3 ms·
> communicate to the public as a single body, not as individual scientists That's a laudable goal. You will never, never get any body of scientists, or any oth
by UIUC_06 4y ago
> communicate to the public as a single body, not as individual scientists
That's a laudable goal. You will never, never get any body of scientists, or any other class of people, to agree on their overall goals for society, so if science IS indeed political, you've lost already.
On the other hand, if they only have to agree on what the data and logic tell us, that's still hard, but it's much closer to being achievable. It requires everyone to take a deep breath and say "I might be wrong but this is what I think, and here's why." And then listen.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- UIUC_06 4y agoSince it's too late to edit that, I'll add this as a reply: If you ("you" being a scientist) are explicit that your "science" is in service of your political agenda, then you've accomplished this: Anyone who disagrees with your agenda will reject your "science" As we saw with vaccines & lockdowns. On the other hand, if they trust you to just report what the data says, even when you don't like it, then you have a chance of not being vilified. So there you have it: if you want to stand above the Twitter mob and be believed, you have to earn back the public's trust.