3 ms·
I highly doubt it and don't think you'd be able to quantify this claim. Poor science literacy is one thing, but the idea that producers or consumers of popular
by nonameiguess 4y ago
I highly doubt it and don't think you'd be able to quantify this claim. Poor science literacy is one thing, but the idea that producers or consumers of popular media were more scientifically literate in the past doesn't pass a basic sanity check. People were less formally educated, the resources to become informally educated were less accessible, the general push for statistical literacy and data-driven approaches to anything at all largely didn't begin until 10-15 years ago. Where would this greater scientific literacy of the past have come from?
- robertlagrant 4y agoThose concepts are too vague to draw conclusions from. If producers had higher bars for scientific/statistical literacy, and reasoned, unbiased reporting, then that's all you need for it to have been better in the past. And in this particular case, even a less well known publication's lies can go around the world via social media sharing before the truth gets its boots on.