This is an interesting take on the problems with science communication. I also think that saying "I/We were wrong" is likely to be used to ignore science. IMHO the message should be "We have new information that changes our understanding". One major issue is not only the perception of the honesty and humility of science but the problem that many of the people who are likely deny that science changes are ripe with confirmation bias and belief perseverance. There should be more research done on those two topics to learn how to minimize the negative consequences those two phenomena have on the world.
What exactly is it scientists aren't admitting? Is there some big failure that we're not aware of? For that matter, is there some mistake (big or small) that hasn't already become a rhetorical hammer to say "Scientists got this wrong therefore my crack theory is correct"?
As far as I can tell, the answer comes about halfway through the article: "Less than a year later, I must admit, at the expense of my ego, I was wrong." Is there anything to this article than looking for back pats for having done the right thing?
I mean, yes, you're a good cat and a pretty cat. Props. Well done.
But was anybody under the impression that epidemiologists and public health experts and virologists and basically everybody weren't about to spend the next decade dissecting everything that happened over the last 18 months?
Or are we looking for some specific public self-flagellation? To what end? Will it actually increase the public confidence in science?
When "science", or the purveyors/promotors/evangelists thereof:
tell you not to wear a mask, and then later tell you if you don't wear a mask you are a Nazi incel who is literally killing grannies...
tell you Trump didn't do enough about a vaccine, then when by some miracle it gets made way before projections, say it's suspect because Trump promoted it or had some hand in it...
tell you it's not safe to send your kids to school. then when scientists say it is, they say "LOL j/k we don't wanna go back to teaching your kids yet...
One could easily be forgiven for concluding it's more about the politics than the science.
Yes, precisely. Thank you for demonstrating. If there were any more mea culpas to be made, I can guarantee that OAN would already have handed it to you.
It's not gonna happen. There's experts, and people who listen to the experts, and then a bunch of crackpots and MAGA chuds. Can't admit the experts were wrong, or even just slow to acknowledge the truth -- that would suggest that maybe the chuds have a point, and that's just not acceptable.
I mean just look at the other post in this thread- it's discrediting science to point out when scientists are wrong. That's where we're at, discursively: listen to the experts because they're right. And when they're not right, well, Facebook is worse, so why say anything?
Here's the thing. People who respect science will understand its imperfections and iterative processes, how evidence really works and how "truth" is hard to come by.
The people that want these sorts of apologies are the ones that are looking for reasons to deny science. Those sorts of people simply never change, and will always look for reasons to disregard it.
So no. This wouldn't solve anything. It'd just make things worse.
What this solves is getting people to understand that science is a process of discovery and not simply a set of facts set in stone. Too many people don't seem to understand that and that leads to some people who beleive in science(but who actually believe in the infallibility of scientific knowledge) become disillusioned when the science changes. They then will become more skeptical about future scientific proclamations. Treating science as a religion doesn't really help anyone. Admitting mistakes is beneficial for the advance of science and the continuing respect for science.
Nonsense. People need to admit they didn't pay attention in High School, and don't understand disease and infection. They then need to educate themselves, or place some trust in those that have been educated.
> They then need to educate themselves, or place some trust in those that have been educated.
That worked splendidly in the 1920s.
At least admit you're an authoritarian who considers people outside the academy (essentially a cartel for accreditation, and a vestige of the medieval priesthood) a bunch of rubes.
10 comments
[ 1.2 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadAs far as I can tell, the answer comes about halfway through the article: "Less than a year later, I must admit, at the expense of my ego, I was wrong." Is there anything to this article than looking for back pats for having done the right thing?
I mean, yes, you're a good cat and a pretty cat. Props. Well done.
But was anybody under the impression that epidemiologists and public health experts and virologists and basically everybody weren't about to spend the next decade dissecting everything that happened over the last 18 months?
Or are we looking for some specific public self-flagellation? To what end? Will it actually increase the public confidence in science?
tell you not to wear a mask, and then later tell you if you don't wear a mask you are a Nazi incel who is literally killing grannies...
tell you Trump didn't do enough about a vaccine, then when by some miracle it gets made way before projections, say it's suspect because Trump promoted it or had some hand in it...
tell you it's not safe to send your kids to school. then when scientists say it is, they say "LOL j/k we don't wanna go back to teaching your kids yet...
One could easily be forgiven for concluding it's more about the politics than the science.
I mean just look at the other post in this thread- it's discrediting science to point out when scientists are wrong. That's where we're at, discursively: listen to the experts because they're right. And when they're not right, well, Facebook is worse, so why say anything?
The people that want these sorts of apologies are the ones that are looking for reasons to deny science. Those sorts of people simply never change, and will always look for reasons to disregard it.
So no. This wouldn't solve anything. It'd just make things worse.
That worked splendidly in the 1920s.
At least admit you're an authoritarian who considers people outside the academy (essentially a cartel for accreditation, and a vestige of the medieval priesthood) a bunch of rubes.