Comment

What is the thesis of this meme, that people are just stupid and there is no underlying problem or system that can be improved?

Science is often communicated to the public via either companies, politics, or the media. Which al have their own interests and issues in representing “scientific facts”. To give some examples of the “science” people have been exposed to: These new pain killers are perfectly save and absolutely not addictive. Making health care accessible is actually bad for the economy and will be more expensive in the end. Or the numerous articles on outlier papers published in the media that conclude that it’s actually healthy to [insert obviously unhealthy habit here (sponsored by some industry group)].

Science has a communication problem, and the communication conduits have a huge credibility problem. The results of which made an already bad pandemic even worse.

source

Sort:hotnew top

OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The thesis is that you should listen to experts when you don’t know what you’re talking about. No one is saying experts are never wrong, but they’re more likely to be right than just some guy. There’s a whole lot of ‘just some guys’ who claim to appreciate science until it tells them something they don’t want to hear. That’s what the meme is against.

source
- balderdash9@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Okay, what about when there is a lack of consensus? When you have scientists who, for example, argue that the virus came from the Wuhan lab whereas the narrative being told is that that’s crazy. This is the problem I have with people in this thread assuming that everyone who isn’t immediately on board is dumb, delusional, conspiratorial, etc. We’re not talking about flat Earth theory here; it’s not that simple.
  
  source
  - OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The problem is only when expertise is unduly dismissed. If there’s no consensus you listen to the differing ideas and you can determine what sounds right to you while acknowledging your lower level of confidence by being extra cautious until there’s more information available.
    
    Sure, people yelling on the internet is annoying and bad, but that’s regardless of the argument they’re pushing. It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the evidence if one side is more annoying.
    
    source
balderdash9@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Holy shit, a reasonable comment that doesn’t just assume the other half of the country are idiots.

People don’t know what to believe and are skeptical for good reason (some historical, some present). Time and time again we’ve seen our institutions fails us. We see blatant corruption that the powers elites don’t even bother to hide (e.g. corporate capture). And we see freedoms eroded in times of crisis (e.g. Patriot Act). I’m not saying we should be conspiratorial about doctors or science. But reasonable people on both sides of the aisle see what’s happening to our institutions and this has knock on effects.

source
kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

Science is often communicated to the public via either companies, politics, or the media. Which al have their own interests and issues in representing “scientific facts”.

Science is communicated using whatever means has an audience.

Science is also communicated much more precisely and accurately in scientific journals, but those generally aren’t easily accessible to the wider public.

Do you have a suggestion to how we might solve those 2 overlapping problems?

source