Subscribe to the blogs

Triple A Learning IB Blogs

July 30, 2011

speaking science

Filed under: TOK meets global citizenship — Tags: , , , — Eileen Dombrowski @ 1:45 am

Don’t miss out on this article on grad students in science learning to communicate, with its splendid examples of “speaking science” in different contexts:  How to Talk to Real People. It’s short and very relevant to TOK’s connection between ways of knowing (language) and areas of knowledge (science).  Used in class, it could open discussion on inviting questions:  In what contexts is “jargon” effective in communication? Conversely, when is it ineffective or even calculated to be confusing?  Does it matter whether scientists can communicate with lay people?  If it does, why? Though the questions are simple, the possible answers can direct attention toward a lot of complexity not just in academic communication but in media and politics.

Anyone following scientific issues of significance to our technological development, our health or our environment will want to explore questions with students regarding how the public gains its understanding of science — and the wide open possibilities for confusion or deliberate disinformation if scientists can’t communicate comprehensibly to the rest of us.

Read more…

July 18, 2011

creating knowledge? or creating ignorance?

“Agnotology”:  do we now need such a word in our critical vocabulary?  Oh no!  I sincerely hope that we can manage to examine disinformation on significant social issues without having to get our tongues around that one!  The concept, however, is one to which I’ve returned repeatedly in this blog (including in my previous posting): “agnotology”, a term apparently coined by a professor from Stanford, is the study of ignorance.  The form that cries out for current study is the calculated fostering of public doubt in scientific conclusions that are well justified and accepted by legitimate scientific bodies.  In May, a two-day symposium was held at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research (ZIF) at a university in Germany to give attention to this phenomenon of undermining knowledge with predominant motives of ideology or profit.

Stéphane Foucart, covering the symposium for The Guardian, picks out for commentary the following points, all extremely relevant to awareness of the relationship between science and society, and to understanding debate on science in the media:

Read more…

November 3, 2010

tabloid journalism and the challenge to knowledge

“public discourse has dissolved into a puerile and polarized junkfest”  Tabloid journalism, tabloid society

This review by Lawrence Martin of an article by media critic Marvin Kitman is worth reading.  In my mind, the most important thing we can teach our students is to be open, learn, think critically, and then make good decisions — decisions that are informed and ethical.  This goal is ambitious, yes, but attainable.  In my mind, the greatest barrier to our teaching and their learning is media control.  This isn’t new.  For many years, for instance, Noam Chomsky has been bringing to our attention the ownership of media and its effect on what information reaches the public, and how it is cast.  The corporate funding of disinformation campaigns and their open play in the media has become one of the most urgent issues of knowledge of our era.  Is teaching students awareness and skills to evaluate the media too political now to tackle in class?

Read more…

August 14, 2010

“Merchants of Doubt”: disinformation and knowledge

I’m really preoccupied with this knowledge issue this summer: how control of information influences knowledge…and therefore the basis we have for informed and responsible choices as individuals and as societies.  I’ve recently listened to a podcast recorded in June and want to pass it on to you as a “must-listen”.

It deals with a discovery.  Researching independently, Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway made the same curious observation: that testimony casting doubt on acid rain, the negative impact of tobacco, and global warming seemed to come from the same sources.  What they had discovered was the impact of think-tanks such as the Marshall Institute, funded to discredit any science whose conclusions undermined the business interests of tobacco manufacturers and oil companies, to mention two — and in the process science itself.  The result was their recent book, How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Read more…

August 1, 2010

Is that an expert — or an advertisement?

Misrepresentations and masquerades — these ideas have preoccupied me this summer.  Seeing through them to truthful versions feels as if it’s growing more and more onerous.  Is it really MY responsibility to figure out whether an “expert” holding forth in the media is actually in the employ of a corporation or PR firm?  Much as I accept (and sometimes go on about) personal responsibility for filtering information critically, at the moment I feel quite bad tempered over the degree to which ordinary people like myself have to be on guard the whole time against being conned on some of the most important social and environmental issues of our day.

In an article entitled “Punditry for sale” in July’s Le Monde Diplomatique, Sebastian Jones pulls together information on “covert corporate influence peddling” on cable TV networks and the impact on public opinion: “No single appearance can damage legislation and reform, yet there is a cumulative effect from hundreds of appearances by dozens of lobbyists and influence peddlers that helps to drive press coverage and public opinion.”

Read more…