4 ms·

I think part of this is that a lot of “scientists say” advice that makes it to the mainstream is mostly a media creation. Somewhere down the trail of sources i

I think part of this is that a lot of “scientists say” advice that makes it to the mainstream is mostly a media creation. Somewhere down the trail of sources is a scientific paper measuring the affect of a difference in X in Y specific population. Then the magazine / newspaper / newsblog article comes out as “Is X killing you? Scientists say cut it out of your diet to live longer!” And of course the population ends up being dismissive of “Science(tm)” when the articles on their Facebook feed alternate between “Scientists say X is good” and “Scientists say X will kill you” from week to week or month to month.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> I think part of this is that a lot of “scientists say” advice that makes it to the mainstream is mostly a media creation. The article here points out this was not just a case where a paper was released that the media then ran with. According to the article, this guy had "dozens" of interviews making his point, and heck, he was science advisor for the "United Nations’ Trillion Trees Campaign". He himself fanned the flames of this media narrative.
- stetrain 3y ago
  Agreed. There's still a difference between saying that planting more trees is good for the climate, and policymakers running with that and planting trees with disregard to all other science and research on ecology and ecosystems. It's like advocating for feeding school children because kids who aren't missing meals get better academic results, but then finding that schools are feeding them nothing but oreos because you didn't specify in every interview that they should also follow all of the other recommendations on proper balanced nutrition. I think this demonstrates the differences between research, media, and policy. A scientist working in policy should ideally know and account for these differences.
ryandrake 3y ago
Maybe scientific publications should have a layman-readable summary where the authors specifically say This is what "Scientists actually say" in this paper. Those dry, still-very-technical "abstracts" are no good. 54% of American adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. The abstract still requires interpretation by the magazine / newspaper / newsblog article where inaccuracy, hype, and clickbait seeps in.
alexey-salmin 3y ago
You missed the part where scientists often eagerly seek media attention to push their agenda, get more funding or for vanity alone.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  this always happens on the cartoons so it must be real
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    This is literally what happened in the linked article
    - pvaldes 3y ago
      We have a word for that: anecdata There are, dunno... lets say "one million" of scientists in this planet?. I don't see one million of scientists all the time on TV or doing this things on the labs "oh, but he has a ponytail!" this is the type of things that media are seeing and hearing while people explains their job. Finding a journalist that will not try to mock you or abuse your time, is like finding an opera singer dressed as a walkiria inside a clam
      - u32480932048 3y ago
        What's the -ism for people who believe tHaT nEvEr HaPpEnS until there are at least half a dozen meta-analyses on the subject? Just because nobody's published on the phenomenon doesn't mean it's not repeatedly observed. > I don't see one million of scientists all the time on TV or doing this things on the labs > Finding a journalist that will not try to mock you or abuse your time, is like finding an opera singer dressed as a walkiria inside a clam Peak anecdata. I've spoken to several journalists - all of them pleasant and none of whom mocked me or abused my time. I don't see millions of journalists on TV mocking people.
bluGill 3y ago
That is part of it, but a group of scientists also know how to manipulate the media well and get a lot of attention on their theories. Linus Pauling won a Nobel prize, twice. He got most of his attention though for spreading the idea that vitamin C is a cure for everything. He gave a lot of interviews in a lot of different places spreading that message. In physics they are still trying to recover from 20+ years of string theory claiming they are just around the corner from a theory of everything. Smart people have done a lot of interesting work in string theory, but none of it has ever been close to a testable hypothesis. The people though knew how to use the media to spread the message and get funding - not only taking funding from more promising branches of physics, but when the funders caught on drying up the total physics pot a bit.
glitchc 3y ago
This exactly. Most academic papers (Nature, Science notwithstanding), don't make bold claims. Rather an effect is measured, cause isolated with sone experimentation, some inference, and reported on. "Seems to be" is the dominant phrase.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> I think part of this is that a lot of “scientists say” advice that makes it to the mainstream is mostly a media creation. The article here points out this was not just a case where a paper was released that the media then ran with. According to the article, this guy had "dozens" of interviews making his point, and heck, he was science advisor for the "United Nations’ Trillion Trees Campaign". He himself fanned the flames of this media narrative.

stetrain 3y ago
Agreed. There's still a difference between saying that planting more trees is good for the climate, and policymakers running with that and planting trees with disregard to all other science and research on ecology and ecosystems. It's like advocating for feeding school children because kids who aren't missing meals get better academic results, but then finding that schools are feeding them nothing but oreos because you didn't specify in every interview that they should also follow all of the other recommendations on proper balanced nutrition. I think this demonstrates the differences between research, media, and policy. A scientist working in policy should ideally know and account for these differences.

ryandrake 3y ago

Maybe scientific publications should have a layman-readable summary where the authors specifically say This is what "Scientists actually say" in this paper. Those dry, still-very-technical "abstracts" are no good. 54% of American adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. The abstract still requires interpretation by the magazine / newspaper / newsblog article where inaccuracy, hype, and clickbait seeps in.

alexey-salmin 3y ago

You missed the part where scientists often eagerly seek media attention to push their agenda, get more funding or for vanity alone.

pvaldes 3y ago
this always happens on the cartoons so it must be real
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  This is literally what happened in the linked article
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    We have a word for that: anecdata There are, dunno... lets say "one million" of scientists in this planet?. I don't see one million of scientists all the time on TV or doing this things on the labs "oh, but he has a ponytail!" this is the type of things that media are seeing and hearing while people explains their job. Finding a journalist that will not try to mock you or abuse your time, is like finding an opera singer dressed as a walkiria inside a clam
    - u32480932048 3y ago
      What's the -ism for people who believe tHaT nEvEr HaPpEnS until there are at least half a dozen meta-analyses on the subject? Just because nobody's published on the phenomenon doesn't mean it's not repeatedly observed. > I don't see one million of scientists all the time on TV or doing this things on the labs > Finding a journalist that will not try to mock you or abuse your time, is like finding an opera singer dressed as a walkiria inside a clam Peak anecdata. I've spoken to several journalists - all of them pleasant and none of whom mocked me or abused my time. I don't see millions of journalists on TV mocking people.

bluGill 3y ago

That is part of it, but a group of scientists also know how to manipulate the media well and get a lot of attention on their theories. Linus Pauling won a Nobel prize, twice. He got most of his attention though for spreading the idea that vitamin C is a cure for everything. He gave a lot of interviews in a lot of different places spreading that message. In physics they are still trying to recover from 20+ years of string theory claiming they are just around the corner from a theory of everything. Smart people have done a lot of interesting work in string theory, but none of it has ever been close to a testable hypothesis. The people though knew how to use the media to spread the message and get funding - not only taking funding from more promising branches of physics, but when the funders caught on drying up the total physics pot a bit.

glitchc 3y ago

This exactly. Most academic papers (Nature, Science notwithstanding), don't make bold claims. Rather an effect is measured, cause isolated with sone experimentation, some inference, and reported on. "Seems to be" is the dominant phrase.