Want to Promote Critical Thinking?
I was asked the other day (it wasn't the first time) what advice I'd have for young people who want to be science communicators and promote critical thinking. Hmmm… I thought for a minute, because I wanted to give a useful answer, not a canned answer like “Study hard, get a degree, read Carl Sagan.” While those may be fine ideas, they're hardly the steps to becoming an effective communicator.
Here is the advice I finally gave. Come up with a good idea. An outrageous idea. A concept that will turn heads, the kind of thing that will hit a million views on YouTube. Get good at it. Test it and tweak it until it's popular. And then, figure out how to insert a message of critical thinking into it.
Yes, the science is merely the secret payload. The idea is not to be an eloquent communicator (Carl Sagan), a knowledgeable and articulate communicator (Steven Novella), or an iconic communicator (James Randi). The idea is to be effective, combining three things: Good science content; a fabulous personality that will put butts in seats; and an awesome idea, some kind of a show or act that will grab everyone's attention regardless of their interest in science. That's being effective.
Mitchell and Webb are effective science communicators, even though much of their work is not science related. Neil Degrasse Tyson has the personality to become an effective communicator, but he lacks a vehicle. Penn and Teller are effective science communicators, but like Mitchell and Webb, much of their output is about other things (which is fine). The Internet is bursting at the seams with outrageous videos, but almost none of them center around a magnetic personality and good science content.
My advice for the young person who wants to promote critical thinking? Study comedy writing. Go to clown college. Get a job in Hollywood. Concentrate on the killer concept. If you summit those peaks, then, and only then, will you be in a position to become an effective communicator.
(The author notes unashamedly that has summited none of these peaks and is not likely to in the near future; but enjoys sitting in his corner and making his little podcast for his limited audience.)
Sounds like you’re describing Jon Stewart…
Thank goodness for John Stewart.
Although bringing reason and common sense to the political world may be a lost cause.
You don’t think Nova Science Now is a good vehicle for Neil Degrasse Tyson?
That’s correct. Preaching to the choir is all well and good, but it’s not an effective way to reach the masses.
What makes you think that Nova Science Now is just preaching to the choir?
or that Penn & Teller are effective science communicators?
“Go to clown college. Get a job in Hollywood.”
As a critical thinker I am impelled to ask, “And the difference is exactly what?”
Thanks for this, Brian. I really like the comedy writing idea, but I also feel like a good familiarity with scientific intricacies is important, as it is so easy to make false or misleadingly oversimplified assertions without it (coughcough Penn & Teller cough global warming cough).
I think I will get my degree, but now I think I might work harder on my comedy writing.
Your “limited audience” appreciates it. :)
That’s a tough one since it not only requires a lot of practice, but opportunities as well. On a daily basis and with people you meet on the streets, I’d be more inclined to Carl Sagan’s style of practicing to think for a few seconds (or minutes) before responding to something. I can’t recall Carl Sagan confronting the likes of Ray ‘Banana’ Comfort (how did he handle such lost causes – surely he must have run into them) but on some other topics he’d simply explain what has been discovered and how it was discovered. Then there are the times when he didn’t give much of a response to statements but he’d obviously written things down and thought about it for a long time – and then written a book. Sometimes “I don’t think so” is enough to shut up that taxi driver who’s telling you all about the latest UFO news, but on the other hand you might want to leave him talking and ask a few questions while you write notes and figure out where to find out more about the various UFO stories.
As for the lost causes – just look at Steve Novella’s last post. Some kook shows up, making a point to declare that he’s a “Dr.” (though apparently not MD), and spouts pure bullshit which may befuddle Joe Average but which simply enrages scientists like me. It’s like having an astrologer show up at an Astronomy conference and start talking about how the latest astronomical discoveries support their astrological “theories”. Oprah’s audience may not know the difference, but it will surely annoy the astronomers.
Even for people whose job it is to determine how to “reach the masses” it can be an elusive task. For instance,ABC let ‘All In The Family’ go to CBS because they were nervous about the shows content. ‘Seinfeld’ nearly was let go by NBC to FOX but Fox declined. So two of the most successful shows in TV history were not initially seen for the potential that they had. It may seem tempting to try to ferret out what constitutes a winnable formula for popular success, but the dust bins of popular media are littered with failures of producers trying to formulate a hit,rather than taking original ideas,and just giving them a reasonable chance.
It’s true that many factors need to come together for a show on critical thinking to break through the barriers of ‘me too-ness’ type programing, but I doubt that trying to concoct a strategy to make something interesting based off of ‘what do people want to see’,will work. The creative process will need to come first and produce something,and then it will have to be promoted and (hopefully) appreciated for its uniqueness and potential to entertain and educate.
If promoters of critical thinking don’t actually grasp critical thinking, this advice can backfire: e.g. Penn & Teller’s episode on second hand smoke.
Comedy is a good route to take. Mitchell and Webb, Penn & Teller, Mr. Deity, Mythbusters; they all use comedy in some way while delivering their message. Plus it is the least threatening method to reach people and thusly more likely to be effect. Even the Big Bang Theory, a sitcom, delivers science content to a certain level, again using comedy.
Bill Nye, the bought-out guy?
I love Secrets of the Dead. It often times illustrates, how poor reasoning can lead to tragic outcomes. It’s also very good at informing the viewer about how the investigators came to their conclusions, and why.
I’ve gotta say, I don’t get this. An effective science communicator is someone who effectively communicates science, not someone who reaches as many people as possible with a gimmick and hopes the science gets through.
Understanding the science is the most important component since you can’t communicate what you don’t understand. People who attempt to promote critical thinking and science without a clear understanding of how those things work do more harm than good.
The most difficult part of delivering the message is not solved by charm or gimmicks, either. The most difficult part is getting past the human need to maintain beliefs. To do that, you need to develop materials with those behaviors in mind – materials that encourage the audience to doubt their current beliefs.
Why am I not surprised that you got in first on this again? :P
You’ve got it in one. There is an assumption that gimmick + something ‘sciency’ = science promotion. An additional assumption is that big numbers equates big impact. Unfortunately neither of these is a fair conclusion.
The truth is that there isn’t a single, effective means of promoting science or getting people to think critically or scientifically. Given science is a spectrum of values, concepts, processes and discoveries, encouraging the public to value science requires a multidirectional approach. Note this doesn’t equate a random, throw as much out there and hope it sticks approach, but a well reasoned, evaluated engagement.
Indeed, the biggest influences on the development of good critical thinking skills are age and extent of the level of integration of thinking skills (i.e., critical literacy extends beyond just science topics).
One thing I really have to emphasise is what badrescher says here: “People who attempt to promote critical thinking and science without a clear understanding of how those things work do more harm than good.” I’d go further and say those who attempt to communicate science and critical thinking without attempting to be informed on how communication or their topic works risk doing more harm than good.
I became interested in science, not because of my science classes, but rather Star Trek, X-Files, and other science fiction. I wanted to know if all that stuff that I was absorbing (brain space I will never get back ;-) was true. Could I make a phaser? was there a moth man? If we did make a bunch of robots to do the menial stuff, would we really need Asimov’s three laws? So, at least for me, the “scienceness” got me to the hard science, and the more pressing, serious stuff. I suspect a lot of kids, grew into a technical, or scientific career, via this route.
Science shows like Nova, et al, are good because they generate an interest in science. In fact, I think that is their stated purpose, as opposed to teaching science. They provide a general overview, simply because the format of tv, generally doesn’t allow for long, indepth, course work. That’s what class rooms, and field and lab work are for.
They may not always “get it right” but no one does, and it’s up to the viewer (if so inclined) to verify the claims, being made. Don’t get me wrong, none of this absolves a producer from basic fact checking, and editing content to elicit the best communication possible, but he medium is very limiting. Television is one way communication, it can’t answer any of the audience members questions, like one can in a class room setting.
So, beyond the basic fact checking, and efficient communication, we really can’t expect much else. Nova, and Secrets of the Dead, usually do a great job at directing people to websites, where they can “learn more…” of course, thoes are both PBS shows, and PBS has a different charter, than a for-profit television station.
Please don’t take this the wrong way (I hear what you’re saying and agree completely), but it seems odd to me that whenever I make the claim as I did above, nine times out of ten I get a response that is a personal account of how a particular resource/event/person motivated them to take an interest in science.
There are two problems with this, and the irony is that they should be fairly obvious if one thinks critically about the situation. We know that treating personal anecdotes as evidence is problematic, as there’s no dealing with variables, sample size, etc. They’re significant because they’re personal, of course, but beyond that they’re close to useless. Skeptics are quick to dismiss them…unless they support something they already presume to be true. Then they’re used as evidence. :)
Now, I don’t disagree that science fiction can have an impact on how a child perceives science. I also loved sci-fi as a kid. However, it would be a mistake to perceive the relationship as simple or causal. I know a lot of science-fans who hate sci-fi, for example. I know quite a few sci-fi fans who treat science as equivalent to science-magic and aren’t very literate in science methodology or critical thinking. Simply liking stuff that feels ‘sciency’ does not equate science literacy, let alone critical thinking.
I firmly believe sci-fi can be a useful tool (and have used it myself to teach science methodology to great effect), but as I said above, there is no single path that on its own can promote critical thinking. I can say with confidence that if I had not considered various factors in how science works, teaching sci-fi as a unit would not have had the same effect at promoting critical thinking and science methodology.
Undoubtedly there were other influences in your life that nudged your values towards rationalism. Sci-fi certainly would have been an obvious factor to you, but to focus primarily on it would mean missing the numerous other factors that are equally – if not more – important.
I don’t think Brian has given very good advice here. He didn’t go to clown school did he? his video Here Be Dragons, didn’t suceed because of its glitzy production value.
Explosions, partial nudity and other Hollywood fare are not the things that put people in the mindset of critical thinking.
Besides, its not like making it in holllywood is easy, you’d be there competing with people WHO LOVE MOVIES, where as you would be, i imagine, a more bookish type…
of course if your a sceptic who is also a massive movie buff….
People love the easy answer and they want their emotions fed. Untruths in sound bites and outright lies will always be 80% of mass communications. Look at what flourishes. Call me a cynic.