Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 22 2017, @11:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Given that collaboration [in science] is the norm, you may be asking yourself the eternal question: Who cares? How does the image of a lone scientist hero cause any danger to me?

The problem arises when there is a debate about a scientific topic. Following this structure, debate is a necessary and encouraged part of the scientific process. This debate happens before the idea is released to anyone outside of a few scientists and, while it can become heated at times, takes place with great respect between proponents of different viewpoints.

The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand.

While this is an excellent method of disseminating knowledge, it can also provide a platform for any opinion—regardless of the weight of data behind it—to be equal to that released in more traditional scientific ways.

Particularly in today's largely populist climate, people are looking to see the lone scientist hero overthrow the perceived dominance of facts coming from academia.

And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.

Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Interesting) by mth on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:30PM (14 children)

    by mth (2848) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:30PM (#600161) Homepage

    Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?

    A statement isn't scientific because it is made by a scientist, but because it is proven mathematically or experimentally, or built on solid evidence for sciences where hard proof is not possible (such as history).

    However, the average reader does not have enough knowledge of the field to evaluate the proof or evidence, so they'll accept or reject the statement based on authority instead. And it's tempting to accept someone as an authority if they happen to confirm a pre-existing bias.

    I don't think the myth of the solitary genius is the main issue though. There is so much misinformation being spread, both deliberate and because of incompetence or rushed jobs, that confidence in authories in general has eroded. I don't know if the level of disinformation has actually risen or whether we're just more aware of it, but the effect is the same. If you feel you can't trust the establishment, it becomes easier for any other source to be considered equally authorative. This doesn't just apply to science, but also to for example the media.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:37PM (13 children)

    by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:37PM (#600163)

    The public is treated more like naive children than ever. In light of that, it is not much surprise that more people mistrust "authorities". Hell, these days conspiracy theorists often give more detailed arguments than scientists when addressing the public!

    A decent percentage of the population does not like being led around like a child.

    • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:06PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:06PM (#600172)

      The public is treated more like naive children than ever. In light of that, it is not much surprise that more people mistrust "authorities". Hell, these days conspiracy theorists often give more detailed arguments than scientists when addressing the public!

      Yeah, right... seems someone is reading too much shit on the Interwebs. If someone is given "2 minutes opposing 'viewpoints'" bullshit that is modern media asshole (be that Fox News, or MSNBC or PBS or BBC), then yeah, you get better arguments from the salesmen, not the scientists. But science requires some ability for abstract thought, not just "truthiness" tests of people that know nothing about the subject except what their colleague at work heard from some hooker on the corner.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:03PM (#600246)

        Virindi isn't that wrong, and that isn't saying that conspiracy theorists are more credible (English. I know its tough). The point was that they give more detailed reports whereas many science stories lack enough detail for the reader to actually judge anything about it.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:31PM

          by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:31PM (#600265)

          To be fair, I typed "mistrust" when I meant "distrust"....

          English is tough, and the finality of that 'submit' button is oppressive!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:12PM (3 children)

      by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:12PM (#600254)

      No, they used to be treated much more as children. Scientists of the 1800's, 1700's usually wouldn't even try to explain things to the common plebes because they didn't have the basic education required to even begin to comprehend. It's only relatively recently that the common public has the ability to grasp the basics, which is in the territory of "enough knowledge to be dangerous".

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)

        by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:37PM (#600268)

        Sure. I was thinking more 20th century, before the days of the interwebs and condensing everything down as much as possible.

        But I'm not going to claim that the public was ever really that smart :)

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:30PM

          by Arik (4543) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:30PM (#600295) Journal
          Sad and incomprehensible as it may be, it's true that the public used to be smarter. We had a much more literate population, in the US at least, during the 19th century than today.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:20PM (#600324)

        Scientists of the 1800's, 1700's usually wouldn't even try to explain things to the common plebes because they didn't have the basic education required to even begin to comprehend.

        They had no need to. Their science was about giving new gadgets to the masses, in contrast to convincing the same masses to give up the gadgets they already have.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:33PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:33PM (#600331)

      The public is treated more like naive children than ever.

      But they are, though. For example, it's easy to drum up support for things like mass surveillance after a major terrorist attack, despite it violating fundamental liberties and our constitution. Many voters are mindless partisan hacks as well. So I would say they are treated this way for a reason.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:05PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:05PM (#600348) Journal

      A decent percentage of the population does not like being led around like a child.

      True, but this doesn't transform into a duty of the scientists to dumb what they are doing.

      The solution is for that decent amount of population should start putting some effort into catching up. See, flipping burgers over the week and drinking the wage over the weekend doesn't quite prepare someone for science.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:20PM (#600355)

      The public behaves more like children than before. Considering that we need laws that tell people they can't text while driving, I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that being treated like children isn't appropriate.

      For those of us that are adults, the government isn't typically treating us like children. It's the many folks that didn't grow up past puberty that wind up feeling like they're being condescended in most cases. I rarely see people complaining about it that aren't adult-children.

      • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)

        by Virindi (3484) on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:54AM (#600461)

        The public behaves more like children than before. Considering that we need laws that tell people they can't text while driving, I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that being treated like children isn't appropriate.

        Dunno, I tend to view it as a feedback loop. Society becomes more nanny -> people grow up to be less competent -> more nanny protection is needed.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:54AM (#600522)

          Beyond the absolute basics, I don't believe that's true. In the past the dangers of various mistakes were self-evident and usually in the near future. There was no working 50 years and then finding that the company had stolen the money that you expected to retire on. You knew as you went along roughly how much money you'd need and when you did fall ill you probably died shortly thereafter, no linger for decades in a nursing home.

          People need more government protection because the world is a lot more complicated than it used to be. The fact that many people are also dumbasses about things that ought to be obvious just makes matters worse.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:53PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday November 23 2017, @10:53PM (#600861)

      Hell, these days conspiracy theorists often give more detailed arguments than scientists when addressing the public!

      Well yes, but it is a lot easier to do when your details are based on made up "facts" that get heard simply because they sound good. The facts that scientists could present in support of their theories often appear mind numbingly dull to the layman who might not even understand the greater part if he bothered to wade through them. They are competing for attention with those who sound great and sound authoritative but usually can be debunked by any serious high school science student, if only someone would listen.