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This discussion has been archived.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 meustrus on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:42PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @04:42PM (#455492)

    It sounds to me like the article is a perfect example of why science journalism needs to be better. It's so bad that even supporters of "science" don't understand the difference between science and academia. Even worse, they still think that the problem with science journalism is that it isn't convincing people enough that the current accepted theories are correct. That problem - and let's face it, this is about climate change - is a purely political problem that will be solved by better political journalism, not better science journalism.

    The real problem with public understand of science is that much like the author of this article, most people confuse "science" to mean "the body of scientifically-acquired knowledge". Those are two very different things, and the reason that nobody understands what "science" is is that nobody teaches philosophy anymore. The best thing we can do to resolve this problem is to watch and share more of those popular philosophy videos on YouTube.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:44PM

    by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:44PM (#455597) Journal

    It sounds to me like the article is a perfect example of why science journalism needs to be better.

    I agree. From TFA:

    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

    I would argue that it is the misrepresentation of science by journalists that is the root cause of the problem.

    Journalists misrepresent science in multiple ways, which include: suggesting that a theory is more accepted within the scientific community than it really is, accepting the results of studies by interested parties (for example, studies that are sponsored by large companies or industries), promoting information from non-scientists (for example "nutrition" advice that is unsupported by any experimental results) and finally, the old "balanced reporting", where the other side are a bunch of kooks (or crooks).

    But the author, as a journalist, doesn't want to look in a mirror.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory