Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process

The public communication of science and technology has become increasingly important over the last several decades. However, understanding the audience that receives this information remains the weak link in the science communication process. This essay provides a brief review of some of the issues involved, discusses results from an audience-based study, and suggests some strategies that both scientists and journalists can use to modify media coverage in ways that can help audiences better understand major public issues that involve science and technology. Carol L. Rogers is editor of the interdisciplinary journal Science Communication.     

Why philosophers should offer ethics consultations

Considerable debate has occurred about the proper role of philosophers when offering ethics consultations. Some argue that only physicians or clinical experienced personnel should offer ethics consultations in the clinical setting. Others argue still further that philosophers are ill-equipped to offer such advice, since to do so rests on no social warrant, and violates the abstract and neutral nature of the discipline itself.I argue that philosophers not only can offer such consultations but ought to. To be a bystander when one's discipline does offer insights and methods of value discernment is pusillanimous. But this position requires a view of clinical medical ethics as one that arises out of the clinical practice of medicine, and not just from an application of general ethical principles to the practice of medicine. I conclude with some skills that trained philosophers can bring to the consultation service, and note that all consultations are in the form of recommendations that the patient, family, and physician are still free to accept or reject. Philosophers in the clinical setting do not make decisions.     

Why philosophy and history matter: A conversation with Ann Taves

The article picks up some ideas that Ann Taves presents in her book Religious Experience Reconsidered, and looks at possible conversations that are not fleshed out in detail in Taves’ book. In particular, it is argued that the disciplinary confrontation with philosophy and with historiography is of crucial importance if the disciplines of cognitive science and psychology of religion want to become in the future what they pretend to be now—a serious alternative and complement to the study of religion as we know it from other contexts, such as cultural studies and historiography.     

Why philosophy and history matter: A conversation with Ann Taves

The article picks up some ideas that Ann Taves presents in her book Religious Experience Reconsidered, and looks at possible conversations that are not fleshed out in detail in Taves' book. In particular, it is argued that the disciplinary confrontation with philosophy and with historiography is of crucial importance if the disciplines of cognitive science and psychology of religion want to become in the future what they pretend to be nowda serious alternative and complement to the study of religion as we know it from other contexts, such as cultural studies and historiography     

IN DEFENSE OF PUBLICS: PROJECTION,BIAS, AND CULTURAL NARRATIVES IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION DEBATES

John H. Evans's recent book Morals Not Knowledge is a timely argument to recognize broader social and cultural factors that might impact what U.S. religious publics think about the relationship between science and religion and their attitudes toward science and/or religion. While Evans's focus is primarily on what can be classed as moral issues, this response argues that there are other factors that sit within neither the older epistemic conflict model approach nor a moral conflict model approach that also merit further investigation. There is a significant need for further research that examines the social, psychological, (geo)political, and broader cultural factors shaping people's social identities in relation to science and religion debates. When undertaking such research, we need to be wary of creating a binary between scholarly and public space discourse. Social scientific research in this field should be led by public perceptions, attitudes, and views, not by concepts or frameworks that we project onto them.     

Ethical issues in communicating science

Most of the publicized work on scientific ethics concentrates on establishing professional norms and avoiding misconduct. The successful communication of science is the responsibility of all involved in the process. In one study, the increased incidence of autism and other social developmental disorders in males was investigated by examining individuals with Turner's syndrome (XO females). In the national newspaper this became "Genetic X-factor explains why boys will always be boys". The steps by which a study on developmental disorders, published in a highly prestigious journal, was transformed into an article in the science section which 'explained' the socially expected gender-based behavior of genetically normal children are fascinating and, unfortunately far too typical. The scientists wrote an excellent article that has just one sentence at the end that hesitantly suggests that the findings might, with further study, have some relevance to understanding normal behavior. The general interest article in the front of the journal gave a good account of the research, but suggested more strongly that there could be an in-built biological dimorphism in social cognition. This was misrepresented in the press as proof of gender differences that "undermines the trend towards sexual equality", and both illustrates cultural bias and provides fodder for feminist critiques of science. The study has been made to appear to be biased in favor of justifying the social structure of society, and yet it was the translation from the scientific study to national news that produced this transformation to biased genetic determinism. It is poor communication of the actual science, coupled with a lack of skepticism on the part of the public, that contributes to such a misapplication of science. Scientists should resist the urge to generalize their results to make them more compelling. The science community should not allow misconstructions of scientific facts to go unchallenged. Journalists, for both the scientific publication and the newspaper, should resist the inclination to embellish the finding with social significance that is not present. For their part, readers must be doubly skeptical of any finding that appears to underwrite any current social hierarchy. We are all responsible for a communication and interpretation of science that is as accurate and socially responsible as possible.     

普世伦理如何可能

本文是我对同一主题探究的继续：关于建构普世伦理的方法论问题。基于一种“弱伦理模式”或低度普世化的立场,我主张通过由多元文化对话到公共理性共识的文化解释一理性推理之二维平行求证方式,寻求道德共识,从而建构一种低限度的可行的普世伦理。我承认并重视多元宗教作为普世伦理之文化价值资源的重要意义,但质疑任何以宗教作为普世伦理之基础的“强伦理模式”,甚至也不相信通过“弱宗教模式”来建立普世伦理的实际可行性。在文化多元、政治多极和经济利益主体多样化的实际条件下,建立一种“弱伦理模式”的普世伦理是惟一可以合理期待的。     

A Self-Modeling Intervention for High School Students with Public Speaking Anxiety

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the effectiveness of self-modeling as an intervention for public speaking anxiety. The participants were six high school students with elevated levels of self-reported public speaking anxiety. Students presented public speeches to randomly selected peer audiences. Direct observations measured the behavioral manifestations of public speaking anxiety. In the intervention phase, students viewed self-modeling videotapes that were edited to remove speech dysfluencies and behavioral symptoms of speech anxiety. The self-modeling tapes depicted only adaptive, exemplary behavior with an edited-in audience feature making it appear that the students were producing a fluent speech to an audience of their peers. All of the participants evidenced substantial decreases in behavioral symptoms of speech anxiety and these changes were maintained throughout follow-up. The range of the participants' effect sizes was 2.7 to 4.9. Self-report measures of state anxiety and confidence as a speaker were used to assess additional effects of treatment. For all participants, there were also substantial decreases in self-reported public speaking anxiety and state anxiety from baseline to follow-up. A post-treatment interview revealed high social validity and self-reported generalization of treatment.     

对环保行为的心理学解读——规范焦点理论述评

社会规范对个体行为的影响常被低估.通过将社会规范区分为描述性规范和命令性规范,并强调注意焦点的作用,规范焦点理论重新强调了社会规范的重要作用.根据规范焦点理论,不同类型的社会规范有不同的作用,恰当地使用相应的社会规范信息对环保行为进行干预,可以减少乱丢垃圾、促进垃圾分类,改善节能、节约和保护资源等行为.立足于环保应用,总结了运用这种既科学又省力的措施时应注意的问题.最后,从文化差异和我国社会现阶段特征两个方面,论述了规范焦点理论及其所倡导的措施对我国环保工作的适用性.     

幼儿对生气和伤心情绪倾向同伴的接受性比较

本研究通过生气-伤心两可情景,考察了116名4~6岁幼儿对生气和伤心倾向同伴的认知偏好,并通过二选一的封闭式访谈考察幼儿对生气和伤心情绪结果的理解,以反映幼儿的偏好原因。结果表明:①从认知上看,相比生气倾向的同伴,幼儿更偏好伤心倾向的同伴。②5岁、6岁组幼儿比4岁组幼儿更偏好伤心倾向的同伴。③在情绪结果理解上,幼儿认为生气引发他人更多的远离,伤心引发他人更多的目标恢复、道歉和趋近。可见,生气倾向的幼儿比伤心倾向的幼儿更不被同伴接受。     

The Public Dimension Of Scientific Controversies

Acceptance of three tenets of the doctrine of scientific objectivity, namely, the tenets of consensus, compartmentalization, and ahistorical truth, undermines scientists appreciation of the importance of scientific controversy and consideration of the policy and value implications of controversial scientific theories. This essay rejects these tenets and suggests scientists appreciate theoretical diversity, learn rational means for adjudicating value differences, and cultivate conversational as well as written forms of communication.