4 ms·

I've seen this trope of a lack of trustable science often here. But the people not trusting the science (that I've come across) would usually not have the abili

by awild 5y ago

I've seen this trope of a lack of trustable science often here. But the people not trusting the science (that I've come across) would usually not have the ability to replicate science anyway, for a lack of education. The other group to not "trust the science" usually is making their money in some of the causes of global warming. Just a few weeks back, Saudi Arabia (and some other countries I'm missing) insisted on weakening the claims made in a joint statement/study of the COP. The lack of trust in science (imho) stems from the fact that pretty big news organisations (fox, Bild etc) are doing their best to ease the cognitive dissonance of their audience by claiming them unreliable. The ivory tower is just a propaganda trope at this point

listless 5y ago
I don’t think it’s a trope - unfortunately. There’s so many examples of people using “science” as a political football that they’ve undermined themselves. We’ve got public health experts encouraging people to protest racial justice in the height of a pandemic as if a virus cares about the nobility of your cause, and that’s just a most recent example. History is littered with us being wrong or just downright manipulative with data / science / experts. Said to say that I think parent thread has it right - people need to have faith in the method - not the experts - and realize that the method does not yield infallible results. It’s simply the best mechanism for getting the truth with the data we currently have. And people need to be able to parse out when they are seeing data-driven conclusions over when experts are just saying dumb/political things. That can’t be a referendum on “science”.
pjkundert 5y ago
The assumption of universal ignorance on the part of non-"scientists" is ... pretty amazing. I think we'd be pretty amazed at what people can discover, when the raw data and the analytical procedures used to draw conclusions from that data are exposed to scrutiny.
- awild 5y ago
  I think you're confusing something here. I'm not claiming we don't need open data nor am I claiming that the non-academic populus would be unable to make interesting observations with open data. I'm saying that of those people that deny scientifically validated claims (like climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations) the majority would not be able to make interesting (and valid) observations, nor would it be in their interest to do so. I know how to run climate simulations, given a huge dump of climate data I would _not_ be able to draw any new conclusions out of it, I can guarantee that to you. My point is that this idea that distrust in science stems from a lack of open data is wrong, and instead product of concerted and ongoing effort of propaganda and defunding of academia. Climate change is at this stage more a political problem than it is a scientific one.
  - listless 5y ago
    > instead product of concerted and ongoing effort of propaganda and defunding of academia. I think that's certainly true, but it doesn't account of the scores of unforced errors that our institutions and academy's are making on an almost daily basis that has eroded any credibility. Here are just a few examples... CDC tweets that masks are 80% effective at "reducing your chance of getting COVID" - which is highly selective and word smithed information AT BEST. The real number is more like 11% and only when it's surgical. CDC fails to mention at all the cloth masks are pretty inadequate - which would be actual helpful information for people... https://twitter.com/cdcdirector/status/1456645731691925518 https://twitter.com/cdcdirector/status/1456645731691925518 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y American Academy of Pediatrics pushes FDA to approve vaccines and decries FDA's request for 1K more subjects to add to the 1500 in the trial. Then goes on to say Delta is "very dangerous to children" even though there is still no evidence to suggest that Delta is any more dangerous for children and rate of hospitalized chidren with serious disease hasn't changed from 2 in 100,000. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-academy-of-pediatrics-urges-fda-to-approve-covid-vaccines-for-children-under-12 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-academy-of-pediat... https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-4035798709ec77b8acaf96a49d48acfa https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-40... We could go on and on. People are not stupid. They see this stuff, know that they are being misled and that erodes trust. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the misleading is in good faith or not.
notreallyserio 5y ago
Another significant factor is the belief we are in the end times and thus whatever we do doesn't matter (or worse, may delay the end). A large minority believes this[0], but they have outsized influence among politicians, at least in the US. Further, they believe that their holy literature is perfect and because science changes, science must be wrong[1]. Therefore, we should just follow what the book says, which is that there will be a rapture. 0: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/07/14/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/07/14/jesus-chris... where christ's return means the end times. 1: unfortunately I don't have a citation for this, but it's something I've seen a lot.

by awild 5y ago

listless 5y ago

I don’t think it’s a trope - unfortunately. There’s so many examples of people using “science” as a political football that they’ve undermined themselves. We’ve got public health experts encouraging people to protest racial justice in the height of a pandemic as if a virus cares about the nobility of your cause, and that’s just a most recent example. History is littered with us being wrong or just downright manipulative with data / science / experts. Said to say that I think parent thread has it right - people need to have faith in the method - not the experts - and realize that the method does not yield infallible results. It’s simply the best mechanism for getting the truth with the data we currently have. And people need to be able to parse out when they are seeing data-driven conclusions over when experts are just saying dumb/political things. That can’t be a referendum on “science”.

pjkundert 5y ago

The assumption of universal ignorance on the part of non-"scientists" is ... pretty amazing. I think we'd be pretty amazed at what people can discover, when the raw data and the analytical procedures used to draw conclusions from that data are exposed to scrutiny.

awild 5y ago
I think you're confusing something here. I'm not claiming we don't need open data nor am I claiming that the non-academic populus would be unable to make interesting observations with open data. I'm saying that of those people that deny scientifically validated claims (like climate change or the efficacy of vaccinations) the majority would not be able to make interesting (and valid) observations, nor would it be in their interest to do so. I know how to run climate simulations, given a huge dump of climate data I would _not_ be able to draw any new conclusions out of it, I can guarantee that to you. My point is that this idea that distrust in science stems from a lack of open data is wrong, and instead product of concerted and ongoing effort of propaganda and defunding of academia. Climate change is at this stage more a political problem than it is a scientific one.
- listless 5y ago
  > instead product of concerted and ongoing effort of propaganda and defunding of academia. I think that's certainly true, but it doesn't account of the scores of unforced errors that our institutions and academy's are making on an almost daily basis that has eroded any credibility. Here are just a few examples... CDC tweets that masks are 80% effective at "reducing your chance of getting COVID" - which is highly selective and word smithed information AT BEST. The real number is more like 11% and only when it's surgical. CDC fails to mention at all the cloth masks are pretty inadequate - which would be actual helpful information for people... https://twitter.com/cdcdirector/status/1456645731691925518 https://twitter.com/cdcdirector/status/1456645731691925518 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y American Academy of Pediatrics pushes FDA to approve vaccines and decries FDA's request for 1K more subjects to add to the 1500 in the trial. Then goes on to say Delta is "very dangerous to children" even though there is still no evidence to suggest that Delta is any more dangerous for children and rate of hospitalized chidren with serious disease hasn't changed from 2 in 100,000. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-academy-of-pediatrics-urges-fda-to-approve-covid-vaccines-for-children-under-12 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-academy-of-pediat... https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-4035798709ec77b8acaf96a49d48acfa https://apnews.com/article/delta-variant-coronavirus-kids-40... We could go on and on. People are not stupid. They see this stuff, know that they are being misled and that erodes trust. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if the misleading is in good faith or not.

notreallyserio 5y ago

Another significant factor is the belief we are in the end times and thus whatever we do doesn't matter (or worse, may delay the end). A large minority believes this[0], but they have outsized influence among politicians, at least in the US. Further, they believe that their holy literature is perfect and because science changes, science must be wrong[1]. Therefore, we should just follow what the book says, which is that there will be a rapture. 0: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/07/14/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2010/07/14/jesus-chris... where christ's return means the end times. 1: unfortunately I don't have a citation for this, but it's something I've seen a lot.