Science In A Polarized World: A Global Town Hall Meeting

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Our age is marked by the proliferation of information, and yet we can’t agree. Science is supposed to be neutral, and yet it has generated some of the deepest societal divides. Why? Our response to scientific information depends on psychology, emotion, peer pressure, politics, and cultural influences. How can we navigate these differences and implement smart policy in a contentious society? Join a vibrant and important global discussion examining the interface between the scientific process and the sometimes unscientific public, as we hurtle headlong into an uncertain future.

PARTICIPANTS: France Córdova, Brian Greene, Dan Kahan, Paul Nurse
MODERATOR: John Donvan
Original program date: JUNE 3, 2017

This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.

- Subscribe to our YouTube Channel for all the latest from WSF

TOPICS:

- Science in a polarized world 00:06

- John Donvan Introductions 05:00

- What is the main issue with science and society? 07:30

- What is the scientific process all about? 13:16

- Paul Nurse talks to skeptics. 21:30

- What is the level of public trust in science? 27:34

- How to connect the scientists to the policy makers. 37:20

- Is the method of how science is presented important? 46:04

- What is the probability of climate change being wrong? 54:05

[kuujiis]

As an American, I personally believe that many of our problems in the public’s scientific understanding stems from a lack of proper information. My university has to spend thousands of dollars per year to provide peer reviewed articles for the students to read when your average Joe has no access to those articles and thinks the first result on google can suffice. If our society was probably educated on how to research any topic, I think we could make great strides towards a better tomorrow

[nickholmes]

The amount of comments saying "Propaganda!" or "I stopped watching after 2 minutes!" is depressing.

Those are EXACTLY the kind of people that need to watch this kind of discussion.

[daignat]

One of the best debates, panels and moderators. Excellent work! OMG I'm so late with this comment!!!! ANyway, excellent, excellent everybody but as always my absolute favorite Brian Greene and his excellent explanations... "and that's how science is self-correcting"!!! Brilliant! Thank you!

[LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly]

Thank you Brian for staying true to Truth.

[nickrode]

I recently obtained my GED and plan on going back to school because of brains book!

[nickrode]

I LOVE astronomy and cosmology and particle physics! Can't wait till I'm back in school!!

[nickrode]

I've been saying this for many years it's scientists engineers geologist Physicians that solve problems we need them in public office

[ViktorSolenoid]

John Dovan is my favourite host. I'm glad you invited him to moderate this discussion

[joshbeaulieu]

Sir Paul Nurse seem to have given this topic the deepest thought. His words of caution should be heeded but will sadly probably be ignored as those with an ideological stake in the matter proceed full speed ahead.

Take the opening for example; a diverse array of views are represented as two opposing viewpoints, educated and uneducated. The polarization is all that is being permitted. We are being forced into tribes that no can no longer communicate with one another.

It is nauseating and anyone who is incapable of examining their own behaviour should stay on the fringes, where they belong.

[alexwaddingham]

Marie needs to understand that society is comprised of individuals and that ultimately restrictions placed upon an individuals freedoms trickle down over generation to generation and create civil unrest and/or the loss of society's freedom to potentially change it's mind.

[levihowell]

I was screaming at the screen for the guy on the left to tell Brian Green that his beliefs and scientific literacy were causing him to disbelieve the statistics he was given and it finally happened. Soooo glad it was said

[subtlesavage]

The true elephant in the room is funding. Which has a close cousin of greed. People don't trust 'gmo' food because they don't understand the science, they don't trust gmo food because they know the gigantic companies which fund/can afford to do it are in it for their own buck, not the publics well-being and health. Sure, the 'scientists' working for Monsanto might be diligent in their work, but they're also paid to do a specific task and shut up about potential risks. Being a scientist doesn't automatically grant you higher moral value. 'Just trust Brian because he's an expert'. Oh really? That's an absurd reductionist argument which basically says 'shut up and obey'. Expert just means you can (and do in the case of Brian) brow-beat people in to submission. We can look at someone like He Jiankui, the Chinese 'scientist' who recently used crispr technology to change the genetics of 2 new-borns. Should we trust him just because he's a scientist? An expert in his field?

[lucasthompson]

at 59:20 you can see another gravitational wave discovery by the BICEP2 team.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

[jonsonator]

I love this white haired guy, explaining the complexity of science communication.

[joshbeaulieu]

Skeptical thought is one of the foundations of science. The fact that so many doubts exist suggests the evidence is less than absolutely convincing.

This discussion seems to be primarily focused on the question "How can we better stop people from questioning what we dictate." and less on the increase in polarization in science.

[polymathpark]

surprised at the lack of views, great topic.

[naimulhaq]

Science of the Standard Model shows how fine tuning led to life and consciousness, shows intelligent design and how we are gifted by winning a series of lotteries in a row (!) ultimately enabling us to discover the mysteries of creation, yet we have no clue how FT occurred. Knowledge always have a hidden side to it and is insurmountable.
Plastics are very helpful and useful, yet they can also be a problem, that we need to address the issue is never doubted by anyone, the problem is how to solve it and who pays for it.
Everyone knows electric cars will solve the environmental pollution/global warming, yet as long as you do not provide alternatives to western can industries, the west will fight back, even if it means harming themselves. The choice between right and wrong is never in doubt.

[Lhunath]

Really, the main issue at hand is science communication, and in my opinion, this episode was a very brave attempt but failed at it in exactly the same way science almost always does. The key points are simply *not* communicated properly for the audience.

Dan makes amazingly good points, albeit incapable of phrasing them in a way that the general public will understand them, and as he clearly demonstrates as well, even scientists have a bias that makes them almost incapable of comprehending the key issues he attempts to highlight.

It's all about communication. And communication is all about *human personality.* Science is so extremely pre-occupied with the facts that it always, and I mean always, forgets about the fact that in communication, there are *two* parties. Communication is *not* about relaying facts. It is about *translating* facts into the language of the individual psyche of the other human being to whom you are relaying those facts. It is not sufficient and therefore not acceptable to merely explain the facts. It is paramount to tie these facts into the pre-existing world views of your audience. If you neglect that last step, every fact that does not already fit in your audience's world view is almost certainly lost to them.

Brian Greene does such a good job of explaining how it's beautiful that scientists self-corrected with respect to the gravitational wave "discovery". But then completely and utterly neglected to take that beautiful opportunity to drive home that this is *exactly* what people need to remember when they think about scientists in the context of climate change. This situation does *not* demonstrate that climate change is just as likely to be proven wrong next year. This situation *does* demonstrate that if climate change had been wrong like that gravitational wave discovery had been, scientists would have already raved about it and disproven it, because so much effort has already been poured into critical thinking on the subject. But Brian does *not* drive this point home. To him, this is implicit in what he said prior, but it really, very much, is *not* so. Not to a general audience.

Finally, the subject came up a few times but was never properly highlighted: people polarize on actions that should be taken. People do not actually polarize on facts. Yes, if you make them defensive in the context of the threat of action, they will most definitely filter the facts in defense of their position. But this entire episode makes it seem as though people polarize on science, and this false belief only serves to encourage the idea that science is the enemy. But in reality, science is about *gathering knowledge.* Politics is about deciding what to do with this knowledge. People should be polarizing on politics, not on science. The fact that they are polarizing on science is a symptom of miscommunication. Scientists are not properly making it clear to their audiences that they are *not* suggesting action, they are only showing you the reality and meaning of the data. And data is indisputable. We can argue about what to do with that knowledge, but we cannot argue about the knowledge itself. If you want people to believe science on climate change, the scientists need to stop trying to convince the world to take action on it. Tell the world it is completely and totally optional - but then be abundantly clear about the effects of inaction. If you want people to believe science on vaccinations, scientists need to stop suggesting that people should vaccinate. That is not your job. This is the job of societal movements, politicians and activists. If a scientist takes an opinion here, of course people will polarize against that scientist. You are either a politician or you're not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If people polarize on science, it is proof of the fact that science has done something that makes them feel attacked or insecure. We do not feel attacked by knowledge, we feel attacked when somebody forces us in a certain direction we do not want to take. Knowledge is about the here, not about the direction from here. We need to learn to communicate with people in a way that does not trigger them to feel insecure or defensive. We are not politicians. We are only your eyes and your ears. If we did offend, we apologize, it was our fault, not yours.

[Fellow_Traveller]

I subscribed for science, not politics.

[abiuniverse]

why all these issues are always discussed based on 'data' which only represent the 'USA public' not the ' World'???