PZ Myers has this to say about the YouTube video of our "Speaking Science 2.0" talk:
I tried to watch that video. I even made it to the 20 minute mark before I gave up. Please, oh please, I need some substance in order to keep me going through an hour-long lecture.
I'm going to try not to get annoyed or snippy about this. Instead, I'll "frame" my response this way: It's funny that others don't share this perspective, isn't it? We have given the talk so far to two serious groups populated by many, many scientists: At the Stowers Institute in Kansas City, and at the annual meeting of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. I also delivered a version to a group of very serious scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne, Australia. In all cases, the audiences seemed very engaged, stayed to the end, and no one complained of lack of "substance." In fact, Scienceblogs' own Jason Rosenhouse was at one of the talks and, although critical of some of what we say, commented thusly:
They make a number of persuasive points, and I certainly agree with their basic thesis. Scientists definitely need to be savvier in dealing with the media than they historically have been. But I'm still a little suspicious of some of their suggestions about evolution specifically. A bit too much "Lay off the religion!" for my taste. It was nice having a chance to talk to them in person, however. If they're coming anywhere near you, I recommend going to some effort to see the presentation.
There are also some reactions here from some folks who watched the talk on YouTube and seem to have really appreciated it. So, c'mon, PZ. You've ripped the "framing science" concept based upon brief essay-style presentations of it. Now we've gone all out and produced a much more thorough presentation--one that covers, in depth, the concept of framing; evolution; stem cell research; global warming; hurricanes; and then closes by presenting policy solutions--and you won't engage. I'm disappointed by this, but I also know you're a thoughtful guy. So I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt here and ask you again to engage with our arguments as we have now chosen--comprehensively--to present them.
P.S.: Admittedly, the PowerPoint slides--all 70 something of them--are not visible in the current YouTube video of the talk. We are *trying* to make the slides of the talk publicly available as soon as we can, because they are data rich and full of "substance." Still, there's already enough there with the YouTube video to get a strong sense of what we're suggesting.
P.P.S.: I've also made two other major "framing science" critics, Greg Laden and Larry Moran, aware of the YouTube version of the talk. Greg Laden was kind enough to post it and says he'll wait for the slides. I haven't seen anything yet from Moran. UPDATE: Larry Moran watched the video which I appreciate. He's not swayed. He claims we haven't gotten what critics are saying, but of course, if he's calling framing spin still, he hasn't gotten what we are saying. That's too bad. Larry's right about one thing: Our argument is aimed at a U.S. audience, and so maybe it seems a bit odd to him as he's from Canada. Still, the same principles of framing would apply to other countries....
P.P.P.S.: ScienceBlogs has been kind enough to run banner ads (targeted only for NYC area visitors) about our next talk, which is on Monday at the New York Academy of Sciences. Cool, huh? It looks like this:
