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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by charon on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:17PM

    by charon (5660) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:17PM (#455626) Journal
    In the absence of an enforcing entity, please instruct me in how a contract is the same as a law in your fantasy land. Bonus points if you can do it without creating government along the way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:32PM (#455636)

    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

      by charon (5660) on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:46PM (#455646) Journal
      All you're saying here is that it's turtles all the way down. If I want to trade my cow for your yarn but don't want to be cheated, I have to hire someone to watch out for deceit. Maybe I don't know anyone who can protect me (although that's silly: in Libertaria everyone goes armed all the time and is ready to shoot to protect their interests) so I hire a stranger. But what if you got to them first and pay them a little extra to betray me? So I hire stranger #2 to watch both you and the original watcher. But but but... how many armed gunmen do I need to feel sure you're not going to kill me and steal my cow? Maybe I should kill you first and take your yarn. It is in my interest to do so, after all.
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @08:05PM (#455665)

        "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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:58PM (#455758)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58PM (#455785)

          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

          by charon (5660) on Thursday January 19 2017, @01:08AM (#455815) Journal

          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.