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, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:15PM
The examples that TFA Uses:
Eleanor Arroway (Contact) - had Kent and Palmer Joss (and other team members) bookending her work scientifically and morally. What about Hadden - wasn't he kind of important?
Doc Brown (Back to the Future) - the closest on the list, likely, though I've never paid enough attention.
Peter Venkman (Ghostbusters) - Are you kidding? Egon, Ray, Winston?
Dana Scully (The X-Files) - Scully without Mulder would have been nothing. And vice-versa.
Seth Brundle (The Fly) - ain't seen it, sorry!
Hubert Farnsworth (Futurama) - oh, my, yes. Except Amy. And Wernstrom, his foe and yet provacateur. And Bubblegum Tate.
Rick Sanchez (Rick and Morty) - shall we debate the Infinite Rick, even if C-137 seems a loner? Or where would Rick be without his family / why is he really with them? And whether the paradoxic appearance in The Rickshank Redemption of Future Rick giving the clue about portal technology was real or not, which would totally invalidate the individual concept if true? *whew* No, Rick wouldn't be the loner scientist figure I'd pick, actually, though again close.
They omitted the preeminent example - Spock. Except Spock had McCoy and vice-versa plus lots of other scientists.
Aside from the truth being a lot more nuanced than the black and white laid down here (something that I WOULD expect a scientist to recognize)....
Generally, nobody argues facts. Facts are pretty much facts - nutcases aside. In fact, you could define nutcases as those people who argue basically incontrovertible fact. Instead people argue either interpretation of what those facts mean, or the consequences or causations of certain sets of data. (None of which precludes people arguing about specific data, either. But such debates aren't contentious in my experience, they're just justification to do more research or repeat conditions.) Which is actually more a function of journalism, not the scientists proper doing their work. In fact, most responsible scientists quickly put out the limits of what the data they collects means. It's the press who picks up and hypes XXX as a "cure" for YYYY.
This sig for rent.