Pamela Gay is an astronomer, educator, outreach chick, writer, and all around cool person (much like me, of course, except for the chick part).
She is currently at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement Science (something I plan on doing more once my book is out the door), and she went to two different talks by Gerry Wheeler (head of the NSTA) and Neil Tyson, famous astronomer. They both had something to say about how we as public-faced astronomers convey our message. Pamela wrote up such a great blog entry that I’ll just link to it again. And I’ll note that I was planning to write this entry by like line 5 of her reading her blog, long before she started throwing accolades my way. We just love each other. 
July 30th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Pamela, like you Phil, rocks!
I happened to catch that post in her blog a few hours ago, and have sent that link to a bunch of fellow astronomy education types.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Gee, not another astronomy blog to start reading…
I’m curious, though (and this is not to criticize anyone), when did “chick” go from being a sexist term to being okay, even cool? I always thought it was considered a put-down (”she’s just a chick”, “what you would expect from a chick flick?” etc) but it seems that my understanding of the term is no longer operative. Fine by me, I’m looking forward to the day (soon) when “atheist” is no longer a dirty word in this country.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
From Dr. Gay’s blog:
“And somehow, those of us out bringing science to the public, have to build a bridge between mainstream culture and mainstream science.”
Yes, but when the subject matter is religiously sensitive, as in evolution/creationism, “bridge builders” are labeled “appeasers” in a derogatory fashion. Why is that? This seems hypocritical to me. I never met an atheist/agnostic/skeptic, or read or heard comments from prominent public figures of that ilk, that when asked (or cornered), wouldn’t admit that they support the idea that everyone should be free to believe what they want. If your goal really is to educate people and live in a harmonious world, then you have to lay off the knee jerks and do the work. We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people in “mainstream culture” are religious to some degree, and that won’t change. The vast majority of people are also not scientists, and we shouldn’t expect them to be.
I’m not pointing any fingers here, it’s a trap that’s all too easy for any of us to fall into. Granted, there are plenty of whackos out there that need to be dealt with directly and harshly. We should point out their idiocy at every opportunity, and loudly. But the mainstream American is generally more rational than we give them credit for, and can be spoken to in a way that can avoid an equal but opposite knee jerk that instead of building bridges, digs ditches. I think more effort should be spent reaching the masses than slapping down idiots. I don’t think it would take as much energy.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
To me, chick is rather the equivalent of dude. If people choose to read it as a pejorative, well then, that’s one more thing I won’t worry about in my life.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Thanks for the posting Phil. Only problem is yet another great astronomy blog to add to my list
So much to read, so little time…
Pamela raises some interesting points though. Curiously enough I was running a teacher workshop last month and had a few of our professional astronomers talk about some of the topics related to the syllabus, some well beyond it and also provide examples of their current research. An interesting comment/question from one of the participating teachers was “why are all the speakers so young?”. I find that many of our postdoc-level astronomers are very interested in outreach. Maintaining a balance between outreach work and research (the key factor in obtaining any permanent position for most of them) is important so I try to not draw on the same people all the time.
There are enthusiastic, young(er) active researchers who convey their work very effectively to broader audiences. It is is important that we provide opportunities for them to develop skills and experience in this area. This is especially the case in dealing with school students. High school students are often more likely to respond to scientists closer in age to them than venerable elder statesmen(women) scientists.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:13 am
I know that when I have tried to debunk astrology, the debunking has been dismissed as mere opinion.
The other problem is media profile, if it is high enough and you can exhude charisma, people will flock to you.
Compare pictures of Bart Sibrel, JayUtah, Dr Phil. Who looks more charismatic?
With that healthy mane of hair, Bart of course
Compare Sylvia Brown with Dr Pamela Gay. Who has a better image?
Thereby is the problem
It is the non-spoken part that people will be attracted to most, as any instructor on body language will tell you.
Getting back to astrology, I a mere bespecticled fatso can not compete against the like of the charismatic popular astrologers that have their columns in the tabloids and the Sunday supliments.
It is not just clarity you need, but showmanship as well.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:40 am
When I was growing up, science was cool - “Watch Mr. Wizard,” “Science Fiction Theatre,” “Tom Corbett,” “Invaders From Mars.” Scientists were often the only ones that believed the little boy who claimed he saw Martians kidnapping his parents, etc. Somewhere along the way scientists became evil and science totally unhip. So I think Dr. Gay and the BA are right to argue for more humor, less condescension, less political correctness, and a recognition of the power of popular culture. I think “The Simpsons” do more for skepticality and science literacy than do yet another book decrying the stupidity of the masses.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:32 am
“…all around cool person (much like me, of course, except for the chick part). ” [BA referring to himself]
Am I the only reader who finds it off-putting for Phil to keep telling us how cool he is? This happens several times a week and I find it irritating.
When I was writing my second book, my editor got all over me for referring to myself in some laudatory manner, so I cut that out of my book. Now, I see exactly what she meant. If you write a book or a blog, you obviously have something on the ball so you don’t need to reveal your insecurities or need for adulation.
Yes, I have met Phil and he is indeed a nice and accomplished man, but I stick to my guns: praise should come from his readers, not the man himself.
Take it from someone twice your age, Phil, that you will look a lot more respectable and mature if you can make this change.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Mo Man-
Phil is indulging in what is known as irony. He is in fact, a big nerd - a geek, a schlub, a loser, a pencil-necked, four-eyed nebbish, and when he calls himself “cool”, he is tacitly acknowledging this. All us cool kids do it.
There, Phil, I sure told him, didn’t I? You can’t buy support like that.
July 31st, 2007 at 8:48 am
I’m cool
July 31st, 2007 at 8:51 am
Speaking of praise from the readers, has anyone else seen the video over at Depletedcranium.com? Pharyngula has a link to it as well.
It’s going to be interesting to see what the Good Doctor has to say about it!
July 31st, 2007 at 10:19 am
Yes, MO Man, it’s supposed to be ironic.
And I don’t want to look mature. If I did, I doubt I’d call myself The Bad Astronomer.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:15 am
In Germany we have a guy I want to call the “Geman Phil Plait” and his name is Harald Lesch. He was/is on the TV with a TV show called “alpha centauri” and he is really talking about very difficult themes and he is talking about them in a very cool way nearly everyone can understand!
But as said he is one of the rare people who can do it. And I’m not sure how many people really know him. If more would physics and astronomy would be better understood in the public.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
>>> I’m curious, though (and this is not to criticize
>>> anyone), when did “chick†go from being a sexist
>>> term to being okay, even cool?
Ask the Dixie Chicks.
It’s just a version of the Spanish word “chica”.
Maybe about the time “queer” in certain contexts became OK, as in “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”?
It’s a way of denying a derogatory term its power. Instead of fighting it, you take it over and mainstream it.
>>> the “German Phil Plaitâ€
Ich bin ein Skepticism.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
>> Ich bin ein Skepticism.
Is that another kind of jelly donut?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
aiabx,
Ein Skepticism is like ein Berliner except with sprinkles on top. But you may want to verify that for yourself.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
MO Man
You lose:
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=63
July 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I think that the successful speaker must tailor his information to his audience. If you are speaking to colleagues, you can be more technical than if you are speaking to a group which is comprised of lay people. However, all speeches benefit from humor, as all popular speakers of whatever stripe realize and utilize. And brevity is better than longevity; the ability to get a point across without putting the audience into a trance is prized. I think that many folks who give public addresses on topics related to or about science could learn a few tricks about effective presentations. I don’t think that these folks have to be especially charismatic; they do need to be well prepared and include humor within their topics. With preparation comes confidence and a command that will engender attention. These addresses could be treated like a stand-up comedy act but with only a fourth of the comedy displayed. I would guess that much of the science awareness level of a general audience today is at that of a high school student (at least I hope it’s that high); and to be entertaining while doling out science isn’t a bad thing.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
One of the best science presenters I have seen is Steven Squyres. He came around doing results from the MERs. He was dynamic, exciting, and very clear. He really connected to the audience, that included a large percentage of non-specialists.
Having passion for what you do is good. Being prepared, knowing your material is important. Being able to convey it in non-technical language is priceless.
I recall being a newly graduated engineer talking about my job to friends and family. I quickly learned to cut out the acronyms and find common word descriptions to identify items under discussion. Those acronyms take time for me to pick up through constant use, they’re that much tougher on the non-initiated. Science speak is much like that.