3 ms·
Most of the public is unable to understand scientific arguments and discern science from bullshit. I also think it's unrealistic to expect all scientists to als
by rorykoehler 6y ago
Most of the public is unable to understand scientific arguments and discern science from bullshit. I also think it's unrealistic to expect all scientists to also be professional PR gurus. I would like to see a publishing industry sub-sector emerge that deals with translating papers into articles. Any article must be edited and signed off by the papers original authors. Any derivative article would have to link to both the approved article and the original paper. This would solve a lot of issues.
- akvadrako 6y agoThe point of the quote and science in general is that "you", a member of the public, need to treat scientists as ignorant, because they are. An argument you can't follow is useless; they need to be made at a level you can understand. This is possible with many things - for example vaccines. There is very little evidence for harm and overwhelming evidence for large numbers of lives saved. There is no need to get too technical. If the only available arguments are too complex to follow, there might be someone you can trust who is more technical and can follow them. But you shouldn't trust a stranger just because they say they're an expert.
- rorykoehler 6y agoI don't treat scientists as either ignorant or knowledgeable when discussing ideas through a science lens. I remove the person from the equation completely as who did the research is mostly irrelevant unless they have a track record of fraud. Science is about explaining and replicating real world phenomenon. It's purposefully technical and if I have a vested interest in a topic I'll read the papers and make up my own mind. I know most people don't operate like that which is why I suggested what I did.