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) 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.