Listen up, y'all: Nisbet has just teamed up with Dietram Scheufele, a colleague from UW-Madison, to pen a lengthy cover story for The Scientist that fleshes out the now uncontroversial framing science argument. Furthermore, Scientist editor Richard Gallagher strongly endorses the argument in his accompanying editorial:
Those opposed to framing, in addition to a wistful longing to have science truly understood, also hold a sincere concern. They fear that framing taints science, that it is spin, rhetoric, or propaganda, and that the discussion of science has to stand above such base activity. Science, they say, is not hustle. Fair enough, but such arguments ignore the clear distinction between spin and framing....
Anyways, for all you folks out there who still associate framing with Neville Chamberlain capitulation, please try to go into reading the Scientist article as an intellectual tabula rasa, with preconceptions set aside. I find the piece a real tour de force--thoroughly diagnosing the problem, thoroughly explaining the solution. The Scientist should be very proud to have published it. I hope you will feel the same way.
