Episode Nine – On Skepticism And Communication
*sigh….* I know. Three episodes still to be posted, one which was redone. Thankfully, the weekend is here after my first week of back-to-work and the world will be set right again! Thanks to everyone who has listened to the ‘365 Days of Astronomy‘ podcast and heard my sponsorship plug and came to check this out!
When I was at the recently held 10:23 Event at the Perth Skeptics, plenty of new people came to ask questions about what skeptics and skepticism is achieving. They included such things as ‘is this really science communication?’ Could we be doing more harm than good by such stunts or is it part of an important ‘bigger picture’ that’s being presented? What should be the next step? Were people drawn in because of nerdy stereotypes or skeptics being ‘sexed-up’ – and is it misleading or preventing progress to go down those paths when promoting skepticism?
All of these notions and views have intrigued me since taking part in the ‘What Do I Do Next? Leading Skeptics Discuss 105 Practical Ways to Promote Science and Advance Skepticism’ document. In response to my experiences I took an opportunity to speak to Michael McRae, a science communicator and former science teacher.
Really good episode Kylie. I must say that it broadened my view of the topic of being skeptical of skeptics. I was focusing on the whole being skeptical of what other skeptics say and the focus on evidence in examining claims. But I think Mike hit the nail on the head with communication and education. Two things that came from the episode is that: we need to network with people outside the skeptical community, scientists and people with specialist knowledge in important areas like communication and education. As with everything else we do we need to base our outreach/blogging activities on evidence
Thanks Sean – I’m sure that some people might cherry-pick and think it was negatively done. But to take that approach is to ignore what is clearly an effort to embrace and support skepticism on the whole, with those who hold similar agendas. I think the advice that was given is useful for anyone and we certainly can see how in the UK, that such overlap is happening.
I find myself increasingly grateful that we live in times where I can have both online and real-life dialogue with a variety of people involved in education, academia, social networking, advertising, Science Communication (just check out episodes of Skeptic Zone with the likes of Rob Morrison, Prof. Leonie Rennie, even Dr Karl) and people who label themselves as part of a skeptic group – and know that ultimately, there’s more commonalities than differences.
I think it’s perhaps time for people to assess what ‘plans’ they might have. It’s not enough to just be reactive. It was a lesson I learned back in 2007, when my Head of Department said ‘what do you really want to do – short, medium and long term?’ and it was the first person who ever asked me that.
I still have the response I wrote down and although it was mostly ranging from humble-seeming to grander goals like ‘write for a publication and be paid for my writing’; ‘finish my degree’ and ‘contribute to an academic paper in the field of psychology’, I’ve found it’s helped me keep going. Maybe not all of my goals were completely realistic – but if I were ever questioned, I knew that I could at least account to myself.
Must somewhat disagree with the opinions of Michael McRae. Its true sceptics need to get more ‘political’ to get things done, but it’s not like the ‘establishment’ has got many runs on the board either. Perhaps they have achievements but what examples were put forward?
At least the sceptical podcasters have alerted people to issues we previously were unaware of (information is power).
Dear Robert,
I think you may have missed the point, somewhat? And there were examples given that you may have missed:
The examples that Michael put forward of ‘many runs on the board’ (as you put it):
* at the 16.17 minute mark – Eugenie Scott and NCSE. They are not a ‘skeptic group’.
* at the 16.40 minute mark – the Academy of Science, the Australian Science Communicators convention.
* at the 17.05 – Wilson DeSilva, the editor of Cosmos Magazine.
* at the 18.34 – he mentions it again and skeptical articles in that.
* at the 18.50 mark – publications – the ABC and Robyn Williams (and I mention how Robyn Williams helped me get this essay onto his radio show).
He also mentioned earlier in the show this group: Primary Connections: http://www.science.org.au/primaryconnections/
Science Communication, as a field, is reflected in many institutions:
* http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk – Sense About Science – also supports Simon Singh;
* http://sciencecircus.questacon.edu.au – Questacon Science Circus
* http://cpas.anu.edu.au – Center for the Public Awareness of Science
* http://www.asc.asn.au – Australian Science Communicators
* http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ – The Wellcome Trust
* the British Science Association (formerly known as the British Association for the Advancement of Science) which organises National Science and Engineering Week, an annual Science Communication Conference, and the annual BA Festival of Science)
* http://www.whyscience.co.uk – the ‘Why Science?’ project by Alom Shaha
You might like to listen to Skeptic Zone Podcast (www.skepticzone.tv) Episode #22 with Alom Shaha; Episode #67 with Eugenie Scott; Episode #42 with Prof Leonie Rennie and even Episode #27 and Episode # 6 with the famous Science Communciators Dr Rob Morrison and Dr Karl Kruselnicki? They are all examples of Science Communicators.
As I said at the start of the interview, Michael McRae works for the CSIRO – Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. He’s been involved in a few of the above groups too.
The ‘Establishment’ (are you sure that’s the right word you want?) as you put it, have actually made significant changes (or as you put it, ‘runs on the board’?) to how science is viewed world-wide. Have a look at the groups I linked to.
Unlike skeptic groups – the field of Science Communication can actually show you via legitimate research how much change they have made to the public understandings of science – who is being educated, what demographics they’re reaching – they are also consistently being made accountable as to funding and what projects and research they undertake.
Skeptical podcasts may be able to point to audience numbers, but how much change does that make to policy changes or having people understand better? Is there any real data on that? That is what Michael asks at the 14.30 second point of the show.
As for ‘skeptical podcasts’ being so powerful (as you seem to believe), I’d like to hazard that publications like The Skeptic, the conferences like The Amazing Meeting, television shows like Penn and Teller’s and many other science mediums are probably more influential, but not as influential as they could be, for many reasons. Some of which will be discussed on the next show (funding, comes to mind!).
I doubt, for example, that many people besides skeptics are currently listening to my podcast… I hope to change that by having the majority of my show focusing on general issues involving supernatural beliefs.
I hope you listen to the next episode – I’ll be holding a conversation between the President of the Australian Skeptics, Eran Segev and Michael McRae and you’ll perhaps understand a little more as to what’s being said?
Thanks for subscribing.