pull down to refresh
124 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 25 Jun \ on: You can't do your own research without doing your homework first science
The author laments the growing distrust of experts, leading to a trend in people telling each other to DYOR. I also lament the growing distrust of experts, but instead of placing the blame on laymen, I place the blame on the experts themselves. They did it to themselves.
The solution isn't to tell the laymen that you shouldn't question the experts, it should be to remind the experts that their job is to present the truth as best they can figure out. And to do this they should:
- Argue from their primary source material. i.e. What are the studies and experiments which lead them to believe what they believe. Instead of appealing to your credentials, appeal to the evidence! I don't care whether or not you think the audience will understand, you should appeal to the evidence and not to your expertise
- Resist putting commercial and political interests above the truth
- Stop trying to be a social engineer and just stick to truth telling
The social engineering part was especially egregious during COVID, where many lies were told in order to engineer a social outcome (like the initial guidance on masking) instead of simply sticking to what is scientifically known.
Another aspect of this is assessment of confidence levels. Scientific consensus may revolve around some consensus parameter value, but that doesn't say anything about the degree of confidence of that parameter. Accurate scientific reporting should include confidence estimates as best can be determined.
Lastly, to go along with that, there is a lot of methodological uncertainty too. In some fields like economics, even our best models are crude approximations at best. The same is true for anything social/behavioral. That includes anthropogenic climate change and epidemiology
I will just put it this way, @south_korea_ln. If the CDC (Center for Disease Control), FDA (Food & Drug Administration), and AMA (American Medical Association), all came out and said that a new drug marketed by Pfizer is totally safe and effective, would you automatically trust them? Or would you feel the need to DYOR?
Thanks for your thoughtful answer. I agree with everything you say. It is common sense.
And I agree that people like Fauci, who had a sinister hidden political agenda of not divulging that they were funding the gain-of-function research carried out at Wuhan, which most likely led to the (accidental) lab leaks, did a lot to increase the distrust in scientists.
I just hope that sufficient scientists will still emerge who focus on facts, and facts only, so that people can start trusting them again.
I did (and still do) have a lot of trust in the mRNA technology. I did talk to a fellow researcher whom I knew from my uni time, who went to work on vaccine research at Oxford. I know he is in it for the truth and the truth only. The most pure researcher I know. Also, one who really understands the tech very well.
I know shit about mRNA. But I know that I can trust him. So, I trust mRNA.
Indeed, it's a pity that the current atmosphere has led to a situation where many people feel they can't trust the experts anymore. As you say, I also lay the blame on the experts, but I'd also put some blame on certain politicians, dishonest YouTubers, etc.
There is no simple answer to this. As a scientist, the only thing I can do is engage honestly and thoughtfully with laypeople who question some of the research. I am in the luxury position that I'm not in a field where many people question our ethics. It doesn't have much to do with social sciences, but I wish to show that the majority of scientists are still there for the truth and the truth only. For sure, not for the money~~
reply
Yeah, there are so many directions we could go with this. It's something I think about a lot.
One sad thing is that the scientists who are most truth-motivated are often the least likely to pursue positions of political leadership or influence. So the ones you're most likely to hear on TV are often not the most trustworthy ones.
Another aspect is that scientists need to fight the social media battle, but they don't have time since they all have full time jobs as researchers and academics. I think "social media influencer" needs to become an acceptable career path that can still qualify as an "expert in the field". I think some people have managed to do it, like Veritasium and 3blue1brown, but they work in the least politically charged fields.
Speaking of politically charged fields, experts also need to allow social media influencers to question the consensus, within bounds. You can't just simply shut down all debate that doesn't fall into some narrowly defined band that is called consensus. What matters more is how the debate is conducted. And when you attack someone, attack their arguments, don't attack their credentials (at least, not exclusively.)
I think one problem I saw during COVID was that the "experts" would jump on and cancel anyone who questioned the prevailing narrative, even though their questioning was very reasonable and not at all crazy. When you start lumping people like Jay Battacharaya in the same camp as the people pushing ivermectin, it's no wonder people don't know who to trust!
reply
I think some people have managed to do it, like Veritasium and 3blue1brown, but they work in the least politically charged fields.
True, STEM and math are much easier to do this, without running the risk of getting cancelled.
And when you attack someone, attack their arguments, don't attack their credentials (at least, not exclusively.)
Something I need to be better at. My first instinct is still to judge based on credentials before digging deeper.
When you start lumping people like Jay Battacharaya in the same camp as the people pushing ivermectin
I'll have to look up who Jay Battacharaya is~~
Yeah, there are so many directions we could go with this.
I'll leave it at this, as indeed, too many directions to go with this.
reply