The problem with science communication

As a break from everything else that's been going on lately, I've been reading/watching a variety of what could be largely lumped as "science communication" blogs/videos. While I've been doing so, I of course have run across the odd "why do science communication?" post. The answers usually boil down to geekery ("because science is so cool and people should know it"), political ("If everyone were more science literate, they would vote X"), or humanitarian ("if people understood [this], they wouldn't be hurt by [that] or taken in by charlatans"). These are  by no means bad motives for doing these things. And I utterly agree that science communication is a critical activity in our day and age.

But, why? Why is science so hard to communicate that we need not only institutionalized communication (e.g. science class), but grassroots efforts, from blogs to podcasts to videos to local science festivals? Humans have been communicating stuff to each other for centuries. We have developed a wide variety of methods and tools for convincing people of things. Heck, we have a whole industry dedicated to it (advertising). Why does science communication seem so hard to do sometimes?

First, there is the sheer logistical reality of it. The better you understand a topic, let's say optics since I know that one, the deeper you've gone into it and the more that subject and it's prerequisites have become second nature to you. You now now Maxwell's equations almost instinctually. You have a gut reaction when you see velocities faster than \( 3*10^8 \ . You either stopped asking what was waving or have dug really deep into it, but either way you probably can't explain it in 100 words or less to the average person on the street.  On the other hand, the less you know the topic, the easier it is to explain at your level of understanding to someone who doesn't know much or anything, because you remember being in that state.

I have slowly started to realize this as I've been teaching problem solving sessions for the past five semesters. When I started out, I was not remotely confident in the topic. I had taken a few courses beyond the level I was teaching, but I knew I didn't really *know*, in the sense of understanding and internalizing, even basic electromagnetism. My algebra/calculus was shaky because I didn't do it all day, everyday, and hadn't really touched it in 8 months (I took some time off between undergrad and grad school).

So everytime I taught, I had very very detailed notes explaining the calculation to myself, because I knew I couldn't do it unprepared. My students were able to follow my solutions (handwriting permitting) because I wrote everything out, every single step, no "and it can easily be shown that", no "clearly, this equals". It was there. But my analogies to explain the weirdness of electromagnetism were terrible. I mean, really really terrible. Confused, convoluted, mixed. And I didn't have a sense of the background of my students, what they would or would not be familiar with.

Now, I do algebra and calculus for my PhD research. My dining room table, my chalkboard, my whiteboard, my desk, random napkins are full of equations. I sit and do page after page (and redo page after page) of math. I've gotten better at recognizing common algebraic patterns. I no longer have to FOIL simpler multiplications. I do not question the utility of sines and cosines. It's obvious! So my worked out solutions in class have started to skips steps. Bit by bit, I assume a higher level of math literacy from my students. My analogies and metaphors have, generally, become better. I no longer mix metaphors, I stick with one main metaphor throughout a topic, and I don't use analogies to things that my students have no idea what that is. So while my students feel less baffled by my words, I get a dozen of them before and after class asking how we got from point A to point B in an equation.

And this is I think a hurdle science communicators have to face.  The best ones are good in their field. They breathe physics, chemistry, biology, what have you. It's a core component of their being and they are excited to share it with you. But it also means that they are far away from the confusion and doubts of their audience. They need to practice that skill of empathy which, at least in pop culture, we famously lack. It's not an easy skill, to put yourself back at that point of confusion and try to talk to that person. It's like trying to teach a small child something that is to you so easy you don't think about it, like tying your shoes. The best thing is to have a non-STEM friend to test out your explanations on, but even they can be a biased sample depending on how frequently you try to explain your work to them.

The second problem, as the many youtube comment sections to these videos attest, is that science bumps up uncomfortably against areas of worldview and identity for people. The world is a big, nasty, confusing place and people build their worldviews and identities in a way that, fundamentally, tries to make them feel safe, even if it is a very weird and convoluted safety. For example, conspiracy theorists, whatever their theory of choice, want to believe that someone is in control. The idea that violence or disease or natural disaster  just happen, is intolerable. Far preferable that a malevolent and powerful group somewhere is in charge than we being hostages to fortune.

And this is even harder than empathy for confusion, because it does not require a  shoveling on of better explained facts, or more facts. It requires the mindset of a missionary instead of a teacher and it is a very different mindset. Its also a mindset that makes many scientists uncomfortable. Science isn't a religion, it isn't faith, it's fact. Facts exist whether you want them to exist or not. But science is increasingly touching areas of our lives that are not experienced as fully rational, where strong beliefs are preexistent and the science communicators job is no longer to make clear something that was not thought of or not understood, but to modify or replace beliefs. And it is a much longer process.

I feel it is important to note here that science communicators should also be aware of where to stop. There is a fine line between  teaching scientific truth and teaching your world view.  Most of the time I have seen science communication blow up is where that line is crossed. For example, please, by all means explain the correct mechanisms for evolution and the strength of evidence we have for it. The minute you say "See? You don't need a god to make this work after all" you have lost any ground or good will you may have gained.

I think we could borrow a bit from missionaries, modified to our needs. One of the classic techniques for missionaries is to talk to people, and begin from their starting point. The missionary can then more easily lead in small steps to the point where the next step is faith or not faith. I don't see why would couldn't develop a similar method for science communication where the problem is not information but belief. Again, using evolution as an example. Starting with something close to home (antibiotic resistant infections), moving further afield to elephants losing their tusks as a defense against ivory poaching, to dogs from wolves, making the gradual transition from 'microevolution' to 'macroevolution' to a final understanding that it is all just 'evolution'. But again, changing beliefs is not fast. It requires investment.

So, what is it that I am trying to say? Are we doing science communication badly? Should we stop doing it unless we can be just great? NO. By no means. What I am saying is that we already have a community of science communicators who are really good at what they do. Dr Skyskull has a great blog for weird physics, occasionally cats and horror. Myles Power has a bunch of great videos largely debunking bad science/logic in a fairly respectful manner even if his language is a little coarse to american ears. JimTheEvo has a really cool series on infection, evolution and human history*. My point is that we can be even better. Maybe by focusing our audience, maybe just by being more thoughtful. I think it might be time to move to the next level.


*I know they are all males. The women scientist blogs I read are less explaining and more linking to it things people would know. Powered by Osteons does a great job pointing out where bioanthropology intersects popular culture, for example.

Theology: Discipline or Distraction?

If you hang around church circles long enough, at least the kind of church that adheres to a systematic theology, you're bound to hear someone say "I find theology gets in the way of my relationship with God".

I have always dismissed this statement out of hand. I have always considered theology vital to a life of faith. Maybe it was my upbringing. Maybe it's because I am a cerebral person. I understand things by trying to think them through logically. Systematic theology seemed natural. Of course you are going to sit down and try to make everything hang together. This desire fell in line naturally with being  of a scientific inclination. The creation runs along logical (if strange and incredibly complex) lines, why should this order not be a reflection of the creator?

Lately, while I still love systematic theology, I can't help but wonder if there comes a point where systematic theology becomes too...systematic...and begins to obscure the transcendence of God by wrapping it so tightly in carefully woven and laid out arguments. After all, systematic theology is man's attempt to understand that which is ultimately beyond our understanding. All of creation is our plane, and I see no reason we cannot plumb its depths to its very foundation. But can we possibly think that we, who see through the glass but dimly, can wrap up any part of God or his thoughts in a nice little package?

Please don't misunderstand me. I think theology is critically important. And I enjoy the study of systematic theology. But I sometimes wonder if it isn't our tower of Babel, trying make God or at least God's plan of salvation try to fall under some logical progression and rubric? In almost every systematic theology I've studied, there is always some kind of hitch. Something that just doesn't seem to fit with God's character, but is necessary to hold the whole thing together.

On the other hand, I've seen what happens when you jettison theology whole sale. It becomes incredibly chaotic incredibly quickly. You can get something good if you are willing to sit down and do serious Bible study, several hours a day for years. But most people just start making stuff up. And then what you end up with is a mishmosh of Biblical themes or ideas with the person's own philosophical and political slant heavily mixed in. I've met people whose personal theology was so far removed from anyone else's I found it incredibly difficult to have a discussion with them. For every 1 hour discussion, we spent 3 just agreeing to the definition of terms. At the very least, if you study basic theology you can discuss with other people because you share a common language so to speak. And discussion with other people, either your contemporaries or sifting through the thoughts of the saints who have gone before, is a way to weed out your own prejudices.

I don't think theology gets in the way of a relationship with God, but it can sometimes get in the way of having a relationship with other Christians, and can get in the way of relationships with people who don't believe. It's so easy, so tempting to use theology not to understand God, but to intellectually batter an 'opponent'. And I've done this. Arguing into submission is a real problem for me, one that I am trying to fight as I get older. And if I can find a 'debate partner' to do this with where we both understand what we are doing, that's fine. I would even say that its important to discuss theological points, in a non aggressive way, with people of different theological stripes. But a lot of the time it seems we are forgetting Paul's admonition to the the church in Corinth to know nothing among them but Christ, and him crucified.

Jettisoning all our theological differences this side of the second coming is a pipe dream. The way they play out is just too varied and too unsettling if you are used to one and you have to deal with another directly. As a protestant, the Marian Catholic doctrines disturb me. I just can't swallow them, any more than as one of the 'frozen chosen' I can feel comfortable in a service where people are being slain in the spirit and shouting. I'm a  creature of extreme habit, so even slighter variations can make me feel ill at ease.

So what am I trying to say with all this? Theology is a useful tool, but it is just that, a tool, just as models in science are tools, and not reality. We need to be careful how we use this tool, making sure that we are using it to further our understanding of God and his plan for his children, and not as a weapon against our fellow pilgrims. The moment we start thinking that we know what God's thinking because our theology tells us so, and not because the Bible tells us so, it's time to take a step back. At that point, you are mistaking the model for the real thing.

Theoretical Research: Reality vs. Fiction

Subtitle: A novice theoretical researcher's perspective

I swear, I will soon get around to the 'food' portions of physics and food, but rewatching a couple of episodes of "The Big Bang Theory" sparked the idea for this post. I thinking specifically of the few episodes where they show Sheldon working on his research. Having hung around theoretical researchers as an undergrad, I had an idea that they portrayal was a little exaggerated. From doing experimental physics for a few years, I knew the experimental labs they show are far too tidy, with too few boxes of old equipment in the corners and not enough of the apparatus held together with office supplies and duct tape. I knew Sheldon's white boards were too small, and oriented the wrong way to hold the kind of equations that he would be working on, for example. 

Now that I have done theoretical research for about 6 months, and had closer contact with theoretical researchers, watching the episodes made me want to shake the producers or writers or whoever decided that doing theoretical physics research looked like this:

Just standing around, staring at a handful of short equations on a white board for a couple of hours until you have an epiphany and write down the answer.

At least for me, the episode where Sheldon stays up for a couple of days and starts using small round objects to represent carbon atoms comes closer to the state of mind I usually end up in, but still misses the point.

From my (admittedly limited experience), doing theoretical research looks a lot more like a cross between a kid doing his math homework and a college kid writing a paper.

First of all, there is paper involved. Lots of paper. Reams of paper. Some people prefer notebooks that force all the paper to stay in order. Some people prefer loose scrap paper. I knew a guy who liked to use old school printer paper, the kind that was perforated but connected so he could write out really long equations all on one line. I have come to love the yellow legal pad that keeps all my stuff in order while I"m doing it but lets me rip it all out when its wrong to use on my grill or to staple together with other correct calculations  for easier reading. Chalk boards/white boards are great for testing out a direction, but they can easily be erased and lost forever. Anything that you think might be good, you want on paper. Possibly with scanned back up copies. *

There is a lot of referencing other people's work. Precursors to your own work. Finding out how to solve this particular form of equation. How to interpret your results. Huge bookmark folders of references. Binders full of them.

Thirdly, there is a lot of frustration, at least if you aren't one of those mathematical geniuses who can keep track of everything in their head. There is a lot of losing minus signs, plus signs, and constants. There is a lot of doing the same calculation over and over and over because you missed something at the beginning. Just recently I had to redo over 50 pages worth of calculations because I missed copying a plus sign on page 1 and turned an addition into a multiplication (and make the problem hugely longer in the process). I nearly wanted to tear my hair, but having done experimental physics for a while I at least had the consolation that the cost was a couple of weeks and some paper, not a couple of weeks and thousands of dollars worth of supplies.

Maybe there are some researchers out there who can use Richard Feynman's method of "Write down the problem, stare at it, write down the answer". Maybe if you do something like this long enough all the math is internalized. I certainly have gotten a lot faster at Fourier Transforms and integrating gaussians. But I doubt I will ever just look at a problem and know the answer. And I seriously doubt my equations will ever been that short in the middle of the solution.

*All that being said, if I had an entire room full of movable chalkboards like they have in some older schools like Princeton, I would totally being doing my calculations on them. Taking lots of pictures with my phone.