Are scientists hiding?
Myths of the XXI century
A new book by the editor of the ANTHROPOGENESIS website will be published very soon.<url>, a journalist and popularizer of science, the wonderful Alexander Sokolov. With the permission of the Alpina non-fiction publishing house, we publish a chapter entitled "Why a false scientist looks more convincing on the screen than a scientist."
The cover of a new book by Alexander Sokolov.
Scientific journalist Andrey Vaganov writes that, according to polls, 70% of US residents cannot understand the articles published in the "Science" section of the newspaper The New York Times. There are more frightening figures. According to a 2012 study, adequately interpret a children's fairy tale (or other work of fiction) only 17% of Russian teenagers are capable. Can you imagine? If this figure is correct, 83% of young Russians are unable to retell a simple text without mistakes. Yes, if we want to engage in scientific propaganda, we need to learn how to work with these 83%.
It is obvious that the winner on the screen is the one who can speak simply, briefly, figuratively. As soon as the viewer hears or reads something incomprehensible like "Dominant positive anabolic leads to deviation" (quote provided by Stanislav Drobyshevsky), there is an irresistible desire to close the browser window. That's why scientists, despite their degrees and merits, lose to charismatic semi-literate talkers.
Pseudoscience has a fundamentally easier path to the heart of the layman. Conduct an experiment: while in the company, ask those who remember their zodiac sign to raise their hands. I'm sure you'll see a forest of hands. In my entire practice of public speaking, there was only one listener who allegedly did not know his sign, however, it seems to me that this was more a demonstration of originality than the truth. And now ask the same audience if anyone remembers the distance from the Earth to the Moon (only if you are not in the society of astronomers). I see-I see how readers got into Google! They used to go to school, but that was a long time ago, right?
Let's compare astrology and astronomy in the minds of ordinary people (by the way, even TV presenters confuse these concepts, causing scientists to gnash their teeth). Astronomy is the science of distant planets and stars, it is done by cranks with telescopes. What does it have to do with our daily life? "Yes, nothing," says the man in the street (the one who drives around the city using a navigator that receives data from a GPS satellite). Astrology is another matter. The fate of every person depends on the zodiac sign! The astrological forecast is so interesting to read – it's "about me". Astrologers do not bore you with stories about accretions, luminosity classes or the chromosphere. Who cares? But luck in business or "finding your soul mate" are issues that concern everyone. And the zodiac signs are also a suitable topic for a conversation with an unfamiliar person.
Of course, the difference is not always so obvious when comparing science and pseudoscience. Nevertheless, it is clear that real scientists, in order to win the favor or at least attract the attention of the public, need to pay more attention to oratory.
Let's compare how a typical scientist and a pseudoscientist behave on a television screen:
|
|
False Scientist |
Scientist |
|
1 |
He says: "it has been proven", "it has been known for a long time", "it's not a secret for anyone", "it's obvious to any ensign." |
He says: "probably", "perhaps", "most likely", "it cannot be denied", "most experts believe". |
|
2 |
Uses metaphors, jokes. Flirting with the public. He speaks simply, colorfully, "in the language of a teenager." An example from Mikhail Zadornov 's speech: "No one living in the south will go to the Kola Peninsula to live. Only if you can trade. There is a wonderful Russian expression, and try to understand me in the audience. "Keep your head cold, keep your feet warm." So scientists have proved an interesting fact: when the head is cold, the brain becomes thicker..." |
He speaks the language of science – the way he used to communicate with colleagues and speak to students. "Secondary chondrification of the endoskeleton can be considered as histological fetalization inherent in anamnias" (E. I. Vorobyova. Example provided by Stanislav Drobyshevsky). |
|
3 |
Easily jumps from area to area – a specialist is everywhere. He is happy to speak out on the topic:
– same-sex marriage; |
He only talks about what he knows well. Does not hesitate to admit ignorance: "I will refrain from commenting, as I do not consider myself an expert in this matter." |
|
4 |
Reduces the conversation to topics close to the people. It plays on the feelings of the audience, including religious and patriotic ones. |
He talks about his field of science. |
|
5 |
He uses terms only if he wants to show off his erudition, and magnanimously explains them. This is how creationist Konstantin Bufeev expresses himself in the TV show "Nothing personal": "... All these geochronological so-called divisions are not temporary, but geographical. Confirmation of this is the geological periods themselves. Let's remember the Paleozoic: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian. Cambridge is a well–known geographical place, it can be found on the map of England. Ordovician, Silurian – the same thing. Perm is Russia in general, a city on the Kama River." |
Uses terms without explaining them. He believes that "everyone knows what a centromere is, they do it at school!". He fears that if he puts it too simply, he will miss important details, for which his scientific colleagues will criticize him. A typical beginning of the answer to a journalist's question: "It's very difficult to explain in a nutshell." |
|
6 |
Focuses on problems and disputes in science, using them to accuse scientists of weakness. Against this background, he advertises his only true theory. I am always ready to screw in a quote from some scientist to confirm my words - Einstein, Lomonosov, Darwin. |
He begins to list problems and difficulties in science – and only then talks about solutions. After the shooting, the editor has to cut off the second part of the comment and get a "confession of helplessness." "Yes, this is a very difficult task, how to solve it is still unclear, but..." "There are no unambiguous and simple answers..." "There are different hypotheses..." |
|
7 |
He asks his opponent tricky questions – like "Do you believe in it yourself?" – or accuses of servility to the West. After any arguments of the opponent, he declares that he "did not hear convincing counterarguments." |
Asks the opponent about details that are important to the specialist (but not to the viewers). Requires the opponent to link to scientific articles. The requirement is sound, from the point of view of a specialist, but it makes no sense from the position of a mass viewer. |
|
8 |
Interrupts the opponent, does not allow to answer questions. Works for the public.
Another example from the TV show "Nothing personal". |
He tries to argue respectfully with a pseudo-scientist opponent, listens patiently to him, thanks him. Here is a fragment of a dialogue from the popular scientific TV show "The Obvious is Incredible" between the leading physicist Sergei Kapitsa and the reactionary philosopher Alexander Dugin. Alexander Dugin: "The prodigal son, who has spent and squandered all his inheritance, has nowhere to return except to his father, from where he came out. To our roots, to Russian roots, to religious roots, to Orthodox roots." Sergey Kapitsa: "Maybe this is the right moment to end our conversation. Thank you for this interesting opinion, I rarely have to meet such a wonderful interlocutor as you, thank you for raising issues that somehow concern our audience." |
The sad picture is a loss on eight points. Now it is clear why it is so important to prepare for public speaking?
Readers interested in the topic of popularization of science, I refer to Appendix 2 at the end of the book. It's called "How to talk about Science in public."
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru
30.05.2017