to work within the Catholic discourse on modernity, Biblical literalism and science.
Posted by: bill | April 11, 2008 5:16 PM