As a scientist myself, I was curious to observe the debates being staged recently on topics like global climate change and evolution. An esteemed member of Congress, Mr. Bill Nye (who is apparently also a children’s entertainer known as “the Science Guy”) has assumed the role as a spokesperson for the scientific community on some very controversial issues, sparring with opponents who question the validity of certain findings. You can read more about this at http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-nye-science-guy-debated-172029547.html
My question is, “Why?” Why a television personality who is actually not a climate scientist himself, instead of an actual scientist?
According to some critics, this latest encounter between Mr. Nye and Rep. Marsha Blackburn on the topic of climate change was “one of the most surreal and unlikely Sunday morning television face-offs in recent memory.”
Debates can sometimes prove to be very informative and enlightening. In this case, I wonder whether anything was really accomplished, except to demonstrate the foolishness of television programs that try to set up artificial exchanges like this one simply to attract attention and increase viewers.
Perhaps it would be time to remind people of my own conclusions on the matter of debating: one learns far more from listening to an opponent than trying to forcefully argue one’s own viewpoint. The more aggressive one person is in a debate, the more the opponent digs in his or her heels, and the less is actually accomplished in terms of practical solutions. I have usually gained much more from active listening and ultimately collaborating than I ever did by forcefully presenting my ideas or opinions.
Or, in other words, as I’ve said before on another occasion (a few centuries ago), if you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a temporary victory –sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will.
Perhaps debating about these issues is not what is needed. As a scientist with a very practical bent, I feel that we must move forward, instead. Solutions are needed, not more empty words and spiteful debates.
Your humble servant (and scientist),
B.Franklin
My question is, “Why?” Why a television personality who is actually not a climate scientist himself, instead of an actual scientist?
According to some critics, this latest encounter between Mr. Nye and Rep. Marsha Blackburn on the topic of climate change was “one of the most surreal and unlikely Sunday morning television face-offs in recent memory.”
Debates can sometimes prove to be very informative and enlightening. In this case, I wonder whether anything was really accomplished, except to demonstrate the foolishness of television programs that try to set up artificial exchanges like this one simply to attract attention and increase viewers.
Perhaps it would be time to remind people of my own conclusions on the matter of debating: one learns far more from listening to an opponent than trying to forcefully argue one’s own viewpoint. The more aggressive one person is in a debate, the more the opponent digs in his or her heels, and the less is actually accomplished in terms of practical solutions. I have usually gained much more from active listening and ultimately collaborating than I ever did by forcefully presenting my ideas or opinions.
Or, in other words, as I’ve said before on another occasion (a few centuries ago), if you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a temporary victory –sometimes; but it will be an empty victory because you will never get your opponent's good will.
Perhaps debating about these issues is not what is needed. As a scientist with a very practical bent, I feel that we must move forward, instead. Solutions are needed, not more empty words and spiteful debates.
Your humble servant (and scientist),
B.Franklin
RSS Feed
