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