I'm annoyed that a thread I began which had to do with the language we use to communicate science was locked due to what I consider an incorrect assumption about the very words chosen for the thread title. And, the incorrect assumptions made by admin also resulted in them asking I not restart the thread even without the offending word choice in the title.
Fine, it's their prerogative. And the irony is not lost on me that my own choice of words to describe the thread was the cause of the breakdown in communication which led to it being locked.
However, in defense of the intent of my now locked thread I want to reiterate that the language we use to convey our messages is a critical matter. If I didn't feel this was such an important issue, I wouldn't bother bringing it back up. But it is one of the
key issues in convincing people to look at evidence and science for an explanation of the Universe and not to myth and misinformation.
And here in this month's Skepchick is an
interview with Michael Shermer making the very same point. (emphasis mine)
Quote:
SKEPLIT: What are your thoughts as to why religiosity is so widespread in America while atheism has spread to the majority of the population in many Europe nations?
SHERMER: My preferred theory is an economic one: that is, religions and churches in America are like corporations competing for limited customers and dollars in the free market of religious ideas and churches. Competition leads to change and “improvement” in the services and products offered to customers, and the marketing and sales skills of those employed in these “corporations.” Thus, American religions have perfected telemarketing, televangelism, fundraising letters and phone campaigns, religious rock and roll music, mega-churches that sponsor rock-concert-like religious shows, etc. It is very exciting to attend one of these mega churches; by contrast, European churches are as dull as dishwater
|
The point here is NOT RELIGION. I hate to even mention it because once again it detracts from the point I am making. The point is the competition for science
is marketing their message. And even if they weren't marketing an anti-science message, the fact we are not marketing the science message is making us less effective communicators overall.
This is why it matters what we call alternative medicine. It's why it matters how we frame the evolution vs ID question. It's why when a message fails to change beliefs we need to examine why it failed, not just keep repeating the message. I'm not suggesting we take up a massive marketing campaign like the examples Shermer mentions. But I think we should be paying a lot more attention to this issue.
18-June-2006, 08:55 AM
Marketing, lessons from Shermer
Linear Mode
