President’s Update: Critical Thinking Lessons from the Same Sex Marriage Debate

With thanks to Dr Craig Cormick, President, Australian Science Communicators

Listening to the arguments being made about Same Sex Marriage causes me to ponder how well critical thinking is being used in public debate. Some of the flawed arguments that are being made – predominantly by the No side it has to be said – are similar to arguments being made by those who oppose infant vaccination, climate change, stem cells and other contentious sciences.

That people make illogical arguments to fool themselves is nothing new, but I feel we need to call out those who make illogical arguments to fool others. Particularly those illogical arguments that ‘feel’ right and have become the tools of misinformation.

The reason false arguments work well, in many cases, is that while the world is large and complex our brains favour simple explanations. We tend to seek out ideas to confirm what we already suspect, trust people we find more appealing, and take our own individual experiences and treat it as evidence.

Some of the illogical arguments that are used that you should look out for include:

Broken Logic. An example of broken logic is citing a child who got sick from a vaccination as proof that all vaccinations are dangerous and may make your child sick. Sometimes broken logic statements feel accurate, and only when really analysed do you find they are not. Sometimes they are just clumsy, like finding an error in a report on climate change and then using that to imply that everything in the report is in error. The danger is that those looking for ammunition to support a position that is already anti-climate change science, will hook onto broken logic as if it is actually logic and refuse to be convinced otherwise.

Straw man arguments. This is something that is easily knocked over, like a person made of straw – and is usually done when an opponent claims you are saying something that you actually aren’t, and proceeds to demolish your supposed arguments. An example of this Allan Jones stating: “And of course carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant. It’s a harmless trace gas that’s necessary for life.”

Michael Brown from Monash University has said, “Straw man climate science ignores real world complexity. Variations from year-to-year and place-to-place are assumed to undermine the case for anthropogenic climate change.”

False equivalence: False equivalence is usually made by comparing something morally and emotionally outrageous to some aspect of science that someone is attacking. One of the worst cases of false equivalence I have heard in recent years is when the Australian Vaccination Sceptics Network in 2015 compared infant vaccines to rape.

Case Study of One:  This is usually preceded by a statement like, ‘Well when my aunty visited the Great Barrier Reef and she said…’ Although it is more often based on a person’s own single experience of an incident, such as Pauline Hanson stating that the Reef was clearly in good condition because it looked okay when she visited Great Keppel Island.

John Cook from George Mason University, has described the illogical fallacies often used by science deniers as FLICC. This stands for:

So keep an eye out for them, whether the argument is being made about same sex marriage or science – and as a science communicator don’t be shy of calling ‘Illogical fallacy’ (or just plain ‘Bullshit’) on them.

Unsung Hero of Australian Science Communication 2017

The Australian Science Communicators

is proud to offer the

Unsung Hero Award of Australian Science Communication

Nominations close at 5pm Adelaide time on Tuesday 31 October 2017.

ASC Unsung Hero Award 2017 Nomination Form – Entry PDF
ASC Unsung Hero Award 2016 Nomination Form – Entry WORD

The Unsung Hero of Australian Science Communication is an initiative of the Australian Science Communicators. The ASC offers this award to honour a person or group who exemplifies science communication.

Nominations are now open for the 2017 Unsung Hero Award of Australian Science Communication.

Previous recipients include Geoff Crane (2016), Kylie Walker (2015), Frankie Lee (2014) and Craig Cormick (2013). The award was launched by the 2011 National Executive and realigned from the previous ‘Unsung Hero of Science’ award (read some background here).

Criteria

The criteria for nomination for the Unsung Hero Australian Science Communication are:

  1. Nominees (an individual or group) must be resident in Australia and actively engaged in science communication, interpreted broadly to include, but not limited to, pursuits such as:
    • teaching,
    • broadcasting,
    • script and book writing,
    • science shows,
    • science promotion and
    • interpretation of science within cultural institutions.
  2. The work the nominee is being nominated for must have been carried out in Australia.
  3. Nominees should have not yet received significant recognition for their contribution to science and its promotion. This will almost certainly rule out a ‘top’ or popular science communicator. The nominee should have shown that they regard science communication as an integral part of scientific work.
  4. Nominees should have a considerable or prolonged record (at least several years) in science communication.
  5. The award is intended to recognise those whose contribution has been so significant over a period of time that they should by now have been recognised. It is unlikely that this would apply to a candidate whose contribution, however significant, is of short duration.
  6. Nominators must give careful consideration to what counts as ‘science’ – for example, nominees from technological or environmental fields should be nominated not just on the basis of their contribution to those particular fields, but because the scientific side of their work is strong and their communication contributes to a better understanding of the process and practice of science.

Note:
This award may be made to a candidate whose work is specifically in science education, promotion or communication in one or many fields where the science component of their work is highly significant.

Benefits of the award

Ideally, the award may assist the recipient in their work, for example by publicising a difficult issue or by recognising that they have been a ‘lone and unpopular voice’ in spite of their scientific achievements being strong.

The award may also help a recipient to focus attention on their efforts or give them greater credibility and help them overcome adverse or unfair criticism.

Selection Process

Selection is based solely on the written information provided on the nomination form.

A selection committee of representatives from the Australian Science Communicators will assess all nominations and determine award recipients.

In some instances the selection committee may request further information before making their final decision.

The Australian Science Communicators reserves the right to make no awards should the judges consider that the quality of candidates does not warrant awards, or should the nominated candidate(s) not satisfy the selection criteria.

Requirements for Award Nomination

The nominator must be a financial member of the ASC, but the nominee need not be a member. The nominator should first consult with the nominee and referees to ensure the nominee is aware of, and gives consent, to the application.

Each nomination must comprise a fully completed award nomination form. Preferable length: 2 pages.

ASC Unsung Hero Award 2017 Nomination Form – Entry PDF
ASC Unsung Hero Award 2016 Nomination Form – Entry WORD

Nominations close at 5pm Adelaide time on Tuesday 31 October 2017.  

Nomination enquiries to:
Lisa Bailey
Vice President of the Australian Science Communicators

unsung@asc.asn.au

Send completed nominations to:
Kali Madden
Executive Officer – Australian Science Communicators

unsung@asc.asn.au

Nomination forms

ASC Unsung Hero Award 2017 Nomination Form – Entry PDF
ASC Unsung Hero Award 2016 Nomination Form – Entry WORD