Re:For Some, Scientists Aren't the Authority on Science
by RcouF1uZ4gsC on Monday November 28, 2016 @05:21PM
(#13058932)
There are within science actually two types of "science". The one makes precise models and therefore predictions and treats failures of those models and predictions as a big deal, and takes verification so seriously that they would rather delay publication to make sure they results are absolutely correct and not a statistical anomaly. Examples of the first include the LHC and Higgs-Boson and LIGO and gravitional wave detection.
The other type of science practically believes that "science" exists as a purely social construct where you convince others that you have ideas that are true. This science gives p-hacking, and irreproducible studies, and models and predictions that are wrong but that's ok because the over-arching theory is just fine. Examples of this are social sciences.
Also, the second type of "science" seems to insert itself into media and be involved with telling people how they should live their lives. An example of this is the dietary industry with "science" backing.
It turns out, the news media gives heavy preference to the second type of "science", the one with crappy models and predictions, but which the media feel can more easily become clickbait. Which article would you think most people would click on - "An explanation of gravity waves", or "Scientists say eating <common food> is killing you". In addition, because there is less dependence on precise models, the inherent bias of the "scientist" comes into play.
Because of this, the science that most people see in popular media is not where precise models get refined, but one where outlandish predictions are made and then discarded for the opposite outlandish prediction.
After being exposed to this, people decide that science changes from day to day, and that "scientists" are just really influence hungry people just out to tell people how to live their lives and claiming they should be listened to because they have some special knowledge or qualification - just like the "clergy" in the Middle Ages.
PS: The left also has a low opinion of science. You can see this when you see people critiquing studies because they come from oil companies, tobacco companies, or sugar companies. If they really believed in science, they would know that science works regardless of the background of the people involved.
The other type of science practically believes that "science" exists as a purely social construct where you convince others that you have ideas that are true. This science gives p-hacking, and irreproducible studies, and models and predictions that are wrong but that's ok because the over-arching theory is just fine. Examples of this are social sciences.
Also, the second type of "science" seems to insert itself into media and be involved with telling people how they should live their lives. An example of this is the dietary industry with "science" backing.
It turns out, the news media gives heavy preference to the second type of "science", the one with crappy models and predictions, but which the media feel can more easily become clickbait. Which article would you think most people would click on - "An explanation of gravity waves", or "Scientists say eating <common food> is killing you". In addition, because there is less dependence on precise models, the inherent bias of the "scientist" comes into play.
Because of this, the science that most people see in popular media is not where precise models get refined, but one where outlandish predictions are made and then discarded for the opposite outlandish prediction.
After being exposed to this, people decide that science changes from day to day, and that "scientists" are just really influence hungry people just out to tell people how to live their lives and claiming they should be listened to because they have some special knowledge or qualification - just like the "clergy" in the Middle Ages.
PS: The left also has a low opinion of science. You can see this when you see people critiquing studies because they come from oil companies, tobacco companies, or sugar companies. If they really believed in science, they would know that science works regardless of the background of the people involved.