4 ms·
I understand your point, but I don't consider it to be "caution" so much as "accurate". Scientists (and journalists) should tell the truth about science, even
by smt88 5y ago
I understand your point, but I don't consider it to be "caution" so much as "accurate".
Scientists (and journalists) should tell the truth about science, even if they think it will negatively impact behavior. Otherwise they'll lose credibility later (see: CDC and "don't wear masks" ca. March 2020).
- anigbrowl 5y agoThey already do, and go to great lengths to qualify and quantify their uncertainty. But you seem to be arguing that onl retrospective knowledge is valid. If there's a large fire going on on in a room of your own, you can't say with total certainty that the rest of the structure will catch fire. But if you insist on delaying judgment because it's not yet accurate to say your house/apartment building is on fire, how is that going to work out for you?