BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//wp-events-plugin.com//7.2.3.1//EN TZID:America/Denver X-WR-TIMEZONE:America/Denver BEGIN:VEVENT UID:65-18193@philosophy.colostate.edu DTSTART;TZID=America/Denver:20240401T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Denver:20240402T180000 DTSTAMP:20240320T171805Z URL:https://philosophy.colostate.edu/events/interdisciplinary-science-comm unication-workshop/ SUMMARY:Interdisciplinary Science Communication Workshop DESCRIPTION:Interdisciplinary Science Communication Workshop\nLocation: Lon gs Peak Room\, LSC 302 (except Keynote which will be in the Lory Student C enter Theatre) \nThis two-day workshop aims to improve science communicati on along a variety of dimensions by putting working scientists\, historian s of science\, and philosophers of science in direct and continual interdi sciplinary collaborations concerning the methods of science\, the philosop hical assumptions embedded in scientific practice\, and how to communicate those methods and assumptions to the public in ways that improve trust in science.\n \;\n\n \;\nSchedule of Events\n \;\nMonday\, April 1st\n9:00-9:30: Coffee\n9:30-10:30: Erin Welsh (This podcast will kill yo u)\n10:35-11:35: Jaime Jacobsen (Colorado State University)\n11:35-1:30: P resenter Lunch\n1:30-2:30: Kristen Intemann (Montana State University)\n6: 00 pm: Open Panel Discussion @ Odell Brewing Company\n\n\n \;\nTuesday \, April 2nd\n 9:00-9:30: Coffee\n9:30-10:30: Vanessa Schipani (Universit y of Pennsylvania)\n10:35-11:35: Michelle Francl (Bryn Mawr College)\n11:3 5-1:00 pm: Presenter Lunch\n2:00-3:00: Richelle Tanner (Chapman University )\n3:00-4:00: Coffee with Students\n4:00-6:00: Naomi Oreskes (Harvard Univ ersity)\, Lory Student Center Theatre\n \;\n\n \;\n\n \;\nTalk Titles and Abstracts\n \;\nErin Welsh\, This Podcast Will Kill You\n “Great question\, I don't know! Science communication through conversat ion.”\nErin Welsh and Erin Allmann Updyke created This Podcast Will Kill You in 2017\, the last year of their PhDs\, as an outlet to share their f ascination with infectious diseases with anyone who would listen and to tr y to bridge the widening gap between academic research and the general pub lic. Each episode of This Podcast Will Kill You explores a disease or othe r medical topic from biological\, historical\, and epidemiological perspec tives and uses scientific storytelling to build connections with the audie nce\, humanizing what can often be a very impersonal field. Their conversa tional approach serves to engage and entertain listeners while providing a low-pressure learning environment\, and their willingness to engage with uncertainty when explaining complex topics helps to build and maintain tru st with their audience. Over the last six years and over 150 episodes\, Th is Podcast Will Kill You has reached millions of listeners around the worl d\, scientists and non-scientists alike\, and has worked towards demystify ing how science is done to increase trust and understanding with the gener al public. In this talk\, Erin shares some lessons in science communicatio n\, including the importance of striking a balance between clarity and dep th\, identifying sources of mis- and disinformation in public health topic s\, how to tailor your explanation for a specific audience\, and why admit ting what you don’t know is an undervalued strength.\n\nJaime Jacobsen\, Center for Science Communication\, Colorado State University\n“Communic ating Climate Adaptation &\; Climate Anxiety Through Non-Fiction Film ” \nPolitically charged topics like climate change present unique scien ce communication challenges. In this talk\, award-winning filmmaker Jaime Jacobsen discusses her work with Colorado agricultural producers to share stories about climate adaptation and climate anxiety through films produce d by CSU's Center for Science Communication.\n\nKristen Intemann\, History &\; Philosophy\, Montana State University\n“Promoting Trust in Exper ts through Science Communication: Challenges and Opportunities”\nPhiloso phers have argued that warranted trust in experts requires non-experts to have good reason to believe that experts are 1) epistemically competent\, 2) morally reliable (e.g.\, honest)\, and 3) have a good will (e.g.\, care about public wellbeing).  Science communication can be done in ways that give non-experts reasons to think these conditions are met or\, alternati vely\, in ways that might call into question one or more of these conditio ns.  Focusing on concrete examples from climate science to public health recommendations\, several communication strategies are evaluated in relati on to promoting warranted trust.  I show that what may promote trust can depend on the communication context\, but also offer lessons for the facto rs experts must consider in thinking about how to communicate with non-exp erts so as to facilitate trust.\n\nVanessa Schipani\, Philosophy\, Univers ity of Pennsylvania\n“How Should Journalists Communicate Scientific Disa greement?”\nBy bridging empirical and philosophical work on science comm unication\, this talk compares journalistic norm conflicts that arose when reporting on COVID-19 and tobacco\, among other policy-relevant scientifi c topics. I argue that the public’s image of scientists – as possessor s of value-free knowledge\, trustworthy only when in consensus – makes i t particularly difficult for journalists to ethically communicate policy-r elevant science rife with disagreement. In doing so\, I show how journalis ts\, like scientists\, face what philosophers of science call the problem of inductive risk in such cases. To overcome this problem\, I sketch a mod el of trust in science that is grounded in an alternative image of scienti sts – what I call the responsiveness model of trust in science. By highl ighting the process of science over its product (value-free knowledge)\, t he responsiveness model requires scientists to respond to new evidence and the public’s values to warrant the public’s trust. I then show why th is model requires journalists to be the public’s watchdogs by verifying and communicating whether scientists are being properly responsive both ep istemically and non-epistemically.\n\nMichelle Francl\, Chemistry\, Bryn M awr College\n“Spilling the Tea: Putting Chemistry into Context”\nGerma n chemist and philosopher Wilhelm Ostwald entreated chemists to take care to show "the bones” of the science that supported their observations and reactions. A recently completed book on the chemistry of tea gave me the chance to consider how to reveal these hidden frameworks of chemistry for an audience of both chemists and non-chemists. Where do chemists locate th eir arguments? What questions are chemists asking and how do those questio ns change with time\, place and the person asking them? How aware should c hemists be of the historical tides that have shaped the questions we ask?\ n\nRichelle Tanner\, Environmental Science &\; Policy\, Chapman Univers ity\n"Building trust\, sense of belonging\, and values-based language for diverse stakeholder collective action”\nThe Academy has long engaged in forms of science communication that champion few ways of knowing. We have acknowledged as a community that inclusion and diversity are key aspects o f our future\, but our methods of connecting with the public\, our peers\, and our students do not yet match our aspirational goals. My research foc uses on the aspects of communication that draw together a community and fu rther pinpoints language that improves literacy to have action-oriented co nversations on common ground. In this talk\, I will share three ongoing st udies where my research group has approached these goals using multidiscip linary methodology across the social and natural sciences. We will first v isit the California Delta\, where an introduced plant’s coordinated mana gement has been unsuccessful for decades due to distrusting landowner-mana ger relations. Then\, we will move to Southern California\, where inland\, non-English speaking communities are excluded from coastal recreation zon es and their climate resilience plans. Lastly\, we will take a look inward at our own colleagues in Biology professional societies to understand how we may start to reform the cultural norms upheld by how we present scient ific research at conferences and in journals.\n\nNaomi Oreskes\, Henry Cha rles Lea Professor of the History of Science\, Harvard University\n“How Market Fundamentalism Has Blocked Climate Action”\nThe world has known f or decades that man-made climate change threatens our health\, our wealth\ , and even the future on life on Earth as we know it. Yet\, despite hundre ds of major scientific reports\, thousands of peer-reviewed articles\, and a near unanimous consensus among climate scientists\, political and socia l action has been inadequate to address the unfolding crisis. Worse\, many American political leaders continue to deny that there even is a climate crisis.  In our first book\, Merchants of Doubt\, Erik Conway and I sho wed that climate change denial was rooted in market fundamentalism: the be lief that government action in the marketplace threatens personal freedom and puts us on the “road to serfdom.”  In our new book\, we show how market fundamentalism—linked to the rhetorical framework of the threat o f “Big Government”--was cultured\, advanced\, and sustained by powerfu l American business interests\, and how this political ideology continues today to be a major force blocking climate (and other important political) action today.\n \; CATEGORIES:Democracy and Civic Engagement LOCATION:Longs Peak Room\, Lory Student Center\, Colorado State University\ , Fort Collins\, CO\, 80523\, United States GEO:40.5702905;-105.09016250000002 X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS=Colorado State University\, Fort Collins\, CO\, 80523\, United States;X-APPLE-RADIUS=100;X-TITLE=Long s Peak Room\, Lory Student Center:geo:40.5702905,-105.09016250000002 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/Denver X-LIC-LOCATION:America/Denver BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20240310T030000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0600 TZNAME:MDT END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE END:VCALENDAR