4 ms·

I think it also highlights the problems with hysteria around science and within the public perception of science. To the public there is always either: a) a s

by rob_c 5y ago

I think it also highlights the problems with hysteria around science and within the public perception of science. To the public there is always either: a) a single hero scientist who is infallible (which is just maddeningly broken) b) there is never consensus and never 100% on any topic (this is also broken) Both of these views are Hollywood tropes as much as Viking helmets and do so much harm that even within science outreach. In real world engagement these topics have to be addressed annoyingly often. All these do is create a time sink and brain drain. If a large group of learned experts tell you something. LISTEN. By the same logic if the group at large isn't giving a consistent story then unfortunately there is serious disagreement and you shouldn't just trust those at the top. I'm also tempted to add: c) big industry is your friend. (When it comes to selling brawndo, that's true. But in every other case don't treat these people as experts, they're incapable of being unbiased.)

dragontamer 5y ago
Also d) "Scientists" are some ill-defined profession without any ties to anybody. In the real world, "scientists" are researchers from corporations, government bureaucrats (the number of PhD in the CDC is insane), and other such people. There's no such thing as an "unbiased scientist". Never was, never will be. Its Hollywood fiction. e) "Bureaucrats" are often seen as some unified mass of individuals. This is false. Real-world bureaucrats are segmented into different groups and argue with each other. CDC and FDA got into an argument over language a few months ago for example, and people didn't know what to recommend. There's also Army vs Navy vs Air Force, which are three separate organizations that often get in each other's way. In the real world, different groups of bureaucrats argue with each other a lot. Even the bureaucrats within a group argue a lot, that's why it takes a while to reach consensus, and why they need meetings to come up with a document. Its already a bureaucratic mess trying to get the US Army to do something or agree to a plan. But then when you need coordination between multiple groups, say a US Army + US Marine Force joint operation, that requires an additional meeting that slows things down even more. ------ In the real world, its important to know what the different organizations are doing. What they were chartered to do, and even who the department heads are (since the leadership can change each election, what was true 4 years ago is no longer true today). ----------- In my experience, the typical American is horribly ignorant of how the world works. Of how consensus is built. Of how experts talk with each other. Or the facts on the ground. Hollywood is just a reflection of that. Without hammering "reality" into these neat little molds, the typical American frankly wouldn't understand the story. Compare and contrast a big Hollywood production like "The Big Short" (which was taken seriously by most of my friends), with the more realistic documentaries on the subject (such as Frontline's Money, Power, and Wall Street). People need the tropes to understand the story, but the tropes stand in the way. Furthermore, real-world documentaries (ex: Money, Power, and Wall Street) are long, boring, convoluted and offer no easy answers. You don't feel good watching it at all. You get to hear from the bankers and their perspective, which might go against your politics. Or you might hear from government officials and their perspective, which similarly goes against your politics (left or right), and makes you feel bad. Ultimately, Hollywood is an entertainment industry, not an educational one. So we become dumber if we ever rely upon these tropes for a serious argument. ------ EDIT: Bureaucracy is a system in place that allows for arguments to happen at rapid intervals. These arguments are called "meetings", maybe "congresses" if you want to be fancy. People sit in the meeting and hashes things out. After rapidly advancing the state of arguments, the papers and recommendations that come out of a bureaucracy are many arguments ahead of what is being discussed in the public sector and seem alien. In some cases, the meetings go wrong and nonsense has been made, but in most cases, the discussion and meetings do represent the will of many important people who have thought very hard on any particular issue. It turns out that individual people want a piece of paper to say something they agree with before they sign the bottom of the piece of paper. It doesn't matter if its a law, or if its a health recommendation from the CDC, or a discussion about climate change (or whatever issue) from weathermen or whatever other groups there are.
flavius29663 5y ago
> By the same logic if the group at large isn't giving a consistent story then unfortunately there is serious disagreement and you shouldn't just trust those at the top. I read this as "consistent among themselves" or "consistent among their own findings and predictions" or "consistently in the same direction, but with wildly different degrees" and I think they are all valid.

by rob_c 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago

Also d) "Scientists" are some ill-defined profession without any ties to anybody. In the real world, "scientists" are researchers from corporations, government bureaucrats (the number of PhD in the CDC is insane), and other such people. There's no such thing as an "unbiased scientist". Never was, never will be. Its Hollywood fiction. e) "Bureaucrats" are often seen as some unified mass of individuals. This is false. Real-world bureaucrats are segmented into different groups and argue with each other. CDC and FDA got into an argument over language a few months ago for example, and people didn't know what to recommend. There's also Army vs Navy vs Air Force, which are three separate organizations that often get in each other's way. In the real world, different groups of bureaucrats argue with each other a lot. Even the bureaucrats within a group argue a lot, that's why it takes a while to reach consensus, and why they need meetings to come up with a document. Its already a bureaucratic mess trying to get the US Army to do something or agree to a plan. But then when you need coordination between multiple groups, say a US Army + US Marine Force joint operation, that requires an additional meeting that slows things down even more. ------ In the real world, its important to know what the different organizations are doing. What they were chartered to do, and even who the department heads are (since the leadership can change each election, what was true 4 years ago is no longer true today). ----------- In my experience, the typical American is horribly ignorant of how the world works. Of how consensus is built. Of how experts talk with each other. Or the facts on the ground. Hollywood is just a reflection of that. Without hammering "reality" into these neat little molds, the typical American frankly wouldn't understand the story. Compare and contrast a big Hollywood production like "The Big Short" (which was taken seriously by most of my friends), with the more realistic documentaries on the subject (such as Frontline's Money, Power, and Wall Street). People need the tropes to understand the story, but the tropes stand in the way. Furthermore, real-world documentaries (ex: Money, Power, and Wall Street) are long, boring, convoluted and offer no easy answers. You don't feel good watching it at all. You get to hear from the bankers and their perspective, which might go against your politics. Or you might hear from government officials and their perspective, which similarly goes against your politics (left or right), and makes you feel bad. Ultimately, Hollywood is an entertainment industry, not an educational one. So we become dumber if we ever rely upon these tropes for a serious argument. ------ EDIT: Bureaucracy is a system in place that allows for arguments to happen at rapid intervals. These arguments are called "meetings", maybe "congresses" if you want to be fancy. People sit in the meeting and hashes things out. After rapidly advancing the state of arguments, the papers and recommendations that come out of a bureaucracy are many arguments ahead of what is being discussed in the public sector and seem alien. In some cases, the meetings go wrong and nonsense has been made, but in most cases, the discussion and meetings do represent the will of many important people who have thought very hard on any particular issue. It turns out that individual people want a piece of paper to say something they agree with before they sign the bottom of the piece of paper. It doesn't matter if its a law, or if its a health recommendation from the CDC, or a discussion about climate change (or whatever issue) from weathermen or whatever other groups there are.

flavius29663 5y ago

> By the same logic if the group at large isn't giving a consistent story then unfortunately there is serious disagreement and you shouldn't just trust those at the top. I read this as "consistent among themselves" or "consistent among their own findings and predictions" or "consistently in the same direction, but with wildly different degrees" and I think they are all valid.