Panel Discusses The Human Spark and the Nature of Science
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Public Policy, and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University. Nisbet studies the role of communication and advocacy in policymaking and public affairs, focusing on debates over over climate change, energy, and sustainability. Among awards and recognition, Nisbet has been a Visiting Shorenstein Fellow on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a Health Policy Investigator at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a Google Science Communication Fellow. In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as “essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,” and the New Republic highlighted his work as a “fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism."
Last week I had the opportunity to moderate a world-class panel here on campus featuring AU film professor Larry Engel, science education advocate Eugenie Scott, and National Academies science education expert Jay Labov. The evening started with a screening of a segment from the PBS Series The Human Spark, directed by Engel and recipient of the AAAS science journalism prize for television.
We then gathered on stage for a world-class discussion featuring the knowledge, experience, and wisdom of Engel, Scott, and Labov. Video of the panel should be available next week, in the meantime, Mike Unger, one of our top communication students at American, wrote a terrific web story on the event. Here's an excerpt:
Led by SOC professor Matthew Nisbet, the discussion, cosponsored by SOC and the College of Arts and Sciences, touched on several issues surrounding the series and the state of science today.
Scott has been fighting the teaching of creationism and other religiously based views in science classes for years. Often, she said, science is beside the point.
“There are a lot of people who don’t like the idea that they share common ancestors with apes,” she said. “Many scientists are people of faith, many are not. It doesn’t matter because we’re all trying to explain the natural world.”
Often the public does not comprehend the very nature of science, Labov said.
“Science is simultaneously reliable and able to change,” he said. “We need to help people understand that’s the nature of science. We have to help people to understand that we don’t always have the definitive answer.”
The Human Spark provides some answers, but raises many more questions. That’s one of its many strengths.
“For most of my career I’ve heard, ‘you have to dumb it down,’” Engel said. “What I’m trying to do is distill so [scientists] can convey the information and engage the various audiences into thinking about the contexts. I don’t think documentary is a vehicle for facts, it’s a vehicle for narrative.”
New research links urban planning and political polarization.
- Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
- Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
- People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.
- Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
- What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
- Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.