This is a little late for any Londoners out there, but Edge had a collaboration with the Serpentine Gallery that debuted last weekend. It’s a collection of scientists’ and technologists’ and artists’ answers to the question, “What is your formula? Your equation? Your algorithm?” All of the answers are on display at the site now, so have a browse. There’s a little bit of everything, from obvious truisms (like mine) to detailed, specific formulae, to weird guesses, to stuff that is outright crazy, but nobody said exactly the same thing (which is probably a reasonable outcome from Pinker’s equation, if nothing else).

So…what’s your formula, equation, algorithm?

I unashamedly stole that title from Warren—it was just too good to pass up.

If I was an opponent of framing before, I’m afraid my views have now hardened far more: one Framer thinks Al Gore, winner of the Nobel, is a flop. What does a person have to do to convince the framing crowd that they’re communicating science? That they’re opening up the public discussion? That they’re making people think? We already know that writing a best-selling book doesn’t do it, and now we learn that winning the acknowledgment of the world community with a Nobel prize isn’t significant, either. “Framing” seems to alienate atheists and evolutionary biologists, and now it’s dissing the environmentalist movement.

I mean, come on. The guy just won a Nobel Peace Prize, and your response — from the perspective of someone who claims to be an expert in communication — is that Gore just might be hindering the discussion that the global community just lauded him for advancing.

“Framing” has gone beyond annoying to insane. I wash my hands of it.

Now Matt Nisbet weighs in, and Mike Haubrich gives an amazing summary of not just what I said, but what I meant to say.

One thing I referred to I called the “science education extinction vortex”, and referred to this hastily drawn diagram:

My point was that we have all these forces working together to amplify a problem, and slapping some nice words on it to make people feel good about it all isn’t going to change things unless we actually commit to making substantive corrections to those institutionalized problems.

Chris Mooney has his summary post up, in which he predictably and incorrectly declares victory for the forces of empty rhetoric, and Greg Laden correctly declares victory for the puppies and small children, which, of course, was our side.

No word from Matt Nisbet yet. He’s probably having a late breakfast of roast puppy, served by his army of child-slaves. (←framing.)

If you’ve been curious to know more about Carl Zimmer, he’s having a conversation with John Horgan on Bloggingheads.tv.

As expected, the Laden/Myers tag team utterly crushed the Nisbet/Mooney team. The decision was unanimous. Only a few crazy people might have found the framers at all persuasive. (It helps, too, that Nisbet/Mooney are on a plane flying away and won’t be able to get out their side of the story until later, and even when they do, my blog has more traffic than theirs. I win! Hey, maybe this framing stuff has some virtues.)

If you want an independent account, look in the comments. The whole shebang was taped, so I presume it will be online at some time in the near future. And hey, guess what? Your own decision based on the evidence will be far more important than any framing I try to do — so I’ll win on principle no matter what!

[Read more…]

When I saw Chris Mooney in NY this week, the first thing he did was throw a blow — he punched me in the shoulder. Oh, he said stuff like “hello” and “good to see you,” but I think that was just to throw me off my guard. And then we threatened to buy each other beer — in Mooney’s case, bad beer — so you know this is going to be a ferocious grudge match. You’ll want to be there. Here’s the announcement:

SPECIAL EVENT:
Speaking Science 2.0: New Directions in Science Communications
Friday, September 28, 2007
7:30 p.m.
Bell Museum Auditorium
$5 Suggested Donation

Seed magazine writers and influential science bloggers gather to discuss new directions in science communication. This lively panel discussion will cover a range of topics, including science and culture, public engagement with science, the role of scientists in the public discussion of science, and communication via the Internet, film, museums and other media. Author and journalist Chris Mooney, American University communications professor Matthew Nisbet, and University of Minnesota anthropologist Greg Laden will join moderator Jessica Marshall, a U of M science journalism professor. A reception in Dinkytown will follow the event. Co-sponsored by the Bell Museum of Natural History; Seed Magazine/ScienceBlogs; The Humphrey Institute’s Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Minnesota Journalism Center.

Shanai Matteson, the organizer, sent along some other useful information to go along with this announcement:

• The Bell Museum is on the University of Minnesota campus at 17th and
  University.

• You can take a #3, #6, #16, or #50 to get there…it’s very accessible by
  bike too!

• There may or may not be a mud pit.

• There WILL be a lot to talk about.

• The reception will be at a place called Kafe 421, which is within walking
  distance of the museum and serves wine and beer and really great
  mediterranean appetizers.

• You don’t need a ticket, but you can reserve a seat ahead of time by
  calling the Bell Museum registrations office at 612.624.9050

I don’t know about you, but I wish to hear more about this mud pit. I know Chris and Matt are very pretty, but I’m not going to wrassle anyone in a mud pit unless they are even prettier and don’t have that manly stubble Mooney always has.

---

Uh-oh. I just noticed what was up top on Mooney’s page. No! We are not going to resolve the conflicts this way.

I’m flying away today, on my way to New York to attend a little event honoring the winners of the second annual Seed science writing contest. This is really good stuff: the contestants tried to explain what it means to be scientifically literate in the 21st century, and make suggestions for improving scientific literacy for the future. The winners are Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse by Thomas W. Martin and Camelot is Only a Model: Scientific Literacy in the 21st Century by Steven Saus — if you haven’t read them yet, do so!