Science works because scientific institutions create environments where bad ideas can’t survive. On the other hand, bad ideas thrive in other environments such as social media, news media, and other forms of public discourse. There are many topics of importance where public opinion is drastically at odds with current state of knowledge in the scientific community, partially due to the fact that it is very difficult for scientists and science communicators to relay technical information to a non technical audience. The importance of these communication efforts can not be understated. However, it is also important to draw a clear line between the areas where scientific research is formally debated, such as conferences and the technical literature, and non technical areas where scientific information may be communicated in some sense. Blurring this line is extremely counterproductive because it gives the appearance of legitimacy to those who have none. On the other hand, many view scientific institutions as corrupt and motivated by politics or greed rather than open scientific inquiry. I don’t believe this to be true in general, but nonetheless there is really no good argument that the public should simply submit to the authority of scientists. A possible remedy for both these problems is not for scientists to meet the public in non technical public forums, but rather for the public to have the opportunity meet scientists in scientific forums. One avenue for this type of interaction is the creation of conferences where members of the lay-public whose views differ from that of the scientific community have the opportunity to present their ideas to the professional scientists.
There are many benefits to creating this sort of conference, the first being that it would put the burden of proof back where it belongs. Many in the public do not realize that if an idea manages to gain some level of acceptance in the scientific community then it has already undergone a great deal of scrutiny. Many also do not realize that any idea, regardless of the level of acceptance it has gained among experts so far, must be discarded if the idea is falsified by the presentation of proper evidence. Members of the public who disagree with a scientifically accepted idea should realize that it is up to them to present an argument on why that idea is wrong. They should also be given the opportunity to do so and have their view subjected to the same scrutiny that the scientific community would give to one of its own members.
Even if someone never participates in such a conference, it’s mere existence would provide some benefit. Anyone from a public figure to a person posting thoughts on social media might rethink their views if they know they may be challenged to present their ideas to professionals. Some will of course miss this opportunity for introspection, but others will not. This may lead to many members of the lay public to finally consider the crucial question “what if my views are wrong?”. Hopefully, this will open up a small intellectual space for critical thinking to begin, and some of those with strong opinions in opposition to scientifically accepted ideas may consider the possibility that they had previously overestimated their competence.
If a person or group is trying to advance a particular argument, an interesting sort of litmus test for that group's intentions is who this group is targeting. Efforts by a group focused on convincing the lay-public while making no attempt, or perhaps just a minimal attempt, to present their case to the relevant scientific community are telling. This sort of behavior impugns the credibility of those who engage in it since anyone who is confident in professing the truth of their claims to the public should also be comfortable presenting their ideas to the scientific community. Hopefully, a forum entirely dedicated to the public presenting their dissenting views to professional scientists will make it unambiguously clear who is willing to have their ideas challenged and who is not.
Like practically any topic, many public discussions on scientific subjects have resulted in the formation of highly polarized camps. Toxic rhetoric about one side being pro science and another being anti science are completely counter productive. Science should not be viewed as us vs them, but rather all of vs bad ideas. If someone presents a view that is contrary to accepted science, do not call them anti science but rather invite them to participate in the scientific process on the same playing field as anyone on the inside of the scientific community. Either they fail and we can congratulate them for their intellectual courage, or they succeed and we can congratulate them on their accomplishment.
There is no doubt that many scientists would view this sort of engagement with the public as a waste of time that could be spent on more meaningful research. However, I don’t think that any scientist really has the luxury of conducting their work in isolation within the ivory tower. It is far too dangerous to have a scientifically illiterate public. If anyone has any thoughts on this idea, especially if you think it is terrible, please let me know. If you have any other thoughts on how to actually implement something like this or any other ideas related to improving public scientific literacy, please let me know as well. Regards, Colin
There are many benefits to creating this sort of conference, the first being that it would put the burden of proof back where it belongs. Many in the public do not realize that if an idea manages to gain some level of acceptance in the scientific community then it has already undergone a great deal of scrutiny. Many also do not realize that any idea, regardless of the level of acceptance it has gained among experts so far, must be discarded if the idea is falsified by the presentation of proper evidence. Members of the public who disagree with a scientifically accepted idea should realize that it is up to them to present an argument on why that idea is wrong. They should also be given the opportunity to do so and have their view subjected to the same scrutiny that the scientific community would give to one of its own members.
Even if someone never participates in such a conference, it’s mere existence would provide some benefit. Anyone from a public figure to a person posting thoughts on social media might rethink their views if they know they may be challenged to present their ideas to professionals. Some will of course miss this opportunity for introspection, but others will not. This may lead to many members of the lay public to finally consider the crucial question “what if my views are wrong?”. Hopefully, this will open up a small intellectual space for critical thinking to begin, and some of those with strong opinions in opposition to scientifically accepted ideas may consider the possibility that they had previously overestimated their competence.
If a person or group is trying to advance a particular argument, an interesting sort of litmus test for that group's intentions is who this group is targeting. Efforts by a group focused on convincing the lay-public while making no attempt, or perhaps just a minimal attempt, to present their case to the relevant scientific community are telling. This sort of behavior impugns the credibility of those who engage in it since anyone who is confident in professing the truth of their claims to the public should also be comfortable presenting their ideas to the scientific community. Hopefully, a forum entirely dedicated to the public presenting their dissenting views to professional scientists will make it unambiguously clear who is willing to have their ideas challenged and who is not.
Like practically any topic, many public discussions on scientific subjects have resulted in the formation of highly polarized camps. Toxic rhetoric about one side being pro science and another being anti science are completely counter productive. Science should not be viewed as us vs them, but rather all of vs bad ideas. If someone presents a view that is contrary to accepted science, do not call them anti science but rather invite them to participate in the scientific process on the same playing field as anyone on the inside of the scientific community. Either they fail and we can congratulate them for their intellectual courage, or they succeed and we can congratulate them on their accomplishment.
There is no doubt that many scientists would view this sort of engagement with the public as a waste of time that could be spent on more meaningful research. However, I don’t think that any scientist really has the luxury of conducting their work in isolation within the ivory tower. It is far too dangerous to have a scientifically illiterate public. If anyone has any thoughts on this idea, especially if you think it is terrible, please let me know. If you have any other thoughts on how to actually implement something like this or any other ideas related to improving public scientific literacy, please let me know as well. Regards, Colin
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2gaB8Un
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire