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 khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:27AM
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
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
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:39AM
Back atcha, bro!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 19 2017, @07:53AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.