Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @10:06PM (#455723)

    1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

    2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

    The definition actually does preclude self-interest. It does not exclude it however, you can have an act that is altruistic and self centered, which then means your motivations are a mix of both. "Self interest" is not a universal law and you sound more like a Social Darwinist. You are suffering from hubris, you've seen/read some stuff about self preservation being biologically programmed into us (probably a Dawkins fan) and you've fallen for the seductive theory that reduces all behavior to selfishly motivated game theory.

    Self interest is what leads to warlords and dictators, they believe they have the right to force their will upon others. The strong eat the weak, eugenics, slavery. Yes, that is where your path leads when you put self-interest above all else. What's the point of paying people if you have the means to force them? Save more resources for yourself and the chosen elite...