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This discussion has been archived.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, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:50PM

    by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @06:50PM (#455603) Journal

    There is nothing stricter than a Free Market

    That may be true, but it misses a key point: the issue with free markets is that they don't concern themselves with externalities. For example, climate change. Free markets will tend to push costs onto other people if possible. Unrestricted free markets can also result in monopolies.

    As a society, we need to be concerned with those costs and monopolies. That's why unrestricted free markets are a bad idea.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:06PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:06PM (#455613) Journal

    Unrestricted free markets can also result in monopolies.

    Correction: Unrestricted markets over the long run naturally develop into monopolies.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:35PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:35PM (#455769) Journal

      Correction: Unrestricted markets over the long run naturally develop into monopolies.

      If only we had evidence to support your empty assertion. Somehow restaurants have never developed into monopolies. You have to take into account things like barrier to entry.

      • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:09AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:09AM (#455863) Journal

        Bell Telephone, Standard Oil, Micro$erft, Google; need I go on?
        .
        And what is it with the flood of libertariantard ACs posting against a weary and lone charon? Is there a libertarian conference in town, or did mothers everywhere suddenly turn their no-good sons out of the basement?
        .
        And finally: Goverment, as a service, by contract? Oh, I get it! A joke! So, I enter into a free contract with government to enforce my other free contracts with all my like-minded libertariantards. So far so good. But what guarantees that that contract will be respected? So we need to contract with a higher body to enforce our contract with a government! Problem solved? No likely, since that same applies to that contract as well, so we will need another, higher, one. And another, and another, and, as someone said already, it is turtles all the way up. So, what all this means is: libertarianism is dumb. But hardly something that needs proving, that is.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:27AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:27AM (#455900) Journal

          Bell Telephone, Standard Oil, Micro$erft, Google; need I go on?

          You sure do. The first one is the only actual persistent monopoly on that list and it was government enforced. The thing people don't get is that monopolies are ephemeral, except when enforced by a government. For example, Standard Oil only achieved its market dominance for a short time. By the time of the break up in 1911, it had already lost considerable market share to competitors and actually became more profitable through the break up (which incidentally .

          We similarly see Microsoft's market share declining from its highest market share in the 1990s - not only due to competition from other systems, but also from its own older products (Windows 7, which is no longer sold, has larger market share [netmarketshare.com] than its two successors combined).

          And Google has the most ephemeral market of all. It only has dominant market share because it has the best search engine product, which includes a particularly unobtrusive advertising system (which is its actual product).

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:45AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:45AM (#455925) Journal

            Oh, khallow! Oh my dear and fluffy khallow! Oh my khallow that exists in a dimension that ordinary mortals cannot possibly comprehend! Yellowstone! Coulter's Hell! Everyone thought Coulter was lying, and so by the principle of internet over generalization, khallow must be lying. Unless, of course, he has ever run the Coulter Run. Has to be naked and barefoot through prickly pear cactus, I am lead to understand.

            But monopolies. Yes, all capitalism tends to monopoly. We do not even need to produce evidence! True by definition. Take any successful business, one that has eliminated all its competitors: monopoly. Even in, as you mentioned, restuarants: have it your way? Over one Billion plus served? Did you not see all the Sly Stallone movies where Taco Bell ends up being the only restuarant? No? One has Wesley Snipes and Sandra Bullocks in it, quite good, for the genre. But that only makes the point.

            The only thing that can stop a bad monolopy is a good monopoly! (Feel free to substitute "guns" in this scenario. So we need the Good monopoly of the "Social Will" or as Rousseau termed it, the "General Will", to counteract those selfish, greedy, life-extending, heterodox sciencing Trump-advising "tech" Captains of InternetIndustry. Rockefeller, in his dotage, used to hire mothers who had just given birth, that he might suckle at their breasts and imbibe the first milk (stealing it from their babies, no doubt) and thus live forever. Didn't work. Peter Thiel is engaged in much the same endeavor now.

            .
            With great wealth comes great insanity. Citizen Kane. And great wealth only comes from monopoly. And great wealth always accumulates in a capitalist system. Ergo, my Dear Dr. Khallow!!! Capitalism tends toward monopoly. Deny it at your peril. I have another tarbaby for you, B'rer Fox!

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:31AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:31AM (#455935) Journal
              I look forward to your substantial posts with anticipation.
              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:39AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:39AM (#455939) Journal

                Back atcha, bro!

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:53AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:53AM (#455944) Journal
                  Fine. I'll note that the line

                  Yes, all capitalism tends to monopoly. We do not even need to produce evidence! True by definition.

                  is blatantly false. One merely needs to read an actual definition of capitalism:

                  An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:

                  Your proof by Sylvester Stallone movie is a waste of time.

                  So we need the Good monopoly of the "Social Will" or as Rousseau termed it, the "General Will", to counteract those selfish, greedy, life-extending, heterodox sciencing Trump-advising "tech" Captains of InternetIndustry.

                  Do you even think with that mind? Without competition, how are you going to find out whether this part of the social will is better than that part?

                  Rockefeller, in his dotage, used to hire mothers who had just given birth, that he might suckle at their breasts and imbibe the first milk (stealing it from their babies, no doubt) and thus live forever. Didn't work.

                  No doubt because he was doing it wrong. You have to pick the right mothers, of course. It's a process that is guaranteed to eventually succeed.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @08:37AM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 19 2017, @08:37AM (#455956) Journal

                    Fine. I'll note that the line

                    Yes, all capitalism tends to monopoly. We do not even need to produce evidence! True by definition.

                    is blatantly false. One merely needs to read an actual definition of capitalism:

                    No, it is true by definition! Do you actually thing you can get away with supplying the "khallow" modified libertarian definition of "capitalism" and have that actually make any difference to the argument? Fie! Fie! Yon uncouth lickspittle of grevious men! Knave of the idols of moneybags! Mendacious toady of mercantile swindlers! (This is the part where I resort to namecalling, but in my defense, if all you can do is assert my definition is false, well, because it is, what do you expect me to do?) The public might be able to trust scientists at some point, but economists have sold their soles to the dark snide.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:03AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @09:03AM (#455966) Journal

                      Do you actually thing you can get away with supplying the "khallow" modified libertarian definition of "capitalism" and have that actually make any difference to the argument?

                      Sure can. Because it's the Oxford Dictionary definition of capitalism. And why in the world are you even bothering with this semantics argument? Your time might not be valuable, but it is a waste of my time to have to copy/paste a dictionary definition just because your brain worms are acting up.

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 20 2017, @04:38AM

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 20 2017, @04:38AM (#456390) Journal

                        Bambridge scholars, as Rachel Weiss puts it, in her role in "The Mummy"?

                        Sure can. Because it's the Oxford Dictionary definition of capitalism.

                        Why, you pathetic colonial, stuck in the nether (excretionary?) regions of the Rocky Mountains, would you accept a British Imperialist dictionary as your authority? Do you have "royalty" issues"? Those of us (not me) who might be "Americans", would no doubt prefer the Webster's definition. Or perhaps, the original auf Deutsch? Oh, Americans. There is only one language, and one economic system, and one President, and one source of equality (Sam Colt), and one arbiter of the meanings of words: khallow. Oxford is Brit, and they cannot even manage to be enough of a country to stay in the European Union. Reminds me of Texas. Hey, khallow, you got a Texan dictionary handy? What does it say capitalism is?

                        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday January 20 2017, @12:42PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 20 2017, @12:42PM (#456493) Journal

                          Why, you pathetic colonial, stuck in the nether (excretionary?) regions of the Rocky Mountains, would you accept a British Imperialist dictionary as your authority?

                          Why ask a question that isn't worth answering? You have a brain, you don't need me to provide you with obvious answers. And if your ideas are worth anything, they will retain that worth when shifted into a semantics system/ontology that people other than yourself actually use.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:54PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:54PM (#456060)

                      Let's rub a little salt in the tender anus, alright?

                      http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Texas-to-observe-Confederate-Heroes-Day-6767626.php [expressnews.com]

                      Confederate Heroes' Day commemorates those who died fighting for the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. An official state holiday in Texas, Confederate Heroes' Day has fallen annually on January 19—the birthday of Robert E. Lee—since its approval on January 30, 1931.
                      Confederate Heroes' Day: Texas - Infoplease
                      www.infoplease.com/us/states/confederate-heroes-day-texas.html

                      https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/confederate-memorial-day [timeanddate.com]

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:07AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:07AM (#456412)

                        Why is it, and I am just asking, that all Confederate celebrators and re-enactores, are so gay? Why would they associate "butthurt", who both is an esteemed Soylentil and a euphemism for a "spanking", with anal sex? Unless, they really wanted to hear another man "squeal like a pig". This, of course, raises the further question, "How do they know what a pig squeals like, when it is being . . . " [Decency limit reached. For more information, either view the movie "Deliverance", or ask Runaway1956 about animal husbandry. In Arkansas, they know about these things.] So, today, January 19, I have symbolically fucked Robert E. Lee in the ass. And, he liked it.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:11AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:11AM (#455846)

      Ok, show me a monopoly that doesn't have the government mixed up in it. Yes private entities do achieve monopoly status, but the government is almost always mixed up. Railroads? Government grants of eminent domain to only ONE company gives a monopoly on all transport between the nodes of the rail line. Other modes of transit were hopelessly impractical compared to the cost of shipping by rail. Occasionally a town would end up serviced by two railroads and one would buy up the other, again with government approval since they permitted the monopoly they granted to be bought out. Banks are basically indistinguishable from the government; only question is does the government run the banks or is it the other way around? Is there a distinction worth arguing about? Microsoft? Artificial scarcity created by government grant of monopoly plus more government in creating a legal environment that essentially forbids creating clones.

      Counter examples? The closest I can think of is Apple, but they are down to way under 50% in the U.S. and more like 10% worldwide and falling. They are a cult, people in it will buy their stuff regardless, no government force or meddling needed. But monopoly they ain't, their brief near total market share was fixed by the marketplace.

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:34AM

        by dry (223) on Thursday January 19 2017, @04:34AM (#455887) Journal

        The reason that the government is always involved in monopolies is that Capitalism rewards the most efficient and it is more efficient to form/manipulate/bribe/employ a government to enforce your monopoly.
        Using the railroad example. Businessman sees this new thing called a railroad and wants a monopoly in it as then he can make maximum profits for minimal work. Best way to do this is to get the government on his side, then the government can give him the land, including using imminent domain, the government can make it hard or impossible for competitors to get anywhere and all the other things that government does to support the monopoly.
        The governments powers exist to help the monopolist and capitalism is always going to lead to tyranny as it is in the interest of the capitalist to have a tyrannical government enforcing his monopoly. Remove the governments powers and they'll come right back as the powerful want a strong government to protect their interests.
        Funny enough, capitalism will also lead to a certain amount of socialism, as getting society to pay for stuff is also more efficient. Look at the case of the fire insurance industry. They quickly discovered it was way more efficient to have society to pay for fire departments.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @06:33AM (#456418)

          But that's not capitalism! Forcing someone to allocate capital in a certain way (e.g., enforcing a monopoly) is in contravention of the primary principle of capitalism: Voluntary trade.

          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday January 20 2017, @07:15AM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday January 20 2017, @07:15AM (#456424) Journal

            Sure, because everyone who has a shitty job does that job voluntarily. Right.

            The need to eat in order to live, the need to have some place to live in, and a few other needs are not negotiable; they simply exist. You cannot voluntarily decide to evade the laws of nature. Therefore the whole idea that there can be a real world economy where everything is done voluntarily is an illusion. Yes, on paper it may be voluntarily. In reality, it isn't.

            You know what the closest to pure capitalism in the Western world is? The Mafia!

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday January 21 2017, @02:13AM

            by dry (223) on Saturday January 21 2017, @02:13AM (#456816) Journal

            Capitalism is about using your capital to leverage acquiring more capital, and sometimes using the capital to acquire other forms of power, including political power.

      • (Score: 1) by charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:36AM

        by charon (5660) on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:36AM (#455922) Journal

        You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?

        The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:59PM (#456020)

          You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
          The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.

          Erm, I don't think it primary has to do with money, although it is plausible that some buttering also takes place. Most often it is combination of simplicity through delegation, or mere blindness and enchantment with novelty. Granting a monopoly simplifies regulation and loads burden of learning about the nature of new phenomenons off legislators' shoulders. It is similar to feudalism or Mandarin system - give some of your problems to someone else and let that someone reap the rewards as long as you get your share. Monopolies break usually only when a challenger contestant appears on the horizon, after masses get disgruntled with exploitation and restrictions.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:15PM (#455625)

    But, your thinking makes no sense... If people are being imposed upon (i.e., they are suffering externalities), then it is in the self-interest of those people to push back, and thereby protect themselves; it is in this struggle where there is born the solution that works for everyone, at least in the long run!

    You completely neglect that side.

    This is evolution by variation and selection, and the most robust implementation of this process is a free market. The key is to make sure that, as much as possible, the interaction is based on voluntary association (e.g., voluntary trade), and this sort of interaction is only really possible when there is as much competition as possible (including in the "Justice" industry), for it is through such competition that society as a whole cooperates to find workable (if not the best) solutions to problems of which people aren't even aware.

    Also, The Short Term often funds the Long Term [soylentnews.org]; if it weren't for the "abuse" of fossil fuels, then perhaps civilization will have never progressed enough to develop the cold fusion that will deliver humanity safely and healthfully to the end of time.

    • (Score: 1) by NewNic on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:09PM

      by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:09PM (#455668) Journal

      But, your thinking makes no sense... If people are being imposed upon (i.e., they are suffering externalities), then it is in the self-interest of those people to push back, and thereby protect themselves; it is in this struggle where there is born the solution that works for everyone, at least in the long run!

      You completely neglect that side.

      You show a complete lack of imagination.

      A manufactures and sells a product to B. However, the manufacturing process harms C. Without the influence of government, C has no leverage to push back and protect him/herself. You completely neglect that side.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:09PM (#455729)

        They'll band together with the 50 other people in their town to fight back! Annnd they get slaughtered by 200+ trained soldiers with superior firepower. Or hell, 5 people running a single tank. Its amazing that the AC can't wrap their mind around this simple fact which has been historically documented for thousands of years....

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:14AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 19 2017, @03:14AM (#455866) Journal

        You show a complete lack of imagination.

        Really? I thought s/he was quite imaginative, especially with this:

        But, your thinking makes no sense...

        Do you see that? Right there! Imagining that jmorris is actually thinking! That is some serious, and strong, imagination. Almost too much imagination.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:02AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:02AM (#455914) Journal

      But, your thinking makes no sense... If people are being imposed upon (i.e., they are suffering externalities), then it is in the self-interest of those people to push back, and thereby protect themselves; it is in this struggle where there is born the solution that works for everyone, at least in the long run!

      Sorry, that is profoundly stupid. The problem of externalities is one of the reasons I'm not purely libertarian. There are a variety of problems you are completely blowing off.

      For example, externalities can be incurred due to the fault of the people suffering from the externality ("coming to the nuisance" [ucsc.edu]). If I build my house next to the asphalt factory, then I incur the same externality as if the asphalt factory moved next to me. Yet the fault here lies in who creates the situation rather than who is generating the externality. Assembling a posse (which is your blanket proposal for either situation) to deal with the asphalt factory doesn't make my side right.

      Another is that it requires effective positive action from the parties that are subject to the externality. If they don't have that power, then it's tough luck. If they aren't alive to exercise that power, then it's even tougher luck. The consequences to externalities need to be baked into the system from the start rather than expected to spontaneously evolve after the fact.

      Libertarianism also has the problem that there is a considerable portion of humanity which not only doesn't get libertarianism, but are so fundamentally miswired or incompetent that I don't think anything can do more than shift that ignorance a little. Ultimately, I think libertarianism will be for most societies, stuck in a reactionary mode, resisting a flood of bad ideas and ill-conceived top-down controls.