SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:40PM
An interesting view.
I'll change "assets" to "financial interests".
People who profit from things that cause climate change don't want to change it. It affects their financial interests. Short term profit. I need a new sports car that matches my new shoes.
People who are harmed by climate change do want to change it. It affects their financial interests. My house will sink. The oceans will rise. Extinctions, etc.
The problem is that actually everyone is harmed. Or their children. The first person above will be harmed too. Or their children. They are just putting their short term interests first.
Another problem is not only the number of people harmed (everyone), but the scale of the harm. Extinctions of species. Increased extreme weather problems. Inability to grow enough food to feed everyone. Inability to provide enough clean water for everyone. Other problems. Maybe the planet becoming uninhabitable, but not in our lifetime.
I don't think people get smart pretty quick. They just look after their own short term interest over much larger interests -- which is actually pretty dumb, IMO.
You could construct a puzzle scenario where if you all work on short term self interest, you all lose, but if you work together on a larger problem, you all win. But people fail to see it when it is real life and the consequences might be too big to want to face.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:04PM
There are also moral and ethical chronological problems.
So obviously you shoot someone today they can't consume resources tomorrow and in a hundred years instead of 100 starving people there are only 90 starving people, aka kill one today to save ten in a century.
So under that doctrine (which may or may not be true, of course) is someone like Pol Pot a hero or villain?
How many lives in 50 years are equivalent to 1 life today?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:15PM
This is a very real question btw. Folks working in nuclear decommissioning (Geological Disposal Facility aka GDF) have to decide cost vs benefit on timescales of 1e6 years. So do they spend an extra $100 M today to save the life of some idiot in 100,000 years who digs into the vault holding lots of radiocative waste? Do they risk the lives of the folks who are going to build the GDF for the sake of said idiot (any construction project on the scale of GDF will kill a few construction workers).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:08PM
Maybe with the wealth generated by pursuing short-term interests, and the ensuing heated debate over the long term, it will ultimately be far easier to build long-term solutions later on... you know... when it's clear to everyone that there is now a problem in the short term.
It would have been stupid to start a Moon-landing program in the 1500s; hell, maybe it was stupid to do so in the 1960s—which is why we've never been back for a long time. Now, extrapolate this analogy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:56PM
Maybe with the wealth generated by pursuing short-term interests, and the ensuing heated debate over the long term, it will ultimately be far easier to build long-term solutions later on... you know... when it's clear to everyone that there is now a problem in the short term.
For instance, it would have been stupid to start a Moon-landing program in the 1500s; hell, maybe it was stupid to do so in the 1960s—which is why we've never been back for a long time. Now, extrapolate this analogy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:14PM
What if the solution to a long term problem is not begun until it is too late? By the time it is clear to everyone that their short term interest is impacted, it may indeed be too late.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:25PM
Right now, you're being forced to pay for subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and to the Military–Industrial Complex, etc. Yet, you and your ilk see that this is a bad bet; wouldn't it be nice to spend those resources of yours instead on alternative modes of existence so that you and yours at least have a chance to escape the calamity to which all the other fools are blind?!
There is nothing but self-interest, and there is nothing but the allocation of resources. You should be able to allocate the resources under your control in exactly the way you see fit, so that you can protect yourself from the bad bets about the future that others are trying to make.
Government is not your friend, precisely because it tries to tell you what your interests are, and then force you to bet on them, even against your own will. Resist.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:12PM
Yep.
I don't like subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
The military industrial complex is another matter. We must have defense. But it's gotten so that having more and unnecessary wars drives increased spending. And yet there is no currently declared war. It's peacetime!
Not sure what you mean by "your ilk". In any event, personal insults don't really persuade.
I agree that I would like to spend resources on alternate modes of existence. Of course, those modes have to become affordable. Increasingly they are. Such as getting your own solar panels. I'm happy to see that happening.
I agree government is not my friend, and forces me to bet against my own interests. Yep.
What I would like to see is government embrace policies that solve problems like climate change. Policies that encourage the development of more green energy. The problem is corruption and lobbyists. Those are the ones driving the denial of science. Teach the controversy, even when there is no actual controversy. They first have to manufacture the controversy.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:17AM
And therein lies the paving stones for the road to hell.