The "framing" flap continues

Although the initial flurry of posts about framing has died down, the debate about what framing is, is not, or should be continues. In an effort to go back to square 1, Chris has posted up a basic rundown of why framing is important, item #6 on the list getting to the heart of why this issue is so controversial;

Rather, you have to pare down these highly complex issues--or "frame" them--selectively highlighting just those aspects of the issue that will resonate with the core values of the particular audience (and there are different audiences, of course, and different frames will work for them).

As James writes from his sunny spot on the Island of Doubt, this sounds like what journalists are already supposed to do (find the "angle" for your story) and at worst it sounds like spin. I would imagine that what is intended by framing would fall closer to the former interpretation, but then we'd get into whether we really needed another distinct concept for something that is already established.

In a follow-up entry posted by Sheril, framing doesn't seem to be very distinct from losing the jargon and plainly explaining the most salient points of what you're trying to address, a concept that is not novel. On top of this, framing still is somewhat vague, lacking concrete examples of what "good framing" should look like and therefore seemingly being indistinguishable from what good communicators of science have already learned how to do.

There's also the question of where playing to the concerns and preferences of your audience can be effective. In terms of global climate change, stem cell research, etc., framing could generate change. Particular consequences (or benefits) of action can be highlighted in order to help people understand the issue and why it's important. Evolution presents an entirely different sort of problem altogether, though. What is the benefit of accepting evolution? What is the cost of not doing so? If I'm a creationist and my belief system centers around a very strict interpretation of the Bible, why should I accept what may appear to be a conflicting worldview when there may be no tangible (or at least immediate) benefit to me and a lack of repercussions?

In the case of evolution, education is going to be key, especially in elementary schools. It's not something that anyone should "believe in" or is likely to change their mind about in an instant. A few years ago I accepted evolution because that's what I had been told was true and didn't know of any alternatives, yet I didn't understand anything about it (and I even made some stupid mistakes explaining it to other people, like buying into "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). Indeed, it has taken me a long time to verse myself in evolutionary science, something most people aren't going to be willing to do. Unfortunately for people like me who want to help the public understand evolution, though, change will require modifications to our education system, mass media, and a continuing repetition of what evolution is and why it matters.

Since evolution is something that is going to require more investment from the public (at least in terms of attention), some controversy can be a good thing. Case in point; this past weekend a church I used to attend featured a sermon about Creation vs. Evolution (click here and then the link if you want to see it for yourself; there's no direct link). I certainly do not agree with everything that was said, but the video serves to illustrate the idea that the current controversy surrounding evolution has resulted in a number of "moderates" speaking up about the issue.

In the case of this particular pastor, young-earth creationists and atheists like Richard Dawkins dominate public debate but do not appeal to a number of people who don't identify with either and want to accept evolution but also not lose their faith. Whether this is possible or good science or sound theology is another matter that I'm not going to address here, but the point is that the conflict between creationists and scientists (often viewed as representing atheists, although this is a miscategorization) has opened up a dialog for some people. I know I first became interested in the topic because of the controversy surrounding creationism, and I would suspect that there are at least some people who have done the same.

Of course, things aren't going to go smoothly, and even if we're saying the right words it doesn't mean that evolution is going to achieve greater acceptance. If you watched the sermon, I'm sure you saw that evolution wasn't defined or really addressed at all; the discussion was largely kept to a discussion of the cosmos and being small in a big universe. This is something of a refuge for people trying to work out the conflict between science and religion. Physics, cosmology, and genetics present science that is supposedly so inaccessible to the average person that there remains a sense of wonder about it. I don't advocate this sort of treatment, especially since it sidesteps the controversy by ignoring fields like paleoanthropology, but I mention it here because it seems to be a somewhat popular trend.

Paleoanthropology doesn't leave much room for the intervention of a deity, but the beauty of space and the laws of physics are apparently safer ground for now. This may be a result what these sciences study and how the science is viewed by the public. If you see a skull of an ancient hominid or even look at a living ape, there can be little question that you're looking at a relative. You might choose to reject the relationship, but the family resemblance is there. If you see the skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus, you're looking at a monstrous animal that lived and died long before there were people; how could we survive alongside dragons like that? Physics and astronomy, though, require a little more background understanding that many of us never get (or, at least, that's the perception). We come away with an idea of the complexity of the science, but it seems a bit inaccessible. Thus we're left marveling at complexity but not really understanding how nature can create the things we are astonished by, the seeming obscurity of those sciences providing a haven for belief in a primum movens behind it all.

In any case, I'll continue paying attention to the ongoing debate on framing, but it's difficult to discern what is supposedly unique about it and when it should be utilized. Even if framing becomes better-defined, though, I don't think it's going to do us much good in terms of helping people understand evolution.