6 ms·

> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. That's complete bullshit. What's causing t

> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. The fact that scientists disagree on details or some might hedge what they say so folks don't get the wrong idea I imagine has little to no ill effect in comparison.

eitland 5y ago
> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school. Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust. Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  Well in many US states politicians write the curriculum. Like in Texas and Mississippi, you don't learn that slavery was the cause for the civil war, but states rights. Despite the existence of their succession documents
- lamontcg 5y ago
  > Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation. that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores. hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific. it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization. you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.
  - eitland 5y ago
    You started well, but even you just couldn't resist the temptation to reach for the branding iron. Ironically you perfectly prove my point: it is impossible to seek information in progressive circles without getting to know the branding iron. The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely. And you wonder why people listen to them? I'll spell it out: one side is possibly right but rather nasty if you don't agree immediately, the other is nice and patient even if they are wrong.
    - obedm 5y ago
      This is true. I struggle with the branding iron myself. For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it. We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I never feel frustrated if my child doesn't understand something or refuses to, because she's a child. But treating adults like children is condescending, hence frustration. > The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely. This is a huge problem. It's just like how people selling snake oil are fantastic listeners and make people feel welcomed and understood, just to sell them literal water disguised as medicine. We are hardwired to trust nice people over logic of facts :/
      - eitland 5y ago
        > And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I see it. Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away. Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the questions weren't crackpot after all. I've seen no apologies from anyone over that either so I guess a fair number of those have learned a lesson too about who to talk to.
        5y ago
- maxerickson 5y ago
  You think lobbyists keep their fingers out of school curricula?
  - eitland 5y ago
    Fairly certain back when I was a kid back in last millenium in a country with just above four million inhabitants, yes. Edit: unless of course if they have a time machine, but in that case we have a bigger problem.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Well that's a rather tightly qualified answer.
      - eitland 5y ago
        Yep, as was my original statement.
darawk 5y ago
> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies This used to be true. In 1995 this was definitely true. But today it just isn't. Look at the primary promulgators of vaccine misinformation. They're not lobbyists for anyone, they're just amateurs who think they're smarter than they are.
- harry8 5y ago
  Like the now vice president of the USA who claimed she wouldn't get a "Trump" vaccine? Repeated ad-nausium on CNN, MSNBC. You can point to plenty of similar stuff with republican partisans and Fox. Both should be abhorrent equally to people who lean democrat as republican. So who do you believe? For any sensible person the answer is obviously neither. How about Fauci or the CDC? The Street: So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning? Fauci: "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." [1] If you believe Fauci, he lied, he said so himself. (For what he thought was the greater good, sure. It's very understandable and human error.) And in so doing undermined the trust there too pretty badly. Which comes at great cost. Tell the truth people. Warts and all. Even if it provides some small amount of short term ammunition to liars, thieves, confidence tricksters and so on because the truth is the only weapon that works long-term. We see the consequences of not respecting that right now and its very worrying. [1] https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...
  - asah 5y ago
    Fauci is clearly on record lying about masks. But digging into Kamala Harris, it appears that she actually said she wouldn't trust Trump's word *alone* - wanted to see FDA review. https://www.google.com/search?q=kamala+%22trump+vaccine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=kamala+%22trump+vaccine%22

eitland 5y ago

> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school. Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust. Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.

diordiderot 5y ago
Well in many US states politicians write the curriculum. Like in Texas and Mississippi, you don't learn that slavery was the cause for the civil war, but states rights. Despite the existence of their succession documents
lamontcg 5y ago
> Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation. that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores. hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific. it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization. you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.
- eitland 5y ago
  You started well, but even you just couldn't resist the temptation to reach for the branding iron. Ironically you perfectly prove my point: it is impossible to seek information in progressive circles without getting to know the branding iron. The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely. And you wonder why people listen to them? I'll spell it out: one side is possibly right but rather nasty if you don't agree immediately, the other is nice and patient even if they are wrong.
  - obedm 5y ago
    This is true. I struggle with the branding iron myself. For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it. We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I never feel frustrated if my child doesn't understand something or refuses to, because she's a child. But treating adults like children is condescending, hence frustration. > The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely. This is a huge problem. It's just like how people selling snake oil are fantastic listeners and make people feel welcomed and understood, just to sell them literal water disguised as medicine. We are hardwired to trust nice people over logic of facts :/
    - eitland 5y ago
      > And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I see it. Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away. Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the questions weren't crackpot after all. I've seen no apologies from anyone over that either so I guess a fair number of those have learned a lesson too about who to talk to.
      - 5y ago
maxerickson 5y ago
You think lobbyists keep their fingers out of school curricula?
- eitland 5y ago
  Fairly certain back when I was a kid back in last millenium in a country with just above four million inhabitants, yes. Edit: unless of course if they have a time machine, but in that case we have a bigger problem.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Well that's a rather tightly qualified answer.
    - eitland 5y ago
      Yep, as was my original statement.

darawk 5y ago

> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies This used to be true. In 1995 this was definitely true. But today it just isn't. Look at the primary promulgators of vaccine misinformation. They're not lobbyists for anyone, they're just amateurs who think they're smarter than they are.

harry8 5y ago
Like the now vice president of the USA who claimed she wouldn't get a "Trump" vaccine? Repeated ad-nausium on CNN, MSNBC. You can point to plenty of similar stuff with republican partisans and Fox. Both should be abhorrent equally to people who lean democrat as republican. So who do you believe? For any sensible person the answer is obviously neither. How about Fauci or the CDC? The Street: So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning? Fauci: "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." [1] If you believe Fauci, he lied, he said so himself. (For what he thought was the greater good, sure. It's very understandable and human error.) And in so doing undermined the trust there too pretty badly. Which comes at great cost. Tell the truth people. Warts and all. Even if it provides some small amount of short term ammunition to liars, thieves, confidence tricksters and so on because the truth is the only weapon that works long-term. We see the consequences of not respecting that right now and its very worrying. [1] https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...
- asah 5y ago
  Fauci is clearly on record lying about masks. But digging into Kamala Harris, it appears that she actually said she wouldn't trust Trump's word *alone* - wanted to see FDA review. https://www.google.com/search?q=kamala+%22trump+vaccine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=kamala+%22trump+vaccine%22