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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @05:55PM
It is amusing that you cry about the big evil government (which is basically a massive system of contracts defined in these weird social contracts called "laws") and then promote some service brought into being by the free market. So lets all trust this one organization over here, but not the one over there. There is no blessed and ordained monopoly on violence, that capacity is given to local police, state police, federal agencies, and then the military. The system you are looking for already exists, and frankly I will not advocate for a return to the wild west. We can barely control corporate activity as it is, your imaginary free market would have zero control beyond the specific language of a contract. How do you propose to handle environmental pollution? How do you prevent collusion and artificial monopolies / cartels from being developed? We have laws against them now yet it still happens (yay corruption) but in your future it would be so easily done over one dinner party. The return to dictatorship and monarchy would happen faster than you think.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:09PM
Legislation is not a contract; it is a dictate.
Get it yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:16PM
You don't get it. You're trying to reinvent human society but all you have is a new buzzword and the magic idea of the "free market". Legislation is a dictate in the same way a contract is a dictate. They both have clearly defined expectations and consequences. If you do away with all government, to be replaced by profit motivated organizations, how do you handle murders? There are plenty of human activities that have no profit built into them, and trying to apply a profit motive will result in corners being cut to save money. If law enforcement is a for-profit agency then your new world becomes a playground for the rich. Dystopian future FTL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:28PM
It is in my self-interest to live in a community where murder is not tolerated, and where murderers face the well-defined consequences of their actions.
Get it yet?
Self-interest is everything.
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:38PM
... You mean in a place where there are laws against murder and a police force charged by the government to apprehend criminals and a judicial system to try them and a prison system to prevent them from killing again?
I guess I'm not sure which AC you are, but if you're the one who is obsessed with anarcho-libertarianism, I hear it's boom times in Sudan. If you're hard enough, that is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:54PM
Legislation produces dictates; the market produces law (e.g., contracts).
For hundreds of years its OK to brew, sell, buy, and drink beer; then, one day, it isn't—and you'll be thrown in a cage for noncompliance. Then one day, it's OK again. (This isn't fantasy; it really happened in "The Land of the Free", among many other dictates).
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:17PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:32PM
See here [soylentnews.org].
The "Justice" industry is not magical; contract enforcement is just another service in the market.
(Score: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:46PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:05PM
"Blow their head off" and "if men were angels" AC here. Good, I'm glad somebody gets it. I've played out this little thought experiment and as a post above indicates, I just end up re-inventing government in an effort to prevent my warlord caricature from just blowing the head off the contract enforcer when he comes for the cow.
I call the guy blowing the contract enforcer's head off a warlord because no matter how many guns this contract enforcer has, the warlord as n+1 guns fanatically devoted to him and his cause. Well, at least until the contract enforcer finally has enough guns to overcome the warlord, but at that point I believe we usually refer to such a contract enforcer as a "government."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:58PM
That's the nature of evolution by variation and selection: You escape the "turtles all the way down" by realizing that it's an iterative process, not a recursive process; the old modes of organization are used to construct new modes of organization, and often all traces of the older modes dissipate and are forgotten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58PM
Except you are describing a simplified version of "government". You can come up with new methods of organizing and running a government, but don't fool yourself that you're breaking out of that concept.
You're like the theoretical mathematician talking to a bunch of engineers. Sure, your version of reality is theoretically possible but the chances of it coming true are the same as you randomly teleporting across the room. Quantum mechanics says your subatomic particles could do it, but the odds are slightly against you.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:08AM
Ah, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. You are taking the theory of evolution, which says creatures will (over a span of time) adapt to become successful in their environment, as a direct and predictive analogy for human styles of government. The problem with this idea is that evolution is a dumb process. Millions of creatures die, either through unfitness of the original state or mutation in a wrong direction. Humans, on the other hand, are not so dumb. They will try lots of things and remember the results and, yes, iterate.
Since your motto is self-interest first, guess which way the iterations move? In a power vacuum, those who are willing to take what they want without fear will iterate their way into being a defacto government in weeks, if not sooner. And I dare say no government has ever iterated in a direction of less power without revolution because the humans involved have a gravy train they will not give up.
I don't dispute that most people think of themselves first; I don't dispute that governments tend towards tyranny over time; I don't dispute that reform would be a great thing for everyone except the current governmental officers and their billionaire owners. I do, however, dispute that any other way is better. The fairy tale of strict free market Libertarianism leads only to anarchy, local strongmen, and eventually feudalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:04AM
>"anarcho-libertarianism, I hear it's boom times in Sudan"
Have you ever bothered to look up the obvious rebuttal to this argument? I ask because most people won't bother continuing the conversation once something on that level is brought up, so it is possible no one has ever pointed it out to you.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:19AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:35AM
Tell me why people who claim to want to live in a place that has no government
The obvious rebuttal is that Sudan does have a government, a particularly ugly and broken one. You're probably thinking of Somalia which has almost nothing beyond a bunch of local-scale governments. Let us note that Somalia is better off than when it had an official national government. But maybe if Somalia had a government, it would be doing stuff like flying arcologies, right?
Also, if you use the phrase "obvious rebuttal" too much, you turn into khallow.
Good that this phrase is annoying you. I use it when people spout stuff with blatant problems that they could have addressed with a little thought ahead of time. I use that phrase a lot because there are a lot of people here doing that.
(Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:08AM
The evident rejoinder is that you dodged the question I asked. I made an error (hey look, I admitted it) when saying Sudan was at the forefront of ungoverned lands. The question was: tell me why the people who say they want to live in a place that has no government don't live in a place that has no government? I said nothing about arcologies or other fictions.
My prediction came true, you said it again and turned into khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:30AM
The question was: tell me why the people who say they want to live in a place that has no government don't live in a place that has no government?
Probably because they want other things as well. And you can make the good point that places with government seem to provide those other things much better than the places without governments.
I agree that elsewhere the assertions that somehow people without backbone or organization are going to magically figure out how to appropriately respond to externalities. The anti-government ideologies are incomplete. Which is why I'm an advocate for government reduction rather than government elimination.
My prediction came true, you said it again and turned into khallow!
I'm sure the process is reversible. I'm only meddling a little in God's domain. Let me twist some more knobs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:54PM
Your basic concept is deeply flawed. Its an intriguing idea that could be applied in various places / manners, but that is all. Like the hippy communes back in the day it is an idealistic fantasy that will not survive reality. Do you get it yet? Self interest isn't everything, that statement alone shows how blinded you are by the ideology. Plenty of examples of altruism exist, and you have to dig really hard to come up complicated excuses as to why they are really just examples of self-interest at work.
Nihilism, Self interest / preservation, Pure Virtue, these are all philosophical extremes that can't survive on their own. But some people have their minds broadened by one of these topics and then they close back up around their newfound Truth. They all go together, focus on one only to the detriment of yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:00PM
Self-interest does not preclude altruism; it is in your self-interest to live in a community where there is altruism; it is in your self-interest to feel good about being altruistic, etc.
Self-interest is everything. Embrace this fact of existence, so that you can help build society in a way that works with the Universe rather than against it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:06PM
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
The definition actually does preclude self-interest. It does not exclude it however, you can have an act that is altruistic and self centered, which then means your motivations are a mix of both. "Self interest" is not a universal law and you sound more like a Social Darwinist. You are suffering from hubris, you've seen/read some stuff about self preservation being biologically programmed into us (probably a Dawkins fan) and you've fallen for the seductive theory that reduces all behavior to selfishly motivated game theory.
Self interest is what leads to warlords and dictators, they believe they have the right to force their will upon others. The strong eat the weak, eugenics, slavery. Yes, that is where your path leads when you put self-interest above all else. What's the point of paying people if you have the means to force them? Save more resources for yourself and the chosen elite...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:22PM
Ah yes, you sound like a more scientific version of satanism. The strong eat the weak. At least you're more of a zen version with "self-interest".
Altruism is not a part of self-interest, it is in fact the complete opposite. Its up to you to untangle your neural pathways, just realize a lot of people have already thought about this and altruism has not yet been merged with self-interest. You are simply doing mental gymnastics to make the world fit your internal viewpoint.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:34AM
Jesus Christ. I hate it when these college freshmen who just found Ayn Rand show up in the interwebs.