5 ms·

Unfortunately this is a losing battle because no matter what is said a laymen will latch on to any uncertainty presented to them regarding scientific discussion

by evo_9 9y ago

Unfortunately this is a losing battle because no matter what is said a laymen will latch on to any uncertainty presented to them regarding scientific discussion(s), be that evolution or climate change. They don't understand that scientist by nature prefer to never say something is 100% one way or another. This is because we all know over a long enough timeline just about every conceivable outcome will occur and so scientists, rightly, try to be accurate when they talk about this stuff. Politics isn't about presenting honest clear facts but rather wordplay meant to serve their donors.

fleitz 9y ago
Or GMO's... or Colony Collapse... beliefs unsupported by science exist everywhere...
dwaltrip 9y ago
To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, and so on. These inherent difficulties make it very easy to spread confusion and mislead the layman.
- evo_9 9y ago
  Esp. if you are actually trying to spread confusion. It's a depression ass state of affairs no matter how you slice it. I sometimes wonder if a truly impartial AI 'judge' can solve this; but even if we achieve some form of advanced AI that could act as that judge I can imagine some people would still fighting tooth and nail because, of course, the creators of the Ai have somehow influenced it's 'thinking' and therefor it is invalid to them.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    I don't think it will ever be solved. It will be a continual effort. Some of the best tools I can think of: * cultivating a culture of critical thinking and strong opinions weakly held * increased awareness of cognitive biases and how to reduce them * educating people how to evaluate evidence and understand how theories develop [1] * open and honest discussion * shaming intellectual dishonesty * constant vigilance [1] I've been watching the Ring of Truth on YouTube. It's fantastic. We need more content like this. Link: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN7cD8IAD7dJ https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN...

by evo_9 9y ago

fleitz 9y ago

Or GMO's... or Colony Collapse... beliefs unsupported by science exist everywhere...

dwaltrip 9y ago

To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, and so on. These inherent difficulties make it very easy to spread confusion and mislead the layman.

evo_9 9y ago
Esp. if you are actually trying to spread confusion. It's a depression ass state of affairs no matter how you slice it. I sometimes wonder if a truly impartial AI 'judge' can solve this; but even if we achieve some form of advanced AI that could act as that judge I can imagine some people would still fighting tooth and nail because, of course, the creators of the Ai have somehow influenced it's 'thinking' and therefor it is invalid to them.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  I don't think it will ever be solved. It will be a continual effort. Some of the best tools I can think of: * cultivating a culture of critical thinking and strong opinions weakly held * increased awareness of cognitive biases and how to reduce them * educating people how to evaluate evidence and understand how theories develop [1] * open and honest discussion * shaming intellectual dishonesty * constant vigilance [1] I've been watching the Ring of Truth on YouTube. It's fantastic. We need more content like this. Link: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN7cD8IAD7dJ https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MvlS2uHDjhadiMNqqTtZN...