Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 18 2017, @03:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-should-swear-more dept.

Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.

What is truth? How do we find it and does it still carry weight in public debate? Given recent political events, these are important and urgent questions. But of the two industries I work in that are concerned with truth — science and journalism — only the latter has seriously engaged and looked for answers. Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.

[...] What's overlooked by many is how science is losing its relevance as a source of truth. To reclaim this relevance, scientists, communicators, institutions and funders must work to change the way that socially relevant science is presented to the public. This is not about better media training for researchers. It demands a rethink about the kind of science that we want to communicate to broader society. This message may sound familiar but the new focus on post-truth shows there is now a tangible danger that must be addressed.

[...] If the public is better equipped to navigate this science, it would restore trust and improve understanding of different verdicts, and perhaps help people to see through some of the fake news that circulates on scientific matters.

http://www.nature.com/news/give-the-public-the-tools-to-trust-scientists-1.21307

What do you think, will the general public trust these tools, if available ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:19PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:19PM (#455478)

    Try a progressive cathedral interpretation on as a thought experiment. It fits a lot better.

    The overall problem in your post or maybe in the linked article is people are either ignoring or actively hecking the progressive version of a fire and brimstone speech. "You unclean sinners will all go to the hell of global warming unless you embrace pedo-marriage and gun control and sign treaties that don't do shit blah blah blah while the chosen elect of the righteous ones will preach the glorious truth in the face of opposition" I mean basic human traits like preaching fire and brimstone never go away they just resurface in weird ways, so here we are. The devil is a piece of burning coal, an automobile, a power plant, but he's still the devil and people trying to control you are going to use the devil against you, if you let them.

    The most likely outcome of telling a progressive fire and brimstone preacher to F off is, well, nothing. Maybe you'll get demonized as being stupid but they hate the nonbelievers with the fiery passion of an inquisitor already. Maybe you won't get invading immigrants for your local progs to brag about, or as punishment you'll get lots more. About the only thing you're unlikely to get is actual fire and brimstone, or in this case, actual global warming. At least no effects that "really" matter.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:34PM (#455487)

    Wonderful, the tools immediately come out in force to proclaim their ignorance and paranoid insanity. With climate change you always miss the point, its sad to see brainwashed people who see the flaws of their handlers in the people they lime bash.