Web Cred

In the first session of the afternoon, Larry Gonick brought up the idea of credibility, and how web sites get it. People tend to trust people around them, and the people that those people trust. He suggested that participation by journalists (or scientists) in popular sites like MySpace or Facebook could lend credibility to scientific arguments in circles where such ideas are not usually be debated.

This is a very appealing idea. One imagines the causally curious public being convinced by eloquent arguments from distinguished PhDs or lauded science writers. The multitudes then share these arguments with their friends and start grass-roots movements to enact policies that will stop global warming, fund more science, and save the world.

But such forums are a double-edged sword for scientists and serious writers. Arguing on MySpace would pit them against all manner of rabble. If they resorted to the kind of forceful, direct language that would win arguments in a lay audience, they’d lose professional credibility. If they stuck with exactly accurate, qualified, and respectful terms, they wouldn’t convince a public accustomed to political pundits’ ad hominem attacks.

Still, it’s at least amusing to imagine real professionals dropping their scientific / journalistic gloves and bare-knuckling it in the trenches ("You moron! Do you even know where milk comes from?!?")

And more seriously, MySpace and similar sites may provide a real opportunity to speak to an audience that doesn’t read the New York Times science section.