Do scientists have a political agenda? Sure: Get the truth.

IDists have difficulty with that, and so they yell at scientists to "stop playing politics." Typical.

Why shouldn't scientists explain that our agricultural industry would be impossible without Darwinian theory applied to it? Why shouldn't scientists explain the sterility of ID in practical application?

There is plenty of middle ground between a "scientific discussion" and "PR." After all, are you claiming your comments are scientific discussions and not PR?

I am not a "middle ground" kind of guy. My comments in this thread are pure PR.

Ah, but if the scientist takes the advice of Nisbet and Mooney and becomes a spin doctor, it is not spinning to point this out. In other words, Nisbet and Mooney want to make it even easier for PR organizations to make a connection which, ironically, would be valid.

I will now take the time to read the Nisbet and Mooney article to look for the "spin doctor" part. Up to now, I have been content to agree that "framing" is probably a bad idea based on the selected quotes you provided.

I wrote…
How about honesty? "Hi I am Dr.global-warming-expert, and while I would perfer to present all facts on this issue, it is not practical. Therefore, today I will focus on why I think this is an important issus worthy of funding. BTW, a complete analysis of the issue is available in scientific papers available on the web at"¦"

Sounds fine by me, especially since it is the public who provides the funding. But this is not what Nisbet and Mooney are talking about. They advocate that scientists look for "frames." What are these "frames?"

Someone (Nisbet and Mooney?) wrote…
Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done.

The goal here is manipulation. That is, design your definition of the issue such that it "resonates with core values and assumptions." Why? It's not just to identify "why an issue matters" but also includes "who might be responsible and what should be done." It's a call for action. Help citizens properly blame "the right people" and undertake some course of action.

I will grant you there is some gray area here. Once again, I will have to read the entire article and I will, now that we are past the early spin part of this thread.

My knee jerk reaction was that "who is responsible" was referring to determining who should be interested in the issue because they are the ones charged with doing something about it.

The gray area is scientists proposing a plan of action. Again, I understand why they would want to because if nothing can be done, why bother funding it? Offering some specifics would be consistent with trying to obtain funding

However, I agree that it is very dangerous for scientists to start down the path of suggesting policy.

Let's use your global warming example to see what trouble the scientific community has gotten itself into. According to Nisbet and Mooney:

Despite recent media attention, however, many surveys show major partisan differences on the issue. A Pew survey conducted in January found that 23% of college educated Republicans think global warming is attributable to human activity, compared with 75% of Democrats (6).

There is another word for "college educated Republicans" "“ mainstream. So here we have an important scientific issue that has already become deeply politicized. The way out is to come up with better spin?

A truly unbiased scientist could easily see this as a communication problem. Why doesn't this group of people understand the data we are presenting? Are we using terms that causes "college educated Republicans" to stop reading after the opening paragraph? If we can just get them to look at the data…

Providing Counter-spin

P.S.

You wrote…

Ah, but if the scientist takes the advice of Nisbet and Mooney and becomes a spin doctor, it is not spinning to point this out.

P.S. Mike, you are better than this. Rush Limbaugh claims to be telling the truth. Does that mean he isn't spinning?

You write:

I am curious now, are you claiming your posts are scientific discussions and not PR?

There is plenty of middle ground between a "scientific discussion" and "PR." After all, are you claiming your comments are scientific discussions and not PR?

My turn to laugh. They weren't planning on introducing themselves with "Hi, I am Dr. Spin Doctor". However, there are plenty of PR organisations out there that will gladly attempt to make that connection early in the discussion I would call it spinning the issue.

Ah, but if the scientist takes the advice of Nisbet and Mooney and becomes a spin doctor, it is not spinning to point this out. In other words, Nisbet and Mooney want to make it even easier for PR organizations to make a connection which, ironically, would be valid.

You write:

How about honesty? "Hi I am Dr.global-warming-expert, and while I would perfer to present all facts on this issue, it is not practical. Therefore, today I will focus on why I think this is an important issus worthy of funding. BTW, a complete analysis of the issue is available in scientific papers available on the web at"¦"

Sounds fine by me, especially since it is the public who provides the funding. But this is not what Nisbet and Mooney are talking about. They advocate that scientists look for "frames." What are these "frames?"

Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done.

The goal here is manipulation. That is, design your definition of the issue such that it "resonates with core values and assumptions." Why? It's not just to identify "why an issue matters" but also includes "who might be responsible and what should be done." It's a call for action. Help citizens properly blame "the right people" and undertake some course of action.

Let's use your global warming example to see what trouble the scientific community has gotten itself into. According to Nisbet and Mooney:

Despite recent media attention, however, many surveys show major partisan differences on the issue. A Pew survey conducted in January found that 23% of college educated Republicans think global warming is attributable to human activity, compared with 75% of Democrats (6).

There is another word for "college educated Republicans" "“ mainstream. So here we have an important scientific issue that has already become deeply politicized. The way out is to come up with better spin?

I told ya this topic will breed only more cynicism.

That was an easy predication to make.

I am curious now, are you claiming your posts are scientific discussions and not PR?

LOL. Have fun convincing the general public that a spin doctor is just trying to act as an "unbiased source of information."

My turn to laugh. They weren't planning on introducing themselves with "Hi, I am Dr. Spin Doctor". However, there are plenty of PR organisations out there that will gladly attempt to make that connection early in the discussion I would call it spinning the issue.

How about honesty? "Hi I am Dr.global-warming-expert, and while I would perfer to present all facts on this issue, it is not practical. Therefore, today I will focus on why I think this is an important issus worthy of funding. BTW, a complete analysis of the issue is available in scientific papers available on the web at…"

Provoking Thought

So, is this top spinning in the right direction for you, yet?

I told ya this topic will breed only more cynicism.

And if all the scientists are trying to do is "to persuade" the public that unbiased information is good for them?

LOL. Have fun convincing the general public that a spin doctor is just trying to act as an "unbiased source of information."

As I am sure you (and most people) know a top agenda (either #1 or #2) of a scientist is to get enough funding to continue his/her work.

If scientists become increasingly political, then the general public, who provide the funds, will want to take a much closer look at this funding process. And that "look" will all be part of the political debate.

So, is this top spinning in the right direction for you, yet?

Let me try to provide a little counter-spin.

What Roberts fails to realize is that scientists with a political agenda will be perceived as such. That is, their attempt "to persuade" will be recognized as an attempt to persuade.

And if all the scientists are trying to do is "to persuade" the public that unbiased information is good for them?

As I am sure you (and most people) know a top agenda (either #1 or #2) of a scientist is to get enough funding to continue his/her work.

Provoking Thought