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, @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.