SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.
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?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:00PM
Everyone is entitled to believe in thier own set of facts. Histoty has shown us that groupthink can be a problem and just because everyone believes something is true doesn't mean it is (see e.g., flag earth.) Examples like global warming are areas in which people doubt the scientists because they don't have as strong evidence as people would like to see before making such conclusions.
Ultimately because of a number of reasons, such as the difficulty proving causation, it will be unlikely that we can convince everyone that global warming is real. Myself, I am not convinced 100%, even though I can clearly see that global warming is occuring, it's an unresolved question whether humans are contributing to it in an unacceptable manner. (I agree it is more likely true that humans contribute than not true, but we lack strong proof of this fact.)
What scientists are not taking into consideration is the "burden of proof". People don't like doing expensive things. The more expensive the change the scientists want, the higher the burden of proof becomes. Everyone will view global warming with a different default (the assumption if there is no evidence) and asking people to change that opinion without meeting each person's burden of proof, or burden of persausion, is silly.
Each person is entitled to his or her own set of beliefs based on what evidence he or she has encountered and been conviced is correct. The scientific community has made a few mistakes that have contributed to climate skepticism:
* Scientists shun those who do not agree with them. This triggers a "groupthink alarm" in most people's mind. Because the groupthink alarm is triggered, no amount of consensus will be convincing, even if 99% of scientists agreed. It is much more convincing to have a small amount of scientists disagree and refute their arguments than to discredit those scientists by calling them "pseudo-scientific". When people see this label, they conclude the science is not a method of discovery but rather a set of acceptable beliefs.
* The scientific community relies too much on "experts say" and not enough explaining the evidence to ordinary people. "Expert says" isn't convincing when you believe that those experts groupthink.
* The scientific commhnity is hostile to conservatives im the areas where most conservatives will devwlop an opinion on them (university), and as such creates anti-science bias.
In a nutshell: To an outsider, the scientific community appears to engage in groupthink and therefore is not convincing.