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This discussion has been archived.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 PiMuNu on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:15PM

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:15PM (#455571)

    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).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2