Something weird is happening on this thread. The original post
related to how scientists should communicate their research results to the
general public. The implicit assumption behind this question is that
communication with the public is *not the same as* communication among
scientist themselves. About twenty posts ago I made statements that embrace
this assumption but that assault our cherished ideals that people should be
persuaded by logic and evidence. I made reasoned arguments based on the
history of Nazi Germany, experience from our own neighborhoods, and studies
on the higiene behavior of health-care workers. I suggest that VOLUME and
REPETITION are what count, not logic and reason. My post was completely
ignored by everyone except Wayne T., who hoped I wasn't serious.
This could mean that list-followers thought my observations were so
obviously correct that they didn't require comment, or were so ridiculous
that they didn't merit comment, or that people just didn't know what to
say. In a way, it proves the point I was advancing: I was logical and
presented evidence (albeit anecdotal) and was ignored. Meanwhile, an
emotional discussion of journalistic practice, through REPETITION, diverted
the thread.
So I'll throw it out there again: the truth content of your
message doesn't relate to whether it is accepted by the public or not. It
how often they hear it that matters. That doesn't mean you have to lie.
Tell the truth as your research reveals it, and tell it over and over and
over. The fact that liars will be using the same tactic means that you have
to increase the din even more. Advertisers know this. Why can't scientists
figure it out?
Martin M. Meiss
2011/4/11 Paul Cherubini <mona...@saber.net>
> Judith S. Weis wrote:
>
> > Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer
> of
> > the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who
> has
> > nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious
> > journals? I don't!!
>
> Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk
> in which both independent scientists and government
> regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study
> Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings.
>
> This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current
> thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that
> university scientists have more of a credibility problem
> in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather
> than communications problem.
>
> Paul Cherubini
>
