3 ms·

> The truth is that the public does not understand the difference in the confidence levels of scientists for things like "anthropomorphic climate change" vs "dr

> The truth is that the public does not understand the difference in the confidence levels of scientists for things like "anthropomorphic climate change" vs "drinking wine and eating chocolate is healthy for you." The problem is that without science and stem foundations it is very hard for people to even understand what is and isn’t known. My mum used to send me all kind of articles about chakras. “there are kids born now who have their sixth chakra open” and “this chakra is orange, and that chakra is indigo”. One day my mom, my then girlfriend, and me were chatting about what specialisation my girlfriend is thinking about pursuing at medical school. She told her that she is thinking about specialising in endocrinology. My mom become really angry and cided us for using such “big words” to “lord our education over her”. So to placate her we explained that it is a doctor who studies hormones, measures hormone levels and treats diseases of the hormone system. She got visibly surprised and the only things she asked “you can measure hormones?” The conversation continued of course but that question, and the genuine surprise on her face remained with me. The thing is, she trully did not know that we can measure hormones. And if you don’t know that hormones are as real as the legs of the table, and chakras are as real as santa claus, then they both sound equally plausible theories about health. And when you race the stories against each other “i’m not feeling well because my heart chakra is blocked, and I need healing crystals and massages to get well again” vs “i’m not feeling well because my thyroid gland is not producing enough thyroxine, and i need to take suplements in a pill form” then the first one wins because it is simpler and neater sounding. But one is kinda bulshit and the other is a real thing. But you won’t know that unless you understand that we can measure hormones, and nobody even has any idea what it would mean to measure a chakra.

dinkumthinkum 2y ago
Ok, but you make it sounds like the vast majority of people are under such impressions. A lot of people in this thread imply that having a STEM degree confers god-like insight over the plebes that don't have one; I think it is a bit of ironic arrogance. For instance, this thing about the "confidence levels of scientists" for climate change; there is a well-known issue with this myth of a "97% consensus" on that topic. As well, many people think critics of "climate policies" are rubes that "don't know teh science stuff" but actually most do accept humans have contributed to some climate change (but don't agree to the extent that lefts claim when they say migrants come to the US because of it) but rather they disagree about what to do about it.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > but you make it sounds like the vast majority of people are under such impressions. I don’t known what the vast majority thinks. I haven’t talked with them.
- godelski 2y ago
  > this thing about the "confidence levels of scientists" for climate change; there is a well-known issue with this myth of a "97% consensus" on that topic. You're right, but what's your point? It's definitely above 80% and I've never met a climate scientist or someone working on adjacent research that doesn't believe it (given I've worked at national labs, that is a large number). I do agree we shouldn't embellish things. That this actually undermines a point rather than strengthens it. If that's your point, I'm with you. I also agree that a lot of stem people are too arrogant. This is especially common in CS and there's a strong negative stereotype that I think people should be aware of. Honestly, it sounds like you strongly agree with my original statement. How science communication is doing serious harm to public perception of science. I'm not saying abandon education btw, just that we're doing a bad job when optimizing for views rather than strongly constraining for maintaining integrity and honesty
godelski 2y ago
> My mom become really angry and cided us for using such “big words” to “lord our education over her”. Sounds like a skill issue. Joking aside, I think one of the most important things anyone can learn in life is being comfortable not knowing and being comfortable asking. As a researcher I don't understand other researchers who have such high confidence and are happy to claim they understand when a low threshold is obtained [0]. Personal I feel as I learn a subject I only get to "oh I think I might get this" to only then find a new rabbit hole. Though, personally, I enjoy this. It's why I research ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not sure how to teach that but I'm at least happy to say I don't know. Like how I totally forgot what an endocrinologist did until you said it lol. There's no shame in not knowing things. But I'm guessing your mom (like my parents) is very uncomfortable with not knowing things. In that case, any answer is better than no answer. Because knowing is valued over understanding. I do think there's social aspects that reinforce this, but I'm not sure what to do besides demonstrate my own stupidity lol [0] I find people's judgement of understanding a subject is extremely subjective. Even when we remove the set of cases where it's being said to placate another or move a conversation along. I mean honest proclamations.

dinkumthinkum 2y ago

Ok, but you make it sounds like the vast majority of people are under such impressions. A lot of people in this thread imply that having a STEM degree confers god-like insight over the plebes that don't have one; I think it is a bit of ironic arrogance. For instance, this thing about the "confidence levels of scientists" for climate change; there is a well-known issue with this myth of a "97% consensus" on that topic. As well, many people think critics of "climate policies" are rubes that "don't know teh science stuff" but actually most do accept humans have contributed to some climate change (but don't agree to the extent that lefts claim when they say migrants come to the US because of it) but rather they disagree about what to do about it.

krisoft 2y ago
> but you make it sounds like the vast majority of people are under such impressions. I don’t known what the vast majority thinks. I haven’t talked with them.
godelski 2y ago
> this thing about the "confidence levels of scientists" for climate change; there is a well-known issue with this myth of a "97% consensus" on that topic. You're right, but what's your point? It's definitely above 80% and I've never met a climate scientist or someone working on adjacent research that doesn't believe it (given I've worked at national labs, that is a large number). I do agree we shouldn't embellish things. That this actually undermines a point rather than strengthens it. If that's your point, I'm with you. I also agree that a lot of stem people are too arrogant. This is especially common in CS and there's a strong negative stereotype that I think people should be aware of. Honestly, it sounds like you strongly agree with my original statement. How science communication is doing serious harm to public perception of science. I'm not saying abandon education btw, just that we're doing a bad job when optimizing for views rather than strongly constraining for maintaining integrity and honesty

godelski 2y ago

> My mom become really angry and cided us for using such “big words” to “lord our education over her”. Sounds like a skill issue. Joking aside, I think one of the most important things anyone can learn in life is being comfortable not knowing and being comfortable asking. As a researcher I don't understand other researchers who have such high confidence and are happy to claim they understand when a low threshold is obtained [0]. Personal I feel as I learn a subject I only get to "oh I think I might get this" to only then find a new rabbit hole. Though, personally, I enjoy this. It's why I research ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not sure how to teach that but I'm at least happy to say I don't know. Like how I totally forgot what an endocrinologist did until you said it lol. There's no shame in not knowing things. But I'm guessing your mom (like my parents) is very uncomfortable with not knowing things. In that case, any answer is better than no answer. Because knowing is valued over understanding. I do think there's social aspects that reinforce this, but I'm not sure what to do besides demonstrate my own stupidity lol [0] I find people's judgement of understanding a subject is extremely subjective. Even when we remove the set of cases where it's being said to placate another or move a conversation along. I mean honest proclamations.