“Don't raise your voice, improve your
argument."-Desmond Tutu
I think that the information discussed
in the ASR article provides us, as science writers, with a unique
challenge. It is the challenge to
overcome the confirmation bias of others in a meaningful way, as well as recognize,
combat, and ultimately overcome the biases that exist within us. When an individual contests scientific ideas,
it may arise from a number of different sources: religion, a skepticism of
government-funded research, a particular misunderstanding about the concepts
associated with a theory, or a number of other areas. Because humans are creatures that inherently
seek to explain, it follows that there are myriad ways to interpret and
rationalize a single event or discovery.
As science writers, it becomes our challenge to interest a population in
a different way of looking at the world without demeaning them; ultimately, it
is to open doors to new ways of thinking without excluding those with different
ideas about the world. That is where the
above words become so important. Understanding
that there are many ways of knowing and processing the world is of utmost importance
to anyone looking to educate others. Ultimately,
it is understanding that others come to a ‘teaching relationship’ (because, at
its core, science journalism is a form of teaching—a form of opening doors and
allowing individuals to choose to walk through them or not) with worldviews that may be considered "adaptive" or "maladaptive" by society, and that a teacher has the power to persuade a person to change their views. Choice
is the operative word in this case.
Making a meaningful choice to interpret the world in a certain way is
one of the most intimate and personally-significant values a person holds
dear. When we come to the table with
this understanding (that attacking an individual’s ignorance about science may actually
be attacking the individual), a healthier and more rational consideration of
our differences is possible.
In the past, a healthy skepticism of
science is what has forced scientists to innovate and work to prove different
theories. When we interact with a reader
who is skeptical of a facet of science, it pushes us as writers to create the
most persuasive and salient argument possible without alienating that
reader. So, I think that writing for
skeptical readers calls not for an arsenal of facts and chastisement, but for a
change of tactics. Presenting readers
with a point of view and allowing them to pursue that view to an increase in
scientific literacy is a great goal, but the reader needs to make that
choice. We can help the reader to walk
through the door by making science accessible and compelling, but they must
choose to walk across the threshold. This idea not only makes us better science
writers and scientists, but better people; people who are aware of the
challenges that we face interacting with a diverse population, and who choose
to do so anyway, mindful of the rights of others to make their own
choices. Reading this article and participating
in the ensuing discussion makes me want to push myself to be a better writer;
one who presents the concepts in a fascinating and persuasive manner, but who
is always mindful of the audience and what they bring to the interaction. Reading Ideas
into Words has put the idea about a two-way relationship between writer and
audience into clear perspective for me.
I want to craft a relationship between myself and my reader—introducing the
science, how a discovery shapes my perspective, and providing a “take home”
message that they are free to “take” or leave on the page. Fostering a healthy relationship between myself
and my reader begins with respect and the willingness to learn about their
point of view, just as I wish my readers to have a willingness to understand my
own point of view.
While it is difficult to introduce science
to individuals who prefer to decry it outright, I would maintain that there is
a way to show those who are skeptical to the beauty and excitement of
science. As discussed in class, I think
that there are few people who reject the entire tableau of science. People might pick and choose what to believe,
and the irony is that the concepts that they may choose to believe or contest
may be related in a profound way (such as believing in the existence of germs
while denying evolution). There are ways
to appeal to even the most skeptical readers: maybe it’s showing them the basic
elegance of how a neuron develops or creating connections to the reader’s life
and mental experience that may encourage the reader to continue an exploration
of science. The important thing is to
commit to never shutting the door.
No comments:
Post a Comment