\u201cIt is, therefore, the policy of my Administration to listen to the science,\u201d he wrote in one executive order<\/a>.<\/p>\n That all may seem like overkill, but it\u2019s been a weird few years for science. The Trump administration censored scientists<\/a>, impeded climate research<\/a>, and dismissed public health officials\u2019 advice at the height of a global pandemic. On the campaign trail, Biden often said \u201cI believe in science<\/a>\u201d to contrast himself with his opponent, who denied the threats posed by climate change and the coronavirus pandemic but readily embraced conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n But according to polling from the Shelton Group, a marketing agency focused on energy and the environment, from last May, Americans still trust scientists more than almost any group outside of friends and family. That survey showed that more people trusted scientists even more than books, churches, or the school system \u2014 and far more than the press, big companies, or Congress.<\/p>\n So how, then, did science get so polarizing? In the eyes of many Americans, it has to do with the annoying way non-scientists talk about science. \u201cEvery time we say, \u2018Well, I believe in the science,\u2019 I think we come off holier than thou,\u201d said Suzanne Shelton, CEO of the Shelton Group. \u201cReally what we’re saying is, \u2018Well, I <\/em>believe in the science, dumbass!\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The climate movement has long assumed that the overwhelming evidence behind climate change will convince people to care about the ailing planet and motivate them to take action. If those facts fit your worldview \u2014 and for plenty of people, they do \u2014 that works great. But when the evidence doesn\u2019t fit into people\u2019s preconceived notions of how the world works, they find ways to challenge or dismiss evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Evidence just bounces right off them<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to get away from the idea that logic and rationality is always the most persuasive argument,\u201d said Hollie Smith, an assistant professor of science and environmental communication at the University of Oregon. Hearing a message that\u2019s counter to your beliefs can even result in what\u2019s called a \u201cboomerang effect<\/a>\u201d \u2014 when an attempt to persuade someone ends up doing the opposite.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s another problem: Not only do experts say that catchphrases like \u201cbelieve in science\u201d and \u201clisten to the science\u201d are making matters worse, they\u2019re also kind of, well, anti-science.<\/p>\n \u201cAnytime you say a sentence with that word in it, it’s probably false,\u201d said Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and technology studies at the Harvard Kennedy School. Academics have spent more than half a century researching what people even mean by invoking this thing called \u201cscience,\u201d she said. Consider what climate science is: an amalgam of disciplines and knowledge that has been pieced together to come to a conclusion about the planet. It\u2019s too big to see from a single perspective; Jasanoff compares scientific \u201ctruth\u201d to a jigsaw puzzle or a patchwork, something that creates a fuller picture only when you add up all of its parts. The world is getting hotter and weirder, and lots of different signals point to that conclusion. But each piece taken individually might not display the same story.<\/p>\n All of this complexity gets glossed over when people use quippy phrases like \u201cbelieve the science,\u201d Jasanoff said. \u201cThe simplification of the message is itself an anti-scientific move, because it denies the actual network complexity of knowledge and of society.\u201d<\/p>\n Science, after all, \u201csays\u201d a lot of different things \u2014 and as new data points on a topic emerge, some conclusions can shift over time<\/a>. You read a headline that says red meat is bad for you, for example, and then next day, another headline says that\u2019s bad advice<\/a>. Those interpretations aren\u2019t necessarily a problem from a scientific perspective — yay, more evidence to consider! — but when every surprising paper gets portrayed as an equally valid twist, people are bound to have questions about what it means to \u201clisten to science.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s not to say experts don’t have anything definitive to say on the topic of climate change. Science may not be a monolith, but neither is it an opinion free-for-all. \u201cIt’s horrifying that we’re in a world where some people can just lie with impunity and get away with it, and some people can just ignore facts and get away with it,\u201d said Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo. \u201cBut the answer isn’t to say, \u2018We believe in science!\u2019 The answer is to fight for the values and the visions you have.\u201d<\/p>\n Academic articles have been critiquing this \u201cscience says\u201d rhetoric for decades, said Darrick Evensen, an assistant professor of environmental politics at the University of Edinburgh. The word \u201cscientized\u201d has been used to describe the idea of making a claim \u201cseem like it’s just about science\u201d when it\u2019s actually about complicated policy issues and moral and cultural questions. Science alone can\u2019t tell us whether the United States needs a green jobs guarantee, a carbon tax, or warning labels<\/a> on gas pumps.<\/p>\n When Biden says he \u201clistens\u201d to science, he might be trying to say that he\u2019s using peer-reviewed, authoritative, and fact-checked sources, Evensen said. But the phrase can be dangerous because it \u201cmakes it seem like there\u2019s no value judgments to be made,\u201d he said. \u201cThe science describes what the situation is, what might happen \u2026 but it still doesn\u2019t tell us what we should do. It\u2019s our values and the things that we care about that tell us what we should do.\u201d<\/p>\n Science, however, cannot be untangled from culture and politics. For example, when the National Science Foundation reviews research proposals, one of its criteria is \u201cbroader impacts<\/a>\u201d \u2014 in other words, how the research could benefit society. \u201cYou cannot say science is disinterested and sits apart from politics and policy,\u201d Jasanoff said, adding that it can invite backlash when people discover that scientists aren\u2019t detached and disinterested, but instead hoping to improve the world with their work. Biden, she noted, is the first president to appoint a deputy director for science and society, Alondra Nelson<\/a>, a sociologist who has studied racism in medicine and the effects of emerging technology. It\u2019s a step toward acknowledging \u201cthe reality of the way that science does interface with society,\u201d Jasanoff said.<\/p>\n Society also doesn\u2019t benefit when people with questions about science get shut down too quickly, Jasanoff warns. The public has understandable concerns, \u201cwhether it’s mothers, fearful for their fragile children’s health, who will not tolerate a vaccine, or communities that are dependent on fossil fuel extraction who don’t know what will happen to them if the fossil fuel industry shuts down.\u201d<\/p>\n If people are hesitant about getting a COVID-19 vaccine, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, told NPR<\/a>, the \u201cmost important thing\u201d is to hear them out. \u201cI think that one of the reasons that I see that the anti- and questioning and skeptical voices have gotten louder is they feel like they’ve been shut down when they tried to express a concern or have their view,\u201d Larson said. \u201cAnd it has kind of hardened the views because people feel cut out.\u201d<\/p>\n If you\u2019re actually trying to convince someone, put down the \u201cpro-science\u201d megaphone and try to understand where they\u2019re coming from. Then work to find common ground. \u201cI wish we would stop arguing so much about science, because I think it is polarizing. And I wish we would focus on our kids, because that’s not polarizing,\u201d said Shelton, the marketing CEO. She recommends targeting messages for the type of person you\u2019re trying to reach: Future-oriented messages tend to work for progressives, for example, but nostalgic messages are more effective for conservatives. (There\u2019s a reason that \u201cMake American Great Again\u201d resonated with many Americans.) That might mean talking about the glory days of sledding in cold, snowy winters and the fun afternoons you spent fishing<\/a> with your grandpa versus quoting the latest U.N. climate report.<\/p>\n At the end of the day, Americans would benefit from a more nuanced way of talking about science \u2014 and talking to each other. The way science gets talked about now, \u201cYou\u2019re either for science, or you’re an ignoramus and deplorable,\u201d Jasanoff said. \u201cAnd we know that has had corrosive, corrosive impacts in the American polity that are not matched anywhere else in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n This story was originally published by Grist<\/a> with the headline Why is science so polarizing? Blame the way we talk about it.<\/a> on Jan 29, 2021.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/grist.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/science-is-real-Trump-protest.jpg\")