4 ms·
Science communication for anything important to people (e.g. economics, climate, psychology, health) is generally terrible. On one side, you have people saying
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Science communication for anything important to people (e.g. economics, climate, psychology, health) is generally terrible. On one side, you have people saying "looking at statues makes you atheist" or "this bubble is about to burst." On the other, you have "psychologists are garbage"/"climate change isn't real"/"economists can't predict recessions so they're idiots."
The solution is the same for all of them. Effort. When you see reporting you're interested, find the original paper and skim it. At least read the abstract. Turns out the people actually doing the work are usually pretty sensible. There's a lot people don't know, but with this "one simple trick!" you can learn what we're less uncertain about.
- tomp 7y ago> Turns out the people actually doing the work are usually pretty sensible. The replication crisis suggests otherwise; they’re often delusional (believing in things that aren’t there) or outright frauds (publishing results they know are false for personal gain).
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoSometimes? Yes. Often? I don't think so. Usually? No absolutely not.