Politics in Scientific debate

[Strange]

11 hours ago, Shauno said:

Parents, including me, were not happy with the UK government response, which was about saving money (and arrogance). My wife got hold of some medical reviews of the literature and they followed children typically only for 28 days after vaccination, and would not IMHO necessarily picked up Autism, so we paid for single shots. I now have no doubt that there is no link, but the government response alienated many including me and may have a lasting effect on vaccine uptake.

This is a tough one. How should a government (or journalists or even scientists) refute lies? The obvious answer is to point out that it is not true, that the claimed evidence was faked, etc. But when people get sucked into an emotionally appealing narrative, it can be hard to convince them that they have been taken for a ride.

You could ask, "why not do scientific studies to refute it?" But should scientists really have devote their time (and money) to refuting every crackpot theory? Should they have to disprove claims that the world is flat? Or that man didn't go to the moon?  (And, of course, further studies have refuted it. Plus the fact that autism rates are no lower in those countries with rising cases of measles and other diseases because of low vaccination rates.)

And I don't believe that the UK government's response was [only] about saving money. They will, quite rightly, have pointed out that it would be a massive extra cost to the NHS for no reason. Should the NHS really have to spend its limited resources on something just because of fraudulent claims?

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Is there any field of science that is outrageously fascinating?

Right now, political science. 

[Raider5678]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Right now, political science. 

Right now, Rocket Science.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Shauno said:

I think we will slowly lose the battle for minds if we do not acknowledge to ourselves that Science reported in the media is less than perfect.

So how does the average person tell what is the truth? You certainly can't trust journalists.

Pop  science magazine circulation seems to be falling since you can go to Google instead. Perhaps a satirical magazine that poo-poos bad science?  Like the Science of Stupid but aimed at bad Science? But then perhaps that would just generate bad PR

Perhaps this is just an intractable problem?

So here is the thing. Science reporting, if done correctly, is essentially the current state to the best of our knowledge and we are not dealing with ultimate truths. However, many folks are not interested in that. They want hard predictions ("this healthy/harmful" , "you should do this and avoid that"). Yet science is almost all about nuance. This put actual scientists in a bit of a bind. If they are too careful and add too many caveats, they lose their audience. If they make predictions and the turn out not to be happening, they lose credibility. Most scientists are likely only willing to add strong statements in a very limited ares within their field of expertise.

Others scientists, who have strong opinions in many fields tend to drift toward bad science at one point or another.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If they are too careful and add too many caveats, they lose their audience.

And research has shown that people tend to have more faith in people who speak with confidence (even when they are repeatedly wrong).

So, you and I might trust someone who appears thoughtful and cautious about their opinions, most people prefer definitive statements.

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

And research has shown that people tend to have more faith in people who speak with confidence (even when they are repeatedly wrong).

So, you and I might trust someone who appears thoughtful and cautious about their opinions, most people prefer definitive statements.

Indeed. There are some folks who are excellent in public engagement and often inject humour to make sure that folks understand the caveats while being entertained. Still, those are typically 10-40 min talks, and not 10 second soundbites. Yet, I assume they can be easily be countered by someone repeating a falsehood with a catchy slogan. Or even better, something that validates people's fear (regardless whether factual or not).

Edited March 20, 2018 by CharonY

[Ken Fabian]

On 01/03/2018 at 8:00 AM, NortonH said:

Has anyone noticed that as soon as science encroaches on an area touched by politics it becomes nearly impossible to have a rational debate?

Instead of parties united in a common search for truth and a quest to separate fact from falsehood there is, instead, a mad scramble to avoid answering questions, evade questions with distractions and diversions, deliberate pretence to misunderstand, misinterpret and misrepresent etc.

Although it is a bit annoying I think it only reflects upon those who are obviously squirming and fools nobody.

This is the pot calling the kettle black I think.

NortonH - I think rational debate with you is not possible and your arguments in the threads I've been involved with are not that logical, informed or compelling or even amusing or interesting. Unless that changes I see no point to engaging with you.

[Area54]

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

So here is the thing. Science reporting, if done correctly, is essentially the current state to the best of our knowledge and we are not dealing with ultimate truths. However, many folks are not interested in that. They want hard predictions ("this healthy/harmful" , "you should do this and avoid that"). Yet science is almost all about nuance. This put actual scientists in a bit of a bind. If they are too careful and add too many caveats, they lose their audience. If they make predictions and the turn out not to be happening, they lose credibility. Most scientists are likely only willing to add strong statements in a very limited ares within their field of expertise.

Others scientists, who have strong opinions in many fields tend to drift toward bad science at one point or another.

I acknowledge that science and engineering are not the same, but there is overlap. A few years ago I had sourced an alternative wear component on a piece of equipment we made. My then boss wanted to know, naturally, if it was better than our existing component. I conducted a series of tests and reported back that there was no discernible difference in terms of either performance or cost. His response "One of them must be better. Which one is it?" I stuck my ground. He stuck to his position, so finally I slid a coin across his desk and said "Toss that to decide." The unspoken words were "After all, you are obviously a tosser."         Some people cannot function without certainty, real or imagined.