Lying Increases Trust In Science, Study Finds (phys.org) 160
A new paper from Bangor University outlines the "bizarre phenomenon" known as the transparency paradox: that transparency is needed to foster public trust in science, but being transparent about science, medicine and government can also reduce trust. The paper argues that while openness in science is intended to build trust, it can backfire when revealing uncomfortable truths. Philosopher Byron Hyde and author of the study suggests that public trust could be improved not by sugarcoating reality, but by educating people to expect imperfection and understand how science actually works. Phys.org reports: The study revealed that, while transparency about good news increases trust, transparency about bad news, such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments, decreases it. Therefore, one possible solution to the paradox, and a way to increase public trust, is to lie (which Hyde points out is unethical and ultimately unsustainable), by for example making sure bad news is hidden and that there is always only good news to report.
Instead, he suggests that a better way forward would be to tackle the root cause of the problem, which he argues is the public overidealising science. People still overwhelmingly believe in the 'storybook image' of a scientist who makes no mistakes, which creates unrealistic expectations. Hyde is calling for a renewed effort to teach the public about scientific norms, which would be done through science education and communication to eliminate the "naive" view of science as infallible. "... most people know that global temperatures are rising, but very few people know how we know that," says Hyde. "Not enough people know that science 'infers to the best explanation' and doesn't definitively 'prove' anything. Too many people think that scientists should be free from biases or conflicts of interest when, in fact, neither of these are possible. If we want the public to trust science to the extent that it's trustworthy, we need to make sure they understand it first."
The study has been published in the journal Theory and Society.
Instead, he suggests that a better way forward would be to tackle the root cause of the problem, which he argues is the public overidealising science. People still overwhelmingly believe in the 'storybook image' of a scientist who makes no mistakes, which creates unrealistic expectations. Hyde is calling for a renewed effort to teach the public about scientific norms, which would be done through science education and communication to eliminate the "naive" view of science as infallible. "... most people know that global temperatures are rising, but very few people know how we know that," says Hyde. "Not enough people know that science 'infers to the best explanation' and doesn't definitively 'prove' anything. Too many people think that scientists should be free from biases or conflicts of interest when, in fact, neither of these are possible. If we want the public to trust science to the extent that it's trustworthy, we need to make sure they understand it first."
The study has been published in the journal Theory and Society.
Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of people distrusting all the COVID science, mostly by making statements like 'They said the vaccine would protect us!', implying that 'Science' told them that it would be 100% effective with 0% chance of side effects.
When more realistically it'd produce something like "vaccine reduced infections by 95%(+-2%, 95% certainty) in the test group 8 weeks after dosage."
Then pile on literally hundreds of studies looking at various other aspects and sub groups.
Re:Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of people distrusting all the COVID science, mostly by making statements like 'They said the vaccine would protect us!', implying that 'Science' told them that it would be 100% effective with 0% chance of side effects.
This kind of shows the difficulty of TFAs suggestions: people aren't even listening to what scientists say, they are making things up. So it really doesn't matter if Science is 100% perfect (or lies all the time), because somewhere along the line people will make things up (for propaganda purposes or other).
Re:Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking one this further, it is still an observed effect in the article. You have people believing the 'comforting lies' because science is complex, in favor of simple pleads by non-scientists looking to profit by selling horse ivermectin or bleach enemas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Science has advanced, but society is still essentially unchanged, and without a massive genetic redesign it probably canâ(TM)t change, which is probably a good thing.
I don't think that's really true, though; it's just a matter of education.
Re: (Score:2)
Science has advanced, but society is still essentially unchanged, and without a massive genetic redesign it probably can't change, which is probably a good thing.
Actually I would say society is going the other way. In the past, evolutionary pressure weeded out the weakest. But now that everybody can survive and pass their genes to the next generation, the average intelligence is going to drop. Moreover, culturally we become less interested in pragmatic reality because you can safely ignore it and not face any consequences.
Covid and the anti-vax movement don't have serious enough consequences to change this dynamic. A few percent of those unvaxxed might end up dying
Re:Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess decision-making at large scale is inherently politics, and I am reminded of what we have learned about making public apologies in recent years - it never works. It works better to make a clear and simple policy, motivated by a simplistic justification, and never change your message or alter your course or apologize, almost regardless of how wrong you are.
If necessary you can shift your actual policies, but you need to do it by simply contracting yourself but not acknowledging it, and then denying it and saying why things are totally different now if called on it, or maybe just making no defense and instead counter-attacking. A lot of people just seem incapable of recognizing culpability if you don't express guilt, or inconsistency unless you acknowledge it.
Re:Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd guess this study was mostly motivated by COVID. From beginning to end, the public just failed to cope with policymaking on limited information, because it is subject to revision or occasionally even reversal. Change is perceived as a scandal that must have been motivated as lies, and a conspiracy.
Post needs to be at +5.
This is correct. Many people have mental outlooks that demand one unchanging truth. Maybe even most people.
And science and its adherents are willing to change their minds if the evidence tells them they are wrong.
I guess decision-making at large scale is inherently politics, and I am reminded of what we have learned about making public apologies in recent years - it never works. It works better to make a clear and simple policy, motivated by a simplistic justification, and never change your message or alter your course or apologize, almost regardless of how wrong you are.
The people who demand apologies never have any intention of accepting any apologies they receive. One of the best examples is comedians such as Ricky Gervais and Bill Burr. They say what they say, stand by it and if you jab too much at them, you might get put in their act.
Contrast them with Michael Richards, (Kramer from Seinfeld show)who lost his entire career over one word, made a pretty sincere apology, more than once, and was cancelled. Meanwhile Burr and Gervais are doing quite well.
If necessary you can shift your actual policies, but you need to do it by simply contracting yourself but not acknowledging it, and then denying it and saying why things are totally different now if called on it, or maybe just making no defense and instead counter-attacking. A lot of people just seem incapable of recognizing culpability if you don't express guilt, or inconsistency unless you acknowledge it.
Sad, but so true. Can be a lot of reasons. The attraction of strongman/strongwoman, that desire for unchanging "truth". Looking at people who admit they are wrong when they are as somehow weak and always wrong.
The only way I have found around this is the apology delivered as a shot across the bow. I might apologize, usually for someone else, but if the offended person seems to be one who doesn't look like they are accepting it, I turn it around on them.
"If the honest apology isn't good enough for you, I'll remind you we need to move forward, so accept it or step aside, there will be no more apologies forthcoming." Delivered calmly but with no questioning the meaning. It works. Someone got their booboo fee fee's assuaged if they would accept, and we move on.
An honest apology followed by that strongman move works surprisingly well.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure if Bill Burr or Ricky Gervais called a black person the n-word in public and in front of a camera they'd see their careers end too no matter how they handled it afterwards. Not sure why you think that wouldnt be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if they said you should just grab women by the pussy. That'd be sure to end their careers, right?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Closing schools is an interesting matter for a different reason. It had never been done before, so the effects (especially social) were unknown and were risky, and in the end it had a detrimental effect on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wearing masks to keep yourself from contracting COVID is nothing more than public health theater, because it doesn't keep the COVID spores
COVID is a virus. It doesn't have spores.
Re: (Score:2)
From a public health standpoint, keeping asymptomatic carriers from infecting others is very much NOT theater. Anything that reduces the infection or spread rate is an effective control. Whether it is cost effective is a different matter, but cloth masks are cheap.
If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it.
And COVID doesn't have spores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the people religiously wearing masks during the pandemic honestly believed that wearing a mask would keep them from contracting COVID rather than preventing them from spreading if if they were contagious.
You know, this is almost like one of those equations where you have a factor, but as you work through it, the factor is neutralized, turning out to not matter in the end?
Remember how I said "If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it."
I mean, if them wearing masks makes the potentially infected maskless uncomfortable to the point that they put on the mask, then wearing it is actually still protecting them, just from secondary effects.
Plus,
Re: (Score:2)
I had a toddler at the time and I felt like I was being made to punish my kid for what I knew to be an absolute nonsense reason. The harm *is* I was making my kid do something uncomfortable and unnatural for an absolutely pointless reason.
Teaching them to care about others is probably more uncomfortable and unnatural for you than them. They are young, they can still learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about toddlers in daycares.
Really we are talking about transmission vectors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kinds of masks. Where. On whom. To what kind of fit. How much ventilation. Where. From what source and to what outlet. What kind of disinfect. At what concentration. At what frequency of application.
These are reasonable questions. I obviously can't speak to your jurisdiction or what guidance, if any, they may have followed. I can only speak to the importance of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So the question is...was it worth it?
Well, it was a pandemic so you know it's gonna suck by default. For the actual actuarial value of the lives lost vs the hit to the economy, no it probably was not worth it. Those who are more attached to the old folks in their life might use different metrics.
I am not aware of any such studies particular to daycares beyond the observational studies concluding that covid wasn't a problem for kids.
That kids rarely get seriously ill
Re: Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:4, Insightful)
And I was absolutely appalled by how "The Science" got deliberately out front of its headlights and advocated with the full force of scientific certainty for things that at the time were known to be speculative at best or implausible at worst.
Maybe by policy makers (politicians) but knowing some of those at the forefront of the research, not the scientists.
Masking small children in daycare comes to mind as an example of the implausible.
When you lack information and it is not possible or ethical to do trials, the precautionary principle comes into play. Or would you rather kids in daycare not have been masked and potentially tens of thousands die? Because that's another potential outcome. Masking kids isn't dangerous for them.
Keeping schools closed and mandating vaccines as a condition of entering a restaurant comes to mind as an example of the speculative and untested.
Ditto above. It's a reasonable response when sufficient data is not available.
And I wasn't particularly keen on how "the evidence changes" was used as an excuse for changing recommendations that were spun as scientific certainties when they were initially issued despite the inherent uncertainty at the time.
You'd rather, in the light of more evidence advice to not change?
I would submit that 1. The advice to manage expectations for the broader public alluded to in TFA should go double for the science cheerleaders, science communicators, and public facing scientists.
So you think that should be done is the thing that is already done for science communicators and public facing scientists? Science enthusiasts on the internet with no official positions would be hard to police.
Perhaps docking the pay of anyone who goes on camera or posts online sans a confidence interval would cure some of the mismanagement of expectations.
Scientists regularly do that. The press then ignores it. So you think docking the pay of the press is the right way forward?
I've worked as a scientist and have had some training in science communication. The advice is that scientists provide copy that can be used by the press verbatim, and to provide it at a number of lengths to fit available number of column inches, space on websites, time on the news. Even then, there are plenty of horror stories of journalists shortening things slightly and reversing the sense of the information completely. But usually first to go are all the words and phrases like 'suggests', 'tends to', 'is likely to' and all the confidence interval information because those are easy to remove to make something shorter. It's not all journalists or editors - there are some that are decent.
Re: Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:4, Insightful)
The condescension is the problem. Yours included.
Yours included as well - your post kinda drips with condescension.
I've been posting on slashdot since college, through my technical career and several rounds of grad school. If you look at the diplomas hanging on my wall, and you knew nothing else about me, you'd assume by what I do and where I live and work that I was all in on the Follow The Science!
You would be mistaken, if I walked into your office, and saw those degrees on the wall, I would make judgements based on that. I have nothing but artwork on my walls, the degrees are safely packed away. I don't need to brag about my education. Not saying you do, but I'll look at that with interest until you prove otherwise. Just me being me, I've seen too many Phd's who aren't worth crap. I've seen too many custodians who are smart and able.
And I was absolutely appalled by how "The Science" got deliberately out front of its headlights and advocated with the full force of scientific certainty for things that at the time were known to be speculative at best or implausible at worst.
Are you conflating Medical doctors as people of science? They aren't. I've heard more batshit crazy unscientific Bullshit from medical doctors than most others.
My own take on this vaccine kerfuffle you appear to believe is scientists saying something akin to "this is how it is, without question" is this.
There was a problem, they produced a vaccine, and if you want to take it, good. If you want to not take it, good also. What I read early on was things like "It doesn't prevent infection, but if you contract Covid, you will probably be less harmed. Probably true enough. I know I took the first two, then two boosters. Never had an issue, other than after the first of the second dose, I had a slight fever. three acetaminophen took care of that overnight.
But here's the real kicker - I don't care at all if you don't want to vaccinate. I don't care if you think that DPT vaccines cause autism. I don't care if you die or get long covid, like some people I know who are on full time oxygen with destroyed cardiopulmonary systems. Take the vaccine or do not, not my problem. Now on the other hand, I don't care if you die either. It's your life, and although if your children die, because you have interesting ideas about vaccines, that's sad, but in the end, your choice, and you were accepting of their death or maybe even living in an iron lung when polio comes back. If you want to take ivermectin or hydroquinone, or even drink bleach, hey knock yourself out. It's your choice. I support your choice. You do as you decide is certain, if you need 100 percent certainty about any vaccine, if you demand 100 percent no side effects or even accidental death, then don't take them, I will stand behind you decision, and if you die - not my problem.
Keeping schools closed and mandating vaccines as a condition of entering a restaurant comes to mind as an example of the speculative and untested.
Schools - who knows? Restaurants? Now that is different. Property rights, my good man. If the owner or manager says you have to wear a mask, or produce a vaccine card, or get scanned for your temperature - it is his property, his rules. Just like you have to wear a mask when in my workshop which is a rule long before the plague happened. If you try to come in you are handed one. If you refuse to put it on, you are asked to leave. If you refuse to leave, I will stand my ground.
The "make the power move" advice you gave above is the exact opposite of the correct answer in every dimension.
Tough. I have a job to do, and it has to be done on time and as perfect as possible. It involves a lot of people and hella responsibility. People have to listen and do as I say. So sometimes when confronted with an offense weasel, I have to say what is n
Re: (Score:2)
...If you look at the diplomas hanging on my wall, and you knew nothing else about me, you'd assume by what I do and where I live and work that I was all in on the Follow The Science!
You would be mistaken, if I walked into your office, and saw those degrees on the wall, I would make judgements based on that. I have nothing but artwork on my walls, the degrees are safely packed away. I don't need to brag about my education.
Insightful. About half the people I work with are Ph.D.s, and in general, they don't have their degrees hanging on the wall. If I see degrees on the wall, in general I'd start out thinking that they're likely to be a bit insecure. People who really know what they're talking about show it by knowing what they're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you basically contradicted what you previously posted and explained it with "don't you realize I didn't really mean what I literally just said?"
OK, got it. When you post something, you don't mean what you say.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't 'spin' scientific stuff as a certainty without decades or even centuries of work. We can be very highly expectant, but we have those 95 and 99% certainty bars for a reason.
If you took it as a certainty, that is on you and not the scientists. Best we had was "by what we know right now" and that changed over time with both knowledge and supply availability.
And things like wearing masks was a public health issue. It is like forcing you to have liability insurance to drive, to protect others. Why?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did science explain that subtle difference between relative risk and absolute risk?
Because if they didn't, then they still weren't telling the public the honest picture.
Re:Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is partly that people seemed to have kind of edited memories of what, and who, was promised. Theres a sizeable contingent of people angry that Dr Fauci promised a "100% prevention" vaccine. But he never actually did, and right from the begining said that "sterilizing" vaccines (90%+ protection) are actually fairly rare and most will range from 40-80% efficacy. But people are convinced thats what was promised. even though no scientist ever would make such a rash and improbable promise. Coronaviruses tendency towards immune slipperyness was known long before the SARS viruses ever hit the scene.
The problem is , people are being repeatedly told by political fuckery agents that this was what was promised, and now they are convinced Fauci lied to them. And it just..... never happened.
Re:Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:4, Interesting)
IF you ask an organic chemist, they will claim there is no difference between natural and "man-made" organic compounds. There are toxic compounds, there are nutritious compounds; stable compounds and reactive compounds; compounds in bird nests, and made with and by our brains. Some natural compounds are deadly.
And yet, people will go around telling you to eat only natural things, as if it's backed by science. But it's not. A quick look at the nutrition market shows how incredibly bad science communication actually is to the average person. They aren't getting a message from science at all; most are getting a message from an influencer.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Seen a lot ot it after COVID (Score:4, Insightful)
Blind faith doesn't help anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a pernicious habit that, because the majority of people are stupid, we have to convince them using dumbed down arguments.
This new law/policy is justified because of scientific facts...
and then anyone who questions not just the quality of the science but even whether the policy is a reasonable response, gets called a flat earther.
It's entirely dumb, because it really doesn't help anyone. Anyone with half a brain senses they are being lied to.
So yes, if you think the scientific issue is nuanced and based on a best effort of what data can be measured, and all the limitations, and the existence of counter evidence, then the only answer is to help the public to think harder.
Trust is processed at emotional levels and it is a form of thinking, albeit nonverbal. Even "stupid" people notice when others are being economical with explaining the situation. All anyone has to do is avoid answering a question. Everyone sees it. Oh but we're scientists and you're not... trust blown.
So seems like a good and sensible point from some scientists.
Expecting the public to THINK?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a chance. The idea that most people can be expected to act rationally is fundamental to democracy, but simply doesn't happen. Democracy is only ever the least bad choice, but it has serious flaws.
Re: Expecting the public to THINK?! (Score:2)
Re: Expecting the public to THINK?! (Score:2, Troll)
The essence of current scientific philosophy was nailed down by Popper:
Popper essentially said that you cannot prove anything, all you can do is try to disprove it and if you fail it is probably true.
Explaining Popper to the great unwashed is difficult but must be within the bounds of a great communicator. Teaching of science in schools does not explain this important point. It must be possible to change the school curriculum to help children discover this and maybe they will help educate the adults.
When fu
Re: (Score:3)
all you can do is try to disprove it and if you fail it is probably true.
So String Theory is true?
Re: Expecting the public to THINK?! (Score:2)
Trying to disprove something involves actual experiments which can give evidence for or against a theory.
Re: (Score:2)
all you can do is try to disprove it and if you fail it is probably true.
So String Theory is true?
String theory is misnamed. It is actually String religion. You have to believe things that cannot be scientifically tested.
Re: (Score:3)
Point should be that most "people believe what they want to believe", but I can't find any sign of that oldie in the discussion. (Nor Funny.) On the basis of that folk saying, of course most people don't like any science that conflicts with one of the things they prefer to believe. Take the Bible, for example. Bad history and worse literature, but a LOT of people want to believe it.
I think a "real" scientist is capable of believing whatever the evidence shows, but most scientists are rather like most people
Re: (Score:2)
So String Theory is true?
String theory is misnamed. It is actually String religion.
No. It's a theory.
So far it's a theory that hasn't made any predictions that have turned out to be true, making it (so far) a pretty useless theory for explaining reality. But the fact that it hasn't proved useful doesn't mean it's not a theory.
Re: (Score:2)
So String Theory is true?
String theory is misnamed. It is actually String religion.
No. It's a theory.
So far it's a theory that hasn't made any predictions that have turned out to be true, making it (so far) a pretty useless theory for explaining reality. But the fact that it hasn't proved useful doesn't mean it's not a theory.
Not trying to be pedantic, but isn't it a hypothesis if nothing has actually been shown to support it - yet? Well, maybe I am a bit.. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
The essence of current scientific philosophy was nailed down by Popper: Popper essentially said that you cannot prove anything, all you can do is try to disprove it and if you fail it is probably true.
Popper is great but was essentially wrong. Consider the hypothesis: "It is possible to bend the barrel of a gun 180 degrees and shoot backwards." A single experiment proves the hypothesis true [youtube.com].
Popper does have a point though, and it is good to try to prove your own hypothesis wrong.
Re: Expecting the public to THINK?! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not really a scientific hypothesis because you're not attempting to gain knowledge about nature. Within this experiment we could ask scientific questions (primarily regarding the physics of what's happening), but just setting up an experiment to show that a puzzling phenomenon is possible is not, in itself, science.
From a scientific perspective, we might ask whether the gun barrel experiment conforms to our assumptions regarding physics. If so, then it lends additional credence to those theories, but it does not prove them, because the phenomenon may be caused by physical properties that we're unaware of. On the other hand, if the experiment violates our assumptions in the field of physics, we can say that it has disproved those assumptions (at least to the degree that they will need to be modified to conform with the results of the experiment).
Even things that seem basic, like the earth revolves around the sun, may in fact be untrue. We just treat these assumptions as facts because there is so much evidence to suggest that it's true that the assumption is logical. It's also possible that we live in a simulation and there is no earth and no sun, but it's not logical to assume that because we have no evidence to suggest it's true.
To put it another way, positing an outcome and then observing that outcome, is not science. This was the logical positivism that Popper criticized. Positing a reason for the outcome is science, and even if the experiment reliably demonstrates your prediction, it has not proved any hypothesis for the reason the experiment reliably conforms with the prediction.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really a scientific hypothesis because you're not attempting to gain knowledge about nature
False.
To put it another way, positing an outcome and then observing that outcome, is not science. This was the logical positivism that Popper criticized. Positing a reason for the outcome is science, and even if the experiment reliably demonstrates your prediction, it has not proved any hypothesis for the reason the experiment reliably conforms with the prediction.
OK, that's a better way to put it.
Re: (Score:2)
Popper essentially said that you cannot prove anything, all you can do is try to disprove it and if you fail it is probably true.
Popper is great but was essentially wrong. Consider the hypothesis: "It is possible to bend the barrel of a gun 180 degrees and shoot backwards." A single experiment proves the hypothesis true [youtube.com].
The link you give does not give an experiment showing a gun with a barrel bent 180 degrees shooting backwards. It gives a computer-generated graphic.
If it did, yes, one example would show it is possible. I'm not sure, however, that this is really a statement about science. The science would be in how it works, not "it's possible to do this."
Re: (Score:2)
Thatcher only had a BA in Chemistry (Score:2)
Not a PhD
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you, I think that's a very good point -- all the talk around whether we should lie to people because they're too stupid to understand science, plays right into the power games of the powerful, who want to just manipulate things for corrupt reasons.
Here's $100 million, now go write some papers that support some policy which ultimately gives our corporation more power and profit. And if any other scientists question it, just tell them that they're not in the field. And if that doesn't work, we can think
Re:Blind faith doesn't help anyone (Score:5, Informative)
There's a pernicious habit that, because the majority of people are stupid, we have to convince them using dumbed down arguments.
This new law/policy is justified because of scientific facts...
The majority of people are average.
Science, just like all intellectual pursuits, is affected by the tragedy of the commons in the age of the internet. Those who believe claptrap are aided by those who troll, and those for whom the sowing of discord and distrust id s political move, getting one's enemy to distrust their leaders and scientists is working to defeat that enemy from within.
Point is, the troll, and the politically motivated have just as much veracity as the person that knows what they are doing. The stupid? They are the useful fools.
So we get a really skewed idea of how normal people think, and sometimes think that 90 percent of people are below average.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet may be bad in some ways, but I have to wonder how Joseph Stalin managed to kill millions of his own people, and whether that would be possible today with normal people having access to the internet.
Although I have to wonder -- people on this article's thread seem to be really uninformed about what the authorities did under covid -- things which have been highlighted by a large number of scientists, doctors, public health experts, etc. It's fine if people don't agree with what they're saying, it
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of people are average
Nobody is average. Everyone is either above or below average.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
There's no shortcut to understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
A failed experiment may very well be a red flag, if there's no particular reason why an experiment would've failed, and the result is of a certain spread. For instance, no matter how the statistics, a dice will eventually roll a 6. Or a 1. Even if it's manipulated, BTW.
The correct way is for the audience to understand enough of the intricacies to get a grasp on why something fails.
This in turn means that real science will only have public favor when the while society is equipped to deal with it - byba sufficiently high educational baseline.
There's no shortcut.
If we want education and enlightenment, we need to educate and enlighten us. All of us.
Overloaded concept (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Science as a tool, useful for experimenting to rule out false hypotheses.
2) Science as an institution, which is good for funding the tool of research, but has all the problems of any bureaucracy.
3) Science as the things scientists say. When scientists report the results of experiment, they are excellent. But they are also humans, and allowed to have opinions and express those opinions, even if they are wrong.
Only the first one is really worth anything; the other two are only valuable inasmuch as the support the first one (of course scientists are humans and humans have innate value yada yada).
Re: (Score:2)
The word "science" has at least three (related) definitions:
Where did you get your definitions?
Here are the relevant ones from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]
Etymology: From Middle English science, scyence, borrowed from Old French science, escience, from Latin scientia (“knowledge”), from sciens, the present participle stem of scire (“to know”).
1. (countable) A particular discipline or branch of knowledge that is natural, measurable or consisting of systematic principles rather than intuition or technical skill. [from 14th c.]
3. (uncountable, archaic) Knowledge gained through study or practice; mastery of a particular discipline or area. [from 14th c.]
5. (uncountable) The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. [from 18th c.]
6. (uncountable) Knowledge derived from scientific disciplines, scientific method, or any systematic effort.
Frankly, I like that it literally means "knowledge".
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, I like that it literally means "knowledge".
You like it because you are making a philosophical statement that all knowledge is derived from the scientific method, and you like that philosophical idea.
Unfortunately (unfortunately because the scientific method is a nice tool), not all knowledge is derived from the scientific method. In particular things like history aren't amenable to the scientific method. Also, facts like, "the policeman killed the victim" aren't amenable to the scientific method, although techniques derived from the scientific met
*falcepalm* (Score:2)
You like it because
Being told why I like something? Well this ought to be good.
you are making a philosophical statement that all knowledge is derived from the scientific method, and you like that philosophical idea.
Nope. I do not believe that all knowledge is derived from the scientific method and frankly, you've made a giant leap in logic by assuming that.
In short, you're wrong: science isn't equivalent to "knowledge"
Well... I'll give this, your reasoning is on par with ChatGPT.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain yourself then: why is it that you like a definition of the word "science" that is just plainly wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
People don't know what computer science is but when you tell them that the word "science" is literally from the Latin for "knowledge" it quickly dispels misconceptions about science. This then creates a good starting point when explaining what a "computer knowledge-ist" or "one with knowledge of computers" does. This important to me because I have had to explain what I do as a computer scientist a zillion times and how it's different from a computer engineer or software developer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. And the word "beard" used to mean a joke. I'll laugh at your facial hair if you have some.
Just because a word used to mean something doesn't indicate anything about what it means now. Put down the OED. Etymology only tells you where it came from, not what it is. There's nothing wrong with your definition, of course. It's simply archaic and confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I like that it literally means "knowledge".
One may like it, but the etymological root of a word is not its English meaning. "Manufacture," for example, would mean "to make by hand" (from Latin Latin manufactura, from manu (Latin: hand) and factura (Latin: make)), but when we talk about robots manufacturing things, nobody objects.
In short, you're wrong: science isn't equivalent to "knowledge" (even if we ignore things like revelation, since I haven't been able to get that to work reliably).
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm gonna go with the scientific method is really good at disproving the large amount of bunk that was generated over millennia, to weed out a few good ideas. The first few hundred years of the scientific revolution was a massive review of every idea we thought was true. It was also related to things that were easily observable.
But we've exhausted that pool of ideas. Without novel ideas, science flounders.
Debunkers don't tend to be creative thinkers. Data collectors don't need to be either. Scienc
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I like that it literally means "knowledge".
That's not a very good definition because a lot of knowledge isn't scientific. For example, we're writing in English and neither of us obtained that knowledge scientifically. I don't consider mathematics to be a science, as its a rational rather than empirical exercise, but some do.
That's why the definition you cited specifically states "knowledge derived from scientific disciplines."
My preferred definition of science would be, "applying empiricism to obtain knowledge about the natural world."
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a very good definition because a lot of knowledge isn't scientific.
I never said it was, I just said I liked it. Seriously, why are idiots all jumping on the fact that I like it's origin?
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not how language works?
Decimate no longer means "kill one out of ten men." It means to mostly destroy something. Yet it used to mean cut down 10% of something.
That's why everyone's jumping on it. If you use language this way, you are not communicating with the living language. You're communicating with your own preferred language and others will not understand.
TL;DR: It doesn't matter that you "like" that a word means something that it doesn't actually mean.
Oh yeah right. (Score:4, Funny)
I don't trust this study.......lolol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They've certainly made a pretty big assumption that there was some prior general understanding that science is infallible. I'd never heard of such an idea until recently. To me it's not hard to figure that this very idea, science being infallible, is itself just a meme.
How do we know? (Score:3)
The source papers are publicly available (Score:2)
it might be helpful ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... to stop using "science" as a totem and political club. That doesn't exactly build trust.
Distrust is a feature, not a bug (Score:2)
Science is never done. We learn things through science, but then someone else comes along with a different perspective, and pokes holes in what we thought we learned. This is a good thing. We learn the most, and benefit the most, from studying the things that *don't* fit what we thought we knew.
Also, there is a tendency to over-trust science in many areas, such as nutrition, which is inherently complicated. Coffee is bad for you, coffee is good for you. Eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you. Margarine
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I think that proving people wrong is a strong motivator which could lead to learning.
But somehow (Score:3)
an athlete or a celebrity or a politician can stumble 20 times go down the wrong path for years, and somehow come back and win the big one and be elevated to a pedestal beyond compare. The scientist makes a few mistakes along the way and they and they are vilified.
Is the same in Business? (Score:3)
absolute, unerring, and final truth (Score:2)
Give me a book that has all the answers, and isn't going to change its mind down the road. Nobody wants science, you can't build a foundation on its shifting sands. I'll take the certainty of an authority figure over reality any day of the week.
Religion (Score:2)
For most people, science is indistinguishable from religion. Some priests say something is so, so you bettah believe it. If the religion shows cracks, it loses believers. Science overplayed its hand to gain power; now it is suffering the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Science (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the ticket!
So people reject reality and substitute their own (Score:2)
The entire reason we have a philosophy of science and peer-review and the null hypothesis, is this. Reality doesn't conform to your beliefs. If it did, people could wish shit into existence. Wish in one hand and shit in the other. Which fills up first?
Senses are fallible, too. Setup 3 buckets of water with cold, lukewarm, and hot water. Stick your hands in the cold and the hot water. Wait 5-10 minutes. Put both hands in the lukewarm water. Your hands will *NOT* report the same temperature. These people n
Scientists tend to be too open for the public (Score:2)
Scientists communicate their doubts too open.
Scientists say "We're 99% sure that the asteroid will not hit the earth" The rest doesn't mean there is 1% chance of hitting, but 1% that is not covered by the methods (probably meaning 0.00000001% of hitting and 0.99999999% of not hitting)
People: Scientists say an asteroid may hit the earth!
Politicians: "We will defend the earth from asteroids!" Not having any idea what to do
People: You have my vote!
The hell? Of course scientists can be biased. (Score:2)
Too many people think that scientists should be free from biases or conflicts of interest when, in fact, neither of these are possible.
That's news to me. Bias is always possible in a person, and that may result in poor observations, the accuracy of which is the lifeblood of science.
What's impossible is for a body of science, writ large over years and multiple experiments, to exhibit bias. It takes a lot of science to remove bias by a process. It takes a whole bunch of time to reach bias-free, settled science, however.
But scientists are biased as much as anyone else. I think he was either misquoted or misspoke. I believe "settled science" i
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to. 'Science' is built upon proving and disproving theories. The community shares the proofs so others can repeat the proof or disprove it. This is how 'science' is constantly improving, refining, expanding, etc. Religions, not so much.
Re: So is science just religion? (Score:2)
Do you know that Jains abandoned the sacrifice because of karma (the law of cause and effect)? I.e., sacrifices did not reliably produce rain or whatever, so why continue them?
Re: (Score:2)
OK I won't disagree. What do you call it when something can be reliably predicted based on observation and testing?
Re: So is science just religion? (Score:2)
How about being approximately right for, usually, wrong reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase Kuhn, when the knowledge obtained from physics gets applied, we call it engineering. Similarly, we combine knowledge obtained from biology and chemistry and apply it to the practice of medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, most of the time the engineers go first, and then the scientists explain why it worked.
Applied science is pretty rare.
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a hard look at science, how trustworthy is it?
Science is not built on trust, it's built on experiment.
If you don't believe Galileo (and Newton's generalizations) regarding gravity, then go outside and do the experiments yourself. Stop being a bitch ass whiner and do the experiment.
I did the experiments, that's how I know about gravity. Many other people here have, too.
Re: So is science just religion? (Score:2)
Can you imagine Roman bridge-builders dropping or sliding blocks of stone of different mass in the course of their work,and seeing the heavier ones move faster, because, duh?
Can you imagine epicyclists measuring parallax and failing to find it, thus proving the earth doesn't orbit the sun as Aristarchus claimed, unless the stars were inconceivably far away? What differentiates your experiments and interpretations from theirs?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be saying the former, and expecting it to be understood as the latter. Science is not about trust [youtube.com]. Trust is for lesser minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is not built on trust, it's built on experiment.
A better explanation would be that science is built on empiricism. There are many scientific inquiries where our ability to experiment is limited for physical, ethical, or practical reasons. For example, in astronomy/cosmology we are physically incapable of doing a lot of experimentation. In psychology we are ethically unable to conduct a lot of experiments that would be informative (obviously, they try, but in their eagerness to quantify everything the psychologists have amassed a disproportionate amount o
Re: (Score:2)
Empiricism is somewhat broader than science.
Re: (Score:2)
The Roman theory of gravity, namely that things fall down, was good enough to engineer bridges. Likewise, Newtons theory of gravity, while wrong, is good enough to do a bunch of stuff such as sending Voyager 2 to Neptune, via Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. Need Einsteins theory to send a spacecraft to Mercury and Einsteins theory is still wrong as it breaks at the quantum level.
We do all kinds of stuff with our broken theories as they are good enough. Do you trust GPS even though it uses a broken theory?
Re: (Score:2)
It's as fundamental as 'people believe mistakes are bad'. There's a long way ahead.
True dat. It is why we see the never-ending "Scientists are stunned" stories, as if learning something new was something scientists don't want to happen.
And that's the difference. A lot of people want certainty. Many get that from reading ancient tomes like the angry desert god's holy Bible, some demanding no deviation, where every word in it must be literal truth - the real "literal - despite much of it being contradictory.
The scientific mind on the other hand, is ready to discard previously held bel
Scanning Electron Microscope image [Re:Cool... ] (Score:2)
Isolate it and show it to me under a microscope.
Here, let me google that for you [letmegooglethat.com].
Re: (Score:2)
BEST part though... Its not in that search EITHER ;-) (Learn to fucking google retard... There IS NO ISOLATED DIRECT IMAGE of it. As I just said)
Not sure what you're looking at. There are dozens of images in the search; pick one.