How Society Will Accept Rational Science: The Best Way to Frame Global Warming and Evolution

There is a point that I've been trying to make for the last few weeks now, off and on, and it is not working. So I'm going to try something new. Please bear with me, and consider the following three scenarios regarding the idea that the Earth is Round (or, possibly, flat):

Please ask yourself: Which of these scenarios is best? Which is least desirable?

Scenario A: Divided Opinion

Maureen: "I think the world is round."
John: "I think the world is flat."

A public opinion poll indicates that fifty percent of those polled believe the world is round, the other fifty percent believe the world is flat.

A recent report in the New York Times states:

"Public opinion is divided on whether the world is round or flat. For the flat-earth opinion, we interview Dr. John. For the Round Earth side of this controversy, we interview Professor Maureen...."

Scenario B: A Rational World

Maureen: "I think the world is round."
John: "I think the world is flat."

A public opinion poll indicates that 91 percent of those polled believe the world is round. A small number of individuals, associated with a fringe cult, who have recently taken up residence on a ranch near Odessa Texas, disagrees. They are believed to be harmless.

A recent report in the New York Times states:

"It is well known that the earth is round, although there still remains a small number of individuals who, oddly, refuse to embrace this obvious fact .... "

Scenario C: Public opinion is divided, but the dominant cultural knowledge is rational

Maureen: "I think the world is round."
John: "I think the world is flat."

A public opinion poll indicates that fifty percent of those polled believe the world is round, the other fifty percent believe the world is flat.

A recent report in the New York Times states: "Public opinion is divided on whether the world is round or flat, despite the fact that experts have long understood the earth to be round."

I refer you to a recent post by Matt Nisbet on changes in public opinion, or rather, lack thereof, since such key events as the release of An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore). The bottom line (but go read the post to get the details) is that public opinion has not changed in any way that matters. In fact, what has changed a little is an increased entrenchment by Republicans in the position that global warming is some sort of liberal conspiracy to make the rest of us be nice to the earth. Or whatever.

But how does this finding, as troubling as it is, relate to the three scenarios I outline above regarding a flat earth? Please think of these scenarios as part of a potential set of transitions. For instance, imagine a world in which we move from Scenario A to Scenario B. Irrationality is replaced with rationality. Yay! We win!

Imagine, though, a transition from Scenario A to Scenario C. I would contend that this is not only what has actually happened in regards to global warming, but it is also what probably has to happen.... This is part of what needs to happen in order for rational approaches to climate related policy to be framed properly. The frame I'm talking about here is the acceptance of a particular view not only by the experts, but also by all of those who tend to report on and evaluate the experts.

This is an example of the same phenomenon in regards to the Evolution-Creationism debate. Yes, half the US population likes evolution, the other half likes creationism. In fact, more than half like creationism .. But you are never going to see any mainstream media outlet treating both sides of that discussion as equally rational. This is now the case with global worming as well, owing to the IPCC report's recent very strong set of statements on the issue.

What needs to happen to make public opinion change as well? Simple. First, it has to go away. Public opinion is self-sustaining. If people stop talking about it, thinking about it, maintaining it, there may be a chance for a reformulation.

Then, when it comes back (as an issue) the status quo opinion of the experts and the translators will be the guiding force in how this is shaped, mainly through the educational system. The reason that our country is roughly half and half on both global warming and evolution is because there is a constant ongoing effort by the right wing who keep their wacky ideas alive among the children. This is why a teacher may find that the only time students ever come up with a question or idea that, on the face of it, seems original (like, not something out of the textbook or off the blackboard) is when they question either evolution or global warming . And of course, this is not an original idea at all. They are just repeating what dad, or Reverend Wackaloony has told them to say in class as part of the widespread campaign to ruin science education in America. As part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

We can't fix that. Matt is right. But we can fix the status quo, we can fix the way expert opinion is expressed, and we can force the translators ... the high priests of the media ... to take the rational course. That is good, and that is what must happen. And, it is largely a battle we are winning.

Oh, and while we are on the subject, you may want to have a stab at this question being posed at 3.14: Did An Inconvenient Truth Change Your Mind?