Rediscovering the “Scientific”

            The term “scientific” carries a certain credential and weight to it. The general public expects something said to be scientific to both originate from a reputable source from the scientific community, and contain meaningful, conclusive information derived from research. In some cases, the benchmark for something to be described as “scientific” can be more relaxed, but in places where people go specifically with the intent to find information and news, there is little left open to interpretation. Readers expectations surrounding the scientific claim are derived from an consensual understanding and trust of the scientific community as well as inherent characteristics of science.

            Unfortunately, our media is flooded with information derived from questionable sources, or even completely falsified information created by someone with a special interest for the sole purpose of misleading or persuading the reader. Within this information, readers are left searching for key words or signifiers that the information they are reading is accurate and honest. Among the utmost of these signifiers is the claim of the data given being “scientific” or derived from scientific sources. It's true anyone can claim their information is scientific, but reader discretion must be exercised at all times when consuming media. When a reputable and trusted news source states that their story is based on scientific research, one can typically trust that there is honest information being shared.

            What separates the scientific community from others is its hesitancy to accept anything as fact. Really, those who wish to become better at seeking truthful information through all forms of media can learn a great deal from the scientific community’s approach to new research and findings. Scientists are always conducting research and uncovering truths that may contradict previous understandings. A project by a Paleontology group at the University of California, Berkeley strives to help fix some common misconceptions about science. Rather than a stagnant collection of facts, they suggest science “is an exciting and dynamic process for discovering how the world works and building that knowledge into powerful and coherent frameworks” (Berkeley). Through this ongoing process, even the most standard and rudimentary concepts are met with a healthy skepticism. “Some scientific ideas are so well established and supported by so many lines of evidence, they are unlikely to be completely overturned. However, even these established ideas are subject to modification based on new evidence and perspectives. Furthermore, at the cutting edge of scientific research, areas of knowledge that are difficult to represent in introductory textbooks,  scientific ideas may change rapidly as scientists test out many different possible explanations trying to figure out which are the most accurate” (Berkeley).

This understanding of the ever-changing nature of science is at the heart of Jeanne Fahnestock of the University of Maryland’s Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts in which she addresses the the difficulties of “accommodating new knowledge to old assumptions” (Fahnestock 276). She describes a delicate line scientists must be considerate of when presenting new ideas. Drawing from a 1948 passage by Albert Einstein, Fahnestock suggests this line balances oversimplifying and sugar coating ones scientific finding to appeal and make sense to a broader, generally less informed audience, with providing substantially intelligent and credible information to obtain the necessary attention and respect of the scientific community. While questioning how Einstein’s thoughts on this issue would have evolved had he still been alive when she wrote the piece, Fahnestock points to improved coverage of scientific subjects by major magazines like National Geographic and Smithsonian resulting from changes in their editorial policies as reasons for optimism for better representation of scientific research. While this was likely true of the landscape of scientific exposure in 1986 when Fahnestock wrote this piece, I believe more impactful today is considering the modern climate of news consumption, with readers more thoughtfully and critically analyzing the content they consume, the line Fahnestock described has shifted significantly in the direction of pure, honest, and intelligent reporting of scientific ideas. Although it might come at the cost of being understood by a portion of the content’s audience, the very complexity and extravagance that creates this barrier is what strikes the reader as credible and “scientific”.

The intent and motives of the journalists actually conveying scientific ideas to readers plays a large role in how it is represented as explained by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer in Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America. In chapter four they unpack how journalists foremost job is to produce content that will appeal to and be read by the largest audience possible. Human interest becomes the number one factor in what is represented in the media. “Above all, scientists who write and read de notation discourse based on personal involvement with experimental data are less dependent on uncertified secondhand information than are journalists, most of whom depend exclusively on interviews (micro-narratives); and if a particular source proves to be more willing about sharing information or to have a more interesting slant on a particular story, journalists may consciously or unconsciously privilege that source and thereby betray their own objectivity” (Killingsworth/Palmer 135). More simply put, journalists will run with the story they can most easily collect information for and believe will have the most reader interest. This is just an inherent flaw in the way media organizations compensate their journalists. The more content and clicks an article gets, the more value it is to the company. This formula can, in the eyes of the media organizations, overshadow the need for detailed and factual content.

The clarity, understanding, and usage of the term “scientific” is more important today than ever before. The ease at which false and useless information can be shared and drown out the truly important content that news seekers really should see has increased the need for signifiers of honest and important content. At the cost of  ease and simplicity, consumers have and continue to become better readers. They are more skeptical and critical of what they read and consequently are more like to dive deeper into topics they otherwise might dismiss. This habit of thoroughness opens the door to the scientific community more freely sharing their ideas in all their complexity and detail without having to oversimplify key concepts to appeal to the headline skimming audience of the past. As the general public becomes even better readers, the quality of scientific information will continue to improve and classification of what constitutes as scientific will become increasingly clear.

Works Cited

Fahnestock, J. "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts." Written

 Communication 3.3 (1986): 275-96. Web. 20 Mar. 2017.

Killingsworth, Myrth Jimmie, and Jacqueline S. Palmer. Ecospeak Rhetoric and Environmental

Politics in America. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois U, 2012. Print.

"Misconceptions about Science." Understanding Science. University of California, Berkeley

Museum of Paleontology. 3 January 2017 <http://www.understandingscience.org/article/alvarez_01>.