Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Touché) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:20PM (6 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:20PM (#600225) Journal

    Agreed. I know lots of very dumb people with PhDs. I know some very bright people without PhDs.

    Amazing! I know lots of very smart people with PhDs, and lots of really stupid and ignorant people who do not have PhDs! What are the odds?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:55PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:55PM (#600307)

    Your ability to assess intelligence may not be as good as you think it is.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:04PM (#600313) Journal

      But amazingly enough, it equally well may actually be better than I think it is! Do you have any evidence for one surmise versus the other? I, for one, am sick and tired of American anti-intellectual exceptionalism.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:22PM (#601382)

        👹👹U+1F479

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @11:33AM (#601017)

    What are the odds?

    Pretty even.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:57PM (#601373)

    :trollface:

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:42PM (#601391)

    u😸