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 charon on Thursday January 19 2017, @06:36AM
You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @12:59PM
You're soooooo close, jmorris. So close it hurts. The only piece you're missing is why the government is mixed into these monopolies. Why did the government sell railroad right of ways to only one company? Why did the government mandate use of Microsoft Windows on their computers (and everyone else's by way of compatibility)? Why did the government allow Bell to shut customers out from using competing hardware? Why were the banks allowed to play three card monte with the world economy?
The answer is money. Either through campaign contributions, lobbying, revolving door jobs, or regulatory capture, companies that want to keep competitors out of their playpen pay off the people who make the regulations. Your argument is not against regulation, it is against corruption.
Erm, I don't think it primary has to do with money, although it is plausible that some buttering also takes place. Most often it is combination of simplicity through delegation, or mere blindness and enchantment with novelty. Granting a monopoly simplifies regulation and loads burden of learning about the nature of new phenomenons off legislators' shoulders. It is similar to feudalism or Mandarin system - give some of your problems to someone else and let that someone reap the rewards as long as you get your share. Monopolies break usually only when a challenger contestant appears on the horizon, after masses get disgruntled with exploitation and restrictions.