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: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:00PM
Reality always matters, always operates regardless of belief or disbelief in it, Just because an animal doesn't need to understand it at a conscious level doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. Animals don't need to understand sex, they only need instinctive behavior to perpetuate. We like to think we're better than the rest of the animals. Obviously it is intelligence that sets us apart. If we turn our backs on that, we deserve whatever reality does to us. Matthew 4:7. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Thanks to our intelligence, which some call a gift from God (or Prometheus?), we've discerned we have a situation that we call Climate Change, and that it is a problem. We have free will to ignore this problem, just as we have free will to walk off a cliff. We can play chicken, see how close to the edge of the cliff we can dance. However, having perceived the problem thanks to our intelligence, it's the height of folly to ignore it. If God made us smart, why did He do so? Perhaps for problems like this? We have a good idea what happened to the dinosaurs, and perhaps now the means to prevent that from happening to us. Shouldn't we? It's like the joke about the good Christian who was caught in a flood, turned down three rescue offers from a boat, expressing faith that God would save him. He drowned, and in heaven asked why God didn't save him, and God tells him that what we have here is a communication problem, He sent that boat 3 times....
There are problems with the practice and communication of science. Just as many secularists too often reduce religion to a caricature of itself in which only the stupidest adherents with the craziest, most dramatic, hateful talk get held up as an example, so also many of the religious get too dismissive of science, cling hard to trivial mistakes to justify jettisoning the whole thing.
> what is a journalist or PR person hired to do then?
Journalists sell news. Get attention, which can then be used to deliver advertising. Reporting facts is only a means, it isn't their ultimate goal. Which means they can't be trusted to tell it straight, and they aren't above overdramatizing it, like Brian Williams did. They will stir up a fight if they can, as that sells more news. Journalists at least care a little about the facts, but PR hacks are darker, don't care about facts at all. They care only about what people believe and can be manipulated into believing.
An excellent example is the movie Apollo 13. Full of science, based on a true story about scientific endeavor, yet hammed up to make it more dramatic. The director was completely unapologetic about that, saying essentially that's entertainment and the people who are really interested in all the important facts without embellishment should watch a documentary, not a movie.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:12PM
people who are really interested in all the important facts without embellishment should watch a documentary
Ah if only. There's real documentaries like the BBC World at War series and then there's modern infotainment filler drama. I really do think the BBC WaW series increased my IQ by a point or two, whereas this Ken Burns "The West" documentary I binge watched a couple weeks ago could have been replaced by a very short wikipedia article. Its like taking 12 hours to read a short story almost painful slow pacing. Eh it was the holidays I rarely drink but I had plenty of cider in me for that. Well this episode was crap but "Ken Burns" so I'm sure I'll love the next episode. Not so much. Oh well. They're all like that now. NOVA is crap. In the 80s I don't remember NOVA being crap. It was crap by the 90s when I stopped watching. I'll probably stop watching NOVA again, soon.
Its not that the highs are too low, its that they're taking a three paragraph wikipedia article and a 15 second youtube clip both of which are excellent and forcing you to sit thru an hour of filler to see those good parts.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:37PM
> They're all like that now. NOVA is crap
TV is an awful medium to transfer information. Read a book.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:04PM
Watch NOVA for the pretty pictures. I remember Treasures of the Earth: Gems being pretty good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nova_episodes#Season_44:_2016.E2.80.93present [wikipedia.org]
(these are upcoming episodes)
"Search for the Super Battery" - Given how many battery tech articles we sit through, sounds terrible.
"Secrets of Origami" - I assume DNA origami is on the agenda. There's a lot of research to keep up with in this area, so it might be interesting.
"Death Dive to Saturn" - Cassini's mission has done hundreds of flybys of its science targets, plopped a lander on Titan, and accomplished a lot over its lifespan. Although you could just read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], this episode will probably be worth watching. However it should be noted that this airs several months before the actual "death dive"...
"Secrets of the Shining Knights (working title)" - You'll get to see them play blacksmith.
"Flint (working title)" - I assume this will feature interviews of many of the key players, like LeeAnne Walters [motherjones.com]. Probably similar to a Frontline episode, except with more water science and less focus on the corrupt officials.
There's only one episode I need NOVA to make, and that's the Planet Nine [wikipedia.org] one. And I doubt they will make it before the thing is at least directly imaged by the James Webb Space Telescope. If we do find it, it could be decades before we can get a probe there to find all of its moons.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]