4 ms·

> Anyone else feel like they read a ton of wild speculation presented as utmost confidence? You're reading statements put out by university PR departments, or

by nyssos 3y ago

> Anyone else feel like they read a ton of wild speculation presented as utmost confidence? You're reading statements put out by university PR departments, or worse yet, journalists' attempts at summarizing them. It's almost all garbage. The actual information is in papers and conference proceedings.

mcpackieh 3y ago
The lazy and careless way in which popular science communication is performed is frequently counterproductive and foments anti-science attitudes in people who are inherently skeptical but not particularly bright. Unable to read and comprehend the actual paper, they focus on the pop-sci communications and find inconsistencies, exaggerations and omissions in those, then come to doubt science in general. When somebody's primary exposure to science is through the headlines "Science discovers red wine is good for you" ... "Actually it isn't" ... "Actually it is." "Actually it isn't" ... how can we expect them to believe that scientists actually know what they're doing? We can say "well your iphone is amazing and science made that, so you should take the rest of it on faith" but that doesn't work on a lot of people. And perhaps rightly so; imagine the argument "Our priests are very good at predicting eclipses [true!], so you have faith when they tell us that sacrificing your child is necessary to ensure a good harvest."
- edgyquant 3y ago
  >people who are inherently skeptical but not particularly bright. Not like you, of course. You’re so much smarter than the masses right? What an insufferable and ignorant view of the average person.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I didn't say average, so spare me your performative edginess Mr Edgy Quant. I perceive people with anti-science attitudes to be a minority of the general population, albeit a large enough minority to be socially (and democratically) significant. I'm talking about people who say (and mean, without trolling intent) things like "space is fake, NASA is lying to us." As many as 1 in 5 Americans believe the moon landings were faked, despite all the common landing-denialist talking points being easy [for literate people] to debunk with only a few minutes of research. Do you think it is insufferable and ignorant to acknowledge the fact that roughly 1 in 5 adult Americans is barely literate, and roughly half read below a 6th grade level? Should we pretend this isn't true, for the sake of decorum? (If you doubt these figures, I trust that you know how to look it up.) To people like this, the primary scientific literature is simply inaccessible. Some of them go with the flow and take science on faith, but the more skeptical among them will often wind up distrusting scientists because pop-sci communication is rife with inconsistencies and exaggerations even they can spot. If you think I've gotten anything factually wrong in the above, please point it out. If your problem is merely with my attitude, then I can assure you the feeling is mutual.

by nyssos 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago

The lazy and careless way in which popular science communication is performed is frequently counterproductive and foments anti-science attitudes in people who are inherently skeptical but not particularly bright. Unable to read and comprehend the actual paper, they focus on the pop-sci communications and find inconsistencies, exaggerations and omissions in those, then come to doubt science in general. When somebody's primary exposure to science is through the headlines "Science discovers red wine is good for you" ... "Actually it isn't" ... "Actually it is." "Actually it isn't" ... how can we expect them to believe that scientists actually know what they're doing? We can say "well your iphone is amazing and science made that, so you should take the rest of it on faith" but that doesn't work on a lot of people. And perhaps rightly so; imagine the argument "Our priests are very good at predicting eclipses [true!], so you have faith when they tell us that sacrificing your child is necessary to ensure a good harvest."

edgyquant 3y ago
>people who are inherently skeptical but not particularly bright. Not like you, of course. You’re so much smarter than the masses right? What an insufferable and ignorant view of the average person.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I didn't say average, so spare me your performative edginess Mr Edgy Quant. I perceive people with anti-science attitudes to be a minority of the general population, albeit a large enough minority to be socially (and democratically) significant. I'm talking about people who say (and mean, without trolling intent) things like "space is fake, NASA is lying to us." As many as 1 in 5 Americans believe the moon landings were faked, despite all the common landing-denialist talking points being easy [for literate people] to debunk with only a few minutes of research. Do you think it is insufferable and ignorant to acknowledge the fact that roughly 1 in 5 adult Americans is barely literate, and roughly half read below a 6th grade level? Should we pretend this isn't true, for the sake of decorum? (If you doubt these figures, I trust that you know how to look it up.) To people like this, the primary scientific literature is simply inaccessible. Some of them go with the flow and take science on faith, but the more skeptical among them will often wind up distrusting scientists because pop-sci communication is rife with inconsistencies and exaggerations even they can spot. If you think I've gotten anything factually wrong in the above, please point it out. If your problem is merely with my attitude, then I can assure you the feeling is mutual.