3 ms·
While you appear to suggest that reference [1] is a bad thing, or even a slippery slope, there's not really any indication that these consultations had an adver
by epgui 6y ago
While you appear to suggest that reference [1] is a bad thing, or even a slippery slope, there's not really any indication that these consultations had an adverse impact on the quality of the results.
Communication is an incredibly tricky thing. Even when the science is sound, shortsighted approaches at communication can have serious repercussions, even potentially causing deaths (think public health guidance being misinterpreted, misunderstood, or decontextualized, for example).
Being conscious of this doesn't dilute the truth of the message, and being respectful/mindful of others doesn't mean we need to compromise on the science either.
For clarity: this is not a response to any part of your comment other than the reference to the nature article.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoMy point was never about the quality of the results. In this discussion about science as a religion, I made it clear that working with activists to communicate science means people need to believe the non-scientific claims of those activists as much as they believe the results of the experiment described in a paper. And in many situations even HN readers will believe it's necessary to massage truths to the public in order to avoid science being read one way or another. This is what turns science into a religion. One must believe the publicly sanctioned, regionally accepted version of science communication if they are to be said to "trust the science". Had this same study been done in, say, Iran, the science communication would be vastly different, the results the same, and one's reaction to the vastly different communication would still be gauged as a commitment to "science" and how much one believes in it.