Writing prompt #1

Personal Storytelling - February 1, 2025

I agree with Alan Alda’s statement that “People are dying because we can't communicate in ways that allow us to understand one another. It sounds like an exaggeration, but I don't think it is. When patients can't relate to their doctors and don't follow orders, when engineers can't convince a town that the dam could break... They can all be headed for a serious ending.”

Our minds need support to understand complex information

Effective communication is essential, especially when addressing complex scientific topics. When gaps in understanding arise, they often expose the limitations of human comprehension and the inherent uncertainties in scientific theories. Science is rarely absolute; it operates in shades of gray. However, the human brain often seeks clear, black and-white answers. This tendency can lead to mistrust, not because the communicator lacks expertise, but because the listener perceives unresolved questions and ambiguities.

Scientists live in a space of exploration and hypothesis. They continuously test theories, collaborate with others, and work toward better understanding and the next-best solution. However, when non-scientists are introduced to complex scientific issues outside their expertise, they often attempt to simplify or rush the process. This creates challenges in effectively communicating nuanced topics. Climate scientists often face difficulty in conveying the causes and effects of climate change. The complexity of the subject, with its many variables and interconnected factors, makes it easy for some to dismiss science as unreliable because it is not presented as simple, definitive or absolute. A recent example of this dynamic can be seen in the public’s treatment of Dr. Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic. The novel coronavirus was unprecedented, and its emergence required rapid research and adaptation, on a global level. This lack of initial certainty made it easy for individuals to criticize the scientific process and declare mistrust. Many people, desperate for answers, clung to unverified theories and spread misinformation. Some claimed to have experienced the virus before its official discovery, while others, especially leaders without scientific backgrounds, promoted unfounded theories and vilified scientists. The rapid spread of the virus, combined with evolving research and incomplete understanding, boosted widespread skepticism and, in-turn, eroded public trust in research.

Why is trusting science so hard?

Critical thinking plays a vital role in bridging the gap between scientists and the general public. Unfortunately, not everyone has the tools or education to think critically about complex issues. Factors such as upbringing, community values, and the prioritization of education, influence an individual’s ability to engage with and understand scientific information. For those who prefer simplicity or lack a strong educational foundation, grappling with nuanced concepts can feel mind-boggling or unnecessary. The ability to communicate science effectively is critical to developing understanding and trust. Scientists must work to make complex topics more digestible without compromising their integrity. The public must strive to approach scientific information with curiosity and a willingness to accept its complexities. This is easier said than done. Bridging this divide requires effort on both sides, but the benefits are far reaching; improved health management and informed decision-making on climate issues will build more resilient and stronger communities.

Alan Alda’s observation underscores the importance of communication: without it, we risk misunderstanding one another, with potentially dire consequences.

iEilam, “Climate Change Education: The Problem with Walking Away from Disciplines.” ii Drenon, “House Panel Grills Dr Anthony Fauci on Covid Origins.”

Writing Prompt 1.pdf

Download PDF • 50KB