. . . . [S]cientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in homeopathy, or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or genetically modified food.
. . . .
. . . . Is this really what science communication is about? Is this informing, changing minds. . .?
I doubt it somehow.
. . . . I don’t think it’s as simple as people rejecting science.
First, people don’t like being told what to do. . . .
But when these experts tell us how to live our lives – or even worse, what to think – something rebels. . . .
. . . .
Share this article
On the whole, I don’t think people who object to vaccines or GMOs are at heart anti-science. . . . most people simply want to know that someone is listening. . .
. . . .
How many science communicators do you know who will take the time to listen to their audience? Who . . . make an effort to reach people . . . where they need?
. . . .
. . . the charlatans have already recognised the need, and have built the communities that people crave. . . . Most science communication. . .[is] self-affirmation for those already on the inside. . . .
That’s not communication. . . . it’s certainly not winning hearts and minds.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public
