On decanonising scientists.

Scientists Aren't Exempt from Feelings, Any More Than the Public Is
David Klinghoffer

Amanda Freise makes a fine point in a post for Scientific American, "It's Time for Scientists to Stop Explaining So Much." She's a PhD student in molecular and medical pharmacology at UCLA and has evidently made a study of research on science communication. She concludes that scientists shouldn't be shocked if loading more technical information on the public doesn't dissuade them from skeptical views on certain controversial issues.
She doesn't mention evolution, but she could have done so. Freise explains that many of her colleagues still hold a "widely discredited" idea, the "deficit model," which says that if only people could be supplied with enough of the right information, they would come around and believe what they are supposed to. It's not so, however.

[T]he reluctance of some scientists to accept the failure of the deficit model approach indicates that pure information isn't enough to convince them, either -- otherwise, they would acknowledge the research and look for new ways to talk to the public.
I do not place the blame solely on my stubborn colleagues. The science of science communication is rarely, if ever, discussed among academic researchers in many fields of "hard" science. They may not even be aware that the concept of the information deficit exists, much less that it's not an accepted model of science communication. Training in public communication for researchers is also rare -- so when they operate by the deficit model and share information directly, they're just doing what they know from speaking with colleagues. And although a majority of researchers agree that scientists should be actively engaged in public policymaking about science and technology, they may not want to do it themselves.
There are other approaches to communication which provide alternative methods to opening dialogue with skeptical audiences. For instance, contextualization suggests that science must be presented in the context of a person's values, beliefs, and personal experience. Scientists accustomed to making decisions purely based on evidence, without the influence of feelings or personal values, may find this to be an onerous task.

I don't expect that Amanda Freise will be sympathetic to this -- after all, she seems more interested in redirecting skepticism toward an embrace of orthodoxy -- but engaging with "personal experience" is exactly what some of the best evolutionary skeptics do.

Advocates of intelligent design appeal to the daily observation that only intelligent agents generate information of the kind we find in computer code, magazine articles, and the like, the very same kind of information we find in DNA. Douglas Axe in his new book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, shows that the intuition of design in nature is valid, being based on our "personal experience" of how expertise is brought to bear in invention. As he points out, a bed is not made, an omelet is not made, unless someone makes them. It's no different with organisms: with the design of an orca, a spider, or a crane. I love his example of the origami crane and the living crane. It defies not only science but personal experience to imagine that only one of the two came about through purposeful application of knowhow.
Again, this is not, I'm pretty certain, what Ms. Freise had in mind. I'm also not sure I can go along with her on this -- more of that precious overestimation of scientists, by the media and by scientists themselves:

We [scientists] place extraordinarily high value in data, with as little emotion involved as possible. Even a strong "gut feeling" about a scientific finding will be pushed aside when we see enough rigorously obtained evidence to the contrary. In contrast to many members of the public, a skeptical scientist can be convinced by giving them enough information. At least that's true when it comes to questions about our personal fields of research.

This seems to exempt scientists from the all too human tendency to be led by one's community, often to the exclusion of your own critical faculties. This tribalism -- which is what it really is -- applies not least when the context is your "personal field of research." You want to be thought well of especially by your colleagues. Another great lesson of Dr. Axe's book is that this applies to scientists too, no less than to the rest of us. You see this all the time in other areas of life -- political debates going on at the moment, for example. Why not in science, too? Why are scientists magically immune from a slavish regard for how others see you?
In the evolution controversy, the context we know best, here's how the dynamic works. So much hinges on the dread of "creationism." No one should ever forget the power of that scare word, "creationist," with all it implies by way of not only scientific but social opprobrium. Though ID is emphatically not creationism, being called "creationists" is something ID proponents face every day. This is the major way in which the orthodox, including scientists, confuse the public in order to tamp down dissent and skepticism.
In the minds of many, in science and in the media, merely to question the evidence that Darwinian processes explain life is to shame and taint yourself through association with "creationism." Of course this would make even Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, a "creationist."
However absurd, the term "creationist" is an effective prophylactic against thought, which is why, if I had my way, it would be retired from all discussion. Language should clarify and distinguish, not muddy and blur. Any lower standard is a hallmark of propaganda.
But propaganda is effective even with scientists. No, they are hardly more exempt from the "influence of feelings" than the public is. Recognizing that, and its flipside -- that intuition can sometimes be valid, cutting through reams of obscure technical data -- would help advance the conversation about evolution. Maybe about some other controversies in science, too.