5 ms·

>believe the expert According to his tweet it wasn't so much fake news, but appeal to authority he wanted to make people aware of. https://nitter.rako.space/E

by carlmr 4y ago

>believe the expert According to his tweet it wasn't so much fake news, but appeal to authority he wanted to make people aware of. https://nitter.rako.space/EtienneKlein/status/1553779203652435970#m https://nitter.rako.space/EtienneKlein/status/15537792036524...

unethical_ban 4y ago
Appealing to authority is not wholly awful. In an instance of a low-risk decision (whether to trust an authority) it seems shitty for him to try to make this a lesson on it. If an Astronomer posts something to a bunch of people who know nothing about space and just like cool pictures, why taunt them with how they can't tell a zoomed-in chunk of fat from a sunspot?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Alternatively, don't believe everything you read.
  - diputsmonro 4y ago
    If we can't believe people who are experts in their field, who can we believe? That mindset damns the entire field of science communication and outreach Are we supposed to take the lesson that we should simply never believe anything? Just give up on the concept facts and objectivity and give in to the chaotic maelstrom? Or are we supposed to go out and build our own space telescopes to verify every piece of information for ourselves? Neither of those are tenable, we have to be able to trust some people some of the time. Frankly I think tricks like these just erode confidence in science and science communicators. How many people excitedly shared these cool space images with their friends, and now have to deal with the embarrassment of looking like a fool for trusting a legitimate authority? Are those people going to be as excited when the next batch of legit photos come out, or will they withdraw and lose their excitement for fear of being tricked again? You may laugh, but these kinds of experiences do determine people's, and society's, behavior. The goal of science communication is to educate and excite the public, and by extension, drive funding for new advancements. Smug gotchas like this actively impede that effort.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      The answer is not to base your beliefs off of every tweet that comes across your feed. Don't buy in fully to every rumor you hear. If it is too much effort to form an educated opinion about something, you don't need to form an opinion at all
drc500free 4y ago
How does he think dissemination of scientific knowledge actually works? 99.99% of people don't have the education to truly verify breakthrough scientific work. It's a lot of pageantry and ethical training to make the appeal to authority more valid, but it will always at its core be appeal to authority.
- colpabar 4y ago
  I think a lot of people are very wary of phrases like "believe the science" and have come to see them as actually meaning "believe the well-paid people on the TV and don't you dare question any of it." I completely agree most people are not capable of actually understanding most science, but there's also been a growing faction of "science zealots" who view science and scientists as somehow above all the problems that affect every other things humans do.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Hopefully people involved in the real dissemination of scientific knowledge can read more than 144 characters. He indicated in the same tweet thread what it really was. The fact that people can refence just one part of the thread and have it go viral out of context is pretty symbolic of our modern times.
  - drc500free 4y ago
    I don't know if there's such thing as the "real" dissemination of scientific knowledge. You just have concentric circles of people that each know a bit less about the subject matter. The farther you get from the handful of experts on a particular subproblem, the more false a statement has to be to be noticed as false.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Which is silly because that's not what an appeal to authority is. Appeal to authority is defending/supporting an argument by citing the authority of the person presenting it. It's not the inclination people have to take at face value information of low-consequence/importance because it's within the field of the speaker's expertise.
turzmo 4y ago
I think that undermines the inherent objectiveness of scientists. If people have to be skeptical of scientists they will not believe anything that they say (take the ideas of relativity or quantum mechanics). Scientists have one thing going for them in public communication and trustworthiness is it.
- tokinonagare 4y ago
  > If people have to be skeptical of scientists they will not believe anything that they say Wait, are you seriously arguing that people shouldn't be skeptical of scientists? I was a scientist at doctoral course level and I sure didn't blindly believe whatever was written in a paper, or said by another researcher: a lot of papers are weak, biased in their protocol, or even straight-up arrangement with reality. This last point is quite obvious for anyone who worked in a lab. Also career has to be built and objectivity is not something rewarded by the system, so there is a lot of bullshit spread around. A paper is a data point. Can be a weak or a strong one. The opinion of a scientist is another data point, not "science".
  - BrandoElFollito 4y ago
    You were a scientist so you have the power to understand. For the general population the choice is between the voodoo man, or a professor. I prefer people to choose to blindly believe the professor (which carries a risk) than the voodoo man (which is always crap)
    - gus_massa 4y ago
      In many countries you can study Homeopathy in the university. Is that a professor you should trust? Do you remember peak ivermectin? There were many articles published by real medical doctors in real journals. Is that a professor you should trust? (I read a few of the articles. Most of them were just awful, and I was ignoring the non statistically significant ones.) The list of food that babies can not eat before they are one year old changes from country to country, and even from one medical doctor to another. Find a few friends abroad and compare. What if a military expert tells you that a normal looking truck is a secret mobile factory of weapons of mass destruction? Should you invade? What about cold fusion, aka low energy nuclear reactions, aka [I don't remember the new name]? I think they are published by people with real degree. (I recommend to ignore the heat measurements because it's too difficult. Look for the data about neutrons or isotopes.) I'd like too that people follow the advice from serious professors instead of voodoo man, but sometimes the distinction is not so clear. At one point people must choose the expert to follow. For some topics there are easy rules, like "preregistered double blind randomized controlled trial published in a serious peer review journal or it didn't happen", but each word there need a long explanation of the meaning and a long explanation of why it is there. (And remember to read the details, because some papar have weird exclusion criteria, like dropping the death cases.) (And defining which journal are "serious" is a very difficult task.)

by carlmr 4y ago

unethical_ban 4y ago

Appealing to authority is not wholly awful. In an instance of a low-risk decision (whether to trust an authority) it seems shitty for him to try to make this a lesson on it. If an Astronomer posts something to a bunch of people who know nothing about space and just like cool pictures, why taunt them with how they can't tell a zoomed-in chunk of fat from a sunspot?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Alternatively, don't believe everything you read.
- diputsmonro 4y ago
  If we can't believe people who are experts in their field, who can we believe? That mindset damns the entire field of science communication and outreach Are we supposed to take the lesson that we should simply never believe anything? Just give up on the concept facts and objectivity and give in to the chaotic maelstrom? Or are we supposed to go out and build our own space telescopes to verify every piece of information for ourselves? Neither of those are tenable, we have to be able to trust some people some of the time. Frankly I think tricks like these just erode confidence in science and science communicators. How many people excitedly shared these cool space images with their friends, and now have to deal with the embarrassment of looking like a fool for trusting a legitimate authority? Are those people going to be as excited when the next batch of legit photos come out, or will they withdraw and lose their excitement for fear of being tricked again? You may laugh, but these kinds of experiences do determine people's, and society's, behavior. The goal of science communication is to educate and excite the public, and by extension, drive funding for new advancements. Smug gotchas like this actively impede that effort.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The answer is not to base your beliefs off of every tweet that comes across your feed. Don't buy in fully to every rumor you hear. If it is too much effort to form an educated opinion about something, you don't need to form an opinion at all

drc500free 4y ago

How does he think dissemination of scientific knowledge actually works? 99.99% of people don't have the education to truly verify breakthrough scientific work. It's a lot of pageantry and ethical training to make the appeal to authority more valid, but it will always at its core be appeal to authority.

colpabar 4y ago
I think a lot of people are very wary of phrases like "believe the science" and have come to see them as actually meaning "believe the well-paid people on the TV and don't you dare question any of it." I completely agree most people are not capable of actually understanding most science, but there's also been a growing faction of "science zealots" who view science and scientists as somehow above all the problems that affect every other things humans do.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Hopefully people involved in the real dissemination of scientific knowledge can read more than 144 characters. He indicated in the same tweet thread what it really was. The fact that people can refence just one part of the thread and have it go viral out of context is pretty symbolic of our modern times.
- drc500free 4y ago
  I don't know if there's such thing as the "real" dissemination of scientific knowledge. You just have concentric circles of people that each know a bit less about the subject matter. The farther you get from the handful of experts on a particular subproblem, the more false a statement has to be to be noticed as false.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

Which is silly because that's not what an appeal to authority is. Appeal to authority is defending/supporting an argument by citing the authority of the person presenting it. It's not the inclination people have to take at face value information of low-consequence/importance because it's within the field of the speaker's expertise.

turzmo 4y ago

I think that undermines the inherent objectiveness of scientists. If people have to be skeptical of scientists they will not believe anything that they say (take the ideas of relativity or quantum mechanics). Scientists have one thing going for them in public communication and trustworthiness is it.

tokinonagare 4y ago
> If people have to be skeptical of scientists they will not believe anything that they say Wait, are you seriously arguing that people shouldn't be skeptical of scientists? I was a scientist at doctoral course level and I sure didn't blindly believe whatever was written in a paper, or said by another researcher: a lot of papers are weak, biased in their protocol, or even straight-up arrangement with reality. This last point is quite obvious for anyone who worked in a lab. Also career has to be built and objectivity is not something rewarded by the system, so there is a lot of bullshit spread around. A paper is a data point. Can be a weak or a strong one. The opinion of a scientist is another data point, not "science".
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  You were a scientist so you have the power to understand. For the general population the choice is between the voodoo man, or a professor. I prefer people to choose to blindly believe the professor (which carries a risk) than the voodoo man (which is always crap)
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    In many countries you can study Homeopathy in the university. Is that a professor you should trust? Do you remember peak ivermectin? There were many articles published by real medical doctors in real journals. Is that a professor you should trust? (I read a few of the articles. Most of them were just awful, and I was ignoring the non statistically significant ones.) The list of food that babies can not eat before they are one year old changes from country to country, and even from one medical doctor to another. Find a few friends abroad and compare. What if a military expert tells you that a normal looking truck is a secret mobile factory of weapons of mass destruction? Should you invade? What about cold fusion, aka low energy nuclear reactions, aka [I don't remember the new name]? I think they are published by people with real degree. (I recommend to ignore the heat measurements because it's too difficult. Look for the data about neutrons or isotopes.) I'd like too that people follow the advice from serious professors instead of voodoo man, but sometimes the distinction is not so clear. At one point people must choose the expert to follow. For some topics there are easy rules, like "preregistered double blind randomized controlled trial published in a serious peer review journal or it didn't happen", but each word there need a long explanation of the meaning and a long explanation of why it is there. (And remember to read the details, because some papar have weird exclusion criteria, like dropping the death cases.) (And defining which journal are "serious" is a very difficult task.)