Longing for a revolution

I had to go really far away to a watery, watery land to find a really helpful book. Photo by me.

Some days, I feel certain that we are on the verge of some major cultural shifts. Other days...not so much. During the latter, I am grateful for anything the reawakens a deep sense of possibility. Recently, that thing was a serendipitous encounter with Land and Environmental Art, a book that contains some unexpected parallels for where I feel we are in the sciences right now and provides a really interesting look at working from the margins.

The problem with consensus

The issue of scientific consensus on climate change is back in the news again. For a good primer, see Chris Mooney's latest piece in the Washington Post: "Researchers think they’ve found a “gateway belief” that leads to greater science acceptance." I just want to jump quickly to what I find so challenging with focusing on consensus (and there are many) as a means to sway public opinion: if you view the climate change issue through a conflict lens, consensus is not the answer. Research actually shows the opposite -- that in intractable conflicts, which I believe climate change has become, introducing nuance, shades of gray, and multiple perspectives is what leads to change.

Toward a more expansive view of being a scientist

So, I tried to write an editorial for a science journal this summer, and a few things about the experience were very interesting. First and foremost was the back and forth with the editor about whether or not what I had written about was actually "science". For me, this gets to the heart of the matter what it means to be a scientist and what is considered science (not to mention how hard it is to publish as a practitioner). I deeply believe that we need be more expansive in how we think about both.