MeatballWiki |
RecentChanges |
Random Page |
Indices |
Categories
Science has its own language with its own
OralCulture. Science language, frequently excluding the social domain, builds a powerful mathematical framework to solve technical problems.
As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Further, science has a privileged role in contemporary society because it is so potent.
Thus, not only are there the same problems of translating meaning from vocabulary to another, but there is a lot of anxiety about science. People who do not understand science can at least appreciate its consequences, whereas scientists who operate solely within the linguistic world of science often do not appreciate its consequences. This creates a power imbalance that leads to a lot of conflicts.
Finally, the language of science is based on a thought framework that is unnatural to the human brain. It's based primarily on logic and reason, which are systems and processes of action that lead to conclusions that are more effective in certain domains than our innate and instinctual thought processes. This is why we spend so long in school learning mathematics and some people do not understand it. That also means many well meaning and even successful adults do not understand the basic precepts and concepts that underly much of scientific discourse. And of course many unsuccessful adults do not understand science, and thus they feel insecure as unempowered individuals in a scientific society.
Therefore, when PresentingScience, one must be mindful of several layers of reactions and balance them skillfully to give the greatest impact without creating needless friction or anxiety.
In general, one must:
- Convey meaning informally. That is, without mathematics or jargon.
- Do not overexaggerate the importance. (Conversely, you can scare or impress people with overreaching claims which they will believe)
- Relate the development to their lives.
- Frankenstein's Monster. Many people have bogeyman fears of technology. They presume that genetic modification of food will result in mutations in themselves. People with fish allergies were afraid of the prospect of splicing arctic cod anti-freeze genes into tomatoes (which was also a completely fictional story). ArtificalIntelligence? is here to control us. It isn't exactly a happy situation if your dog have [dog allergies] either. And statistics show that about 11 million people suffer from dog allergies.
- Save jobs. Technology exists to kill jobs. That's Taylorization at its finest. If you can alleviate people's insecurity over their job position, noting they are often less empowered than the scientist or engineer building the next wave of technology, they are a lot less likely to resist the technology.
- Demonstrate humanity. TechnologicalDeterminism makes technology seem more mythic and magical and potent and powerful than it really is. For someone trying to sell snake oil, that works well, because people will buy into the myth. However, the reality is that the only important thing in life are people, and thus if you demonstrate the social or human element to the technology, people are much more likely to understand the technology or scientific achievement for what it really is than if you sell them on the myth.
- Use analogies, not jargon. Rather than using jargon, use an analogy that reframes the concepts underlying the structure of the science in terms that TheAudience is familiar with. Everything in life is related to each other in some way. It is not that difficult to find analogies, especially at the level of abstraction you are likely using to present science.
- Plain English. Always use plain English when communicating to others. This has nothing to do with presenting science, per se, but it should be restated.
- No icons. Don't surround your presentation in icons and tropes of technolust and TechnologicalDeterminism. Use readable fonts, not cryptically small fonts that make it harder to read--because things that are hard to read are obviously more "smart". Don't use a star field or a blueprint as your background. Don't play into the great conceits of science. Don't brandish the religious symbols of the Church of Science.
- Be reasonable Some people are just not able to understand somethings. Let them enjoy what they do understand and don't make a fuss about what they don't. Maybe in time they will, maybe they won't. In the end, it's not all that important if they understand every little detail.
- Let people ask question Science is not about answers, it's mostly about asking the right questions. Don't explain everything, give the few who want to know more the chance to come up to you and ask questions. It will be a much smaller group, and you can focus on the individuals which really care about science. Also: you will not bore the wrong people with things they don't understand or will never care about.
- Show, don't tell If at all posible make a demonstration, think of the (British) RoyalInstitutionsChristmasLectures? which presents science in honest why, mostly by making elaborate (but understandable) demonstrations or experiments. Science in the end is about experiments and testing theories. Let the people make their own conclusions based on the theorie and the facts as demonstrated.
Discussion
I like the advice on this page, but not some parts of the introduction. Science is not a language. Perhaps we need WhatIsScience. It is also not clear to me, who the targets of this page are. Meatball as a "scientific system", the scientists in general - or science journalism. -- HelmutLeitner
- My guess is that many of the people here are more scientifically educated then most of the people in their communities. We all however share a scientific culture, even though most people do not them selfs understand science very much. At least in part it therefor falls to us (if I may be so blunt and assume that we are scientists) that we will present science is a honest, humble and useful way to the people who do not share our understanding or knowledge. We need to be interpreters of sorts. -- Gideon FormerContributor?
Specifically, my context is that these are the notes I took at the Subtle Technologies artists meet scientists festival from May 2004. My target audience were artists, and I'm speaking as if I were the one presenting complex ideas like the nature of the InternetProtocol. However, the lessons extend from there. I find myself frequently at the KnowledgeMediaDesignInstitute having to explain complex computer science to sociologists, humanities students, etc.; I also find myself having to learn sociology, arts, etc. as someone with a computer scientist background. One day perhaps I'll have a page on PresentingArt?. -- SunirShah