14 ms·

The problem here is not with science itself, but the expectation of what science is, and what it tells us, and how. People are not educated on science, period.

The problem here is not with science itself, but the expectation of what science is, and what it tells us, and how. People are not educated on science, period. The popular perception is that science tells us facts about the world. This is false. What science is, at its core, is a complete and utter acceptance of an extremely high level of doubt and uncertainty. It is living with the unknown, and working with it anyway to try to get closer to the truth. Framed this way, science always "changing its mind" about what's right should be revered and celebrated by everyone in the world! We're looking at the advancement of civilization with our own two eyes! Not always grand and not always perfect, but that's how science works, in its own extremely productive way. But we don't teach this. We do not teach, deeply, this version of science. No people except a chosen few will reach this level of understanding. The 99% of society which are not scientists will look at it as untrustworthy, because it always looks like it's wrong, all the time. That is what needs to be changed. Not science itself, not what we recommend based on science—which is just the best thing that we know at the time—but the public perception of science itself. Science education must be deep, ingrained, and profound; not simply functional. It would solve a great many problems of society if the average person were able to look at a situation with a respect for both what we know and what we do not, and understand the procedure for moving closer to truth, and respect it. It is unlikely to ever happen, but that is the systemic problem, and that is where we should direct our attention.

SilasX 12y ago
Adams wasn't criticizing science's updating of beliefs on new evidence. He was criticizing the practice of shouting "Hey! We're ultra-certain about this! Very important! You've got to do this!" when the truth was more like, "We kind of have some preliminary evidence this might be bad for you, stay tuned." (And I don't buy the claim that it's just the media overblowing this; why weren't the national academies of science criticizing the food pyramid, at least in the sense of "okay it's not actually that important to eat 11 servings of bread a day".) The point, then, is: don't be surprised when people are skeptical in those cases where you really are deservedly confident (e.g. vaccines). If your evidence isn't very good and prone to being updated, that's fine! Just don't pretend to be confident it it.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>He was criticizing the practice of shouting "Hey! We're ultra-certain about this! Very important! You've got to do this!" when the truth was more like, "We kind of have some preliminary evidence this might be bad for you, stay tuned." This is almost always a result of the "Science News Cycle." http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 Aside from that, there's a lot of pressure on scientists to produce actionable results. People who fund science don't really understand it, and approach it with a mindset of, "I'm investing X dollars per year into this, and I should get Y dollars in return." So scientists either fake confidence in their findings, or fake their data to support their benefactor's cause.
  - npsimons 12y ago
    Also relevant: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic
  - SilasX 12y ago
    If it were just an issue of media hype, that would be a valid explanation for the food pyramid failure. But it's not just that. It's the fact that a) government experts believed it b) with high confidence that c) isn't justified, and d) are so confident that they plaster it in every classroom with all their authority behind it, and e) no scientific authorities go on record saying the real state of the research in case anyone bothers to get the real story. You can't blame the media for those parts.
- pdx 12y ago
  > those cases where you really are deservedly confident (e.g. vaccines) Why are you so confident in vaccines? There are papers saying your right to be confident http://1796kotok.com/pdfs/MMR_withdrawal.pdf http://1796kotok.com/pdfs/MMR_withdrawal.pdf ... and rebuttals to those papers. https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/ https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxaut... Should we, as non-scientists automatically discount the rebuttals?

SilasX 12y ago

Adams wasn't criticizing science's updating of beliefs on new evidence. He was criticizing the practice of shouting "Hey! We're ultra-certain about this! Very important! You've got to do this!" when the truth was more like, "We kind of have some preliminary evidence this might be bad for you, stay tuned." (And I don't buy the claim that it's just the media overblowing this; why weren't the national academies of science criticizing the food pyramid, at least in the sense of "okay it's not actually that important to eat 11 servings of bread a day".) The point, then, is: don't be surprised when people are skeptical in those cases where you really are deservedly confident (e.g. vaccines). If your evidence isn't very good and prone to being updated, that's fine! Just don't pretend to be confident it it.

enraged_camel 12y ago
>>He was criticizing the practice of shouting "Hey! We're ultra-certain about this! Very important! You've got to do this!" when the truth was more like, "We kind of have some preliminary evidence this might be bad for you, stay tuned." This is almost always a result of the "Science News Cycle." http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174 Aside from that, there's a lot of pressure on scientists to produce actionable results. People who fund science don't really understand it, and approach it with a mindset of, "I'm investing X dollars per year into this, and I should get Y dollars in return." So scientists either fake confidence in their findings, or fake their data to support their benefactor's cause.
- npsimons 12y ago
  Also relevant: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic
- SilasX 12y ago
  If it were just an issue of media hype, that would be a valid explanation for the food pyramid failure. But it's not just that. It's the fact that a) government experts believed it b) with high confidence that c) isn't justified, and d) are so confident that they plaster it in every classroom with all their authority behind it, and e) no scientific authorities go on record saying the real state of the research in case anyone bothers to get the real story. You can't blame the media for those parts.
pdx 12y ago
> those cases where you really are deservedly confident (e.g. vaccines) Why are you so confident in vaccines? There are papers saying your right to be confident http://1796kotok.com/pdfs/MMR_withdrawal.pdf http://1796kotok.com/pdfs/MMR_withdrawal.pdf ... and rebuttals to those papers. https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxautism/ https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/japvaxaut... Should we, as non-scientists automatically discount the rebuttals?