>> I'm starting to think that education as the answer might just be a naive point of view, but I'm also not desirous of a world where we tell adults what they're supposed to think.
> You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonistic way and muddle the waters because this system is corrupt in their eyes.
I don't think the GP thinks the problem is a lack of "education and understanding," but rather the inadequacy of it.
You both are also right. There's also a problem of people "being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute.... [and] breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations," but a good chunk of them have, in their discontent, allied with some of the very same people who caused them to be left behind in the first place. And they've been cemented to that mainstream faction with a slop of lies, delusional conspiracy theories, and other disinformation.
If you were both wrong, I think the discontents would have allied into something like a new Nonpartisan League [1] to work as factions in both parties to change the polices to help the common man.
Politicians have very well understood that modern civilization is governed by scientific beliefs rather than religious beliefs, and masquerading science for political gain will give you power for a very efficient cost.
The problem is not Facebook, but that our science is as vulnerable to 51% attacks as Bitcoin.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7Cl...
I think you're completely right.
Science is not cut and dry or black and white.
Highly qualified experts disagree ALL THE TIME and the scientific industry is very competetive.
Look at Copernicus or Galileo or Barry Marshall or Semmelweis. These scientists bucked all mainstream scientific beliefs even after almost roundly being ostrasized and ended up being correct in the long run.
Many science experiments are measured terms of varying levels of statistical significance not in terms of correct/incorrect.
You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'.
Science changes constantly and is an ongoing process to discover truth not a static set of true facts.
Science is as open to interpretations, best guesses, and political agendas and all kinds of human frailtys as any other industry.
But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.
The layperson should trust science. Because the alternative is some QAnon cult bullshit. Don't confuse the scientific process with concrete scientific results.
No one is out there refuting Newton or Einstein. Nuclear bombs still work as good as they did in the 1940s. Every time you use your smartphone you're "trusting" that the capacitive screen still works. It's rather silly to not trust science when the products of science are all around us. Whether it's GPS or the airbags in your car.
The problem is with bullshitters and those (such as the media) that use early scientific papers as final scientific truth. With Gell-Mann amnesia effect, the bullshitters have the upper hand. Twitter is particularly bad about this, where people with high follower count toss out "hot takes" all day in hopes of something sticking. You might follow, say, a Paul Graham type of person that knows their VC stuff. But in between their VC messages they start talking about gravitational wells or something entirely unrelated to their core competence. Twitter is an endlessly flowing vortex of this type of bullshit. It's sort of a trust arbitrage marketplace, where influencers in one market try to gain entry into other markets by relying on their expert status in one field.
As for the media, they have deadlines and revenue targets to meet. They want fresh new stories, and Einstein isn't saying much these days. So they'll reach into the scientific paper wastebasket and pull out some trash and present it as some recent scientific discovery.
> But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.
The crux of this problem is that many years ago we decided that experts shouldn't exist. America, at the very least, has a particularly strong anti-intellectual sentiment running throughout its history. So we decided to do away with experts. Just look at Dr. Drew or Dr. Oz. or Dr. Phil. These are people playing the role of expert but are just the same bullshitters that are on Twitter. With the internet, everyone can be an expert.
This is an extremely black and white view. I think the gros of human knowledge isn't even formalized in science.
Some of that knowledge might be bullshit or false assumptions and we might use science as the tool that it is to catch our mistakes.
But a proven mistake is to delegate thinking to authority when you become an adult.
The problem with bullshitters is that they are given air. No, Alex Jones isn't the downfall of western civilization if you let him preach. And please do not feed him, he will only get fatter. Yet, we have elevated to be the largest threats of online interaction.
Meanwhile, a lot of proved studies are dismissed for political reasons. Sometimes that is good, sometimes not. But it is safe to say that it would indeed not be prudent to derive policy impetus from a lot of sciences without a public debate.
And I mean public, not just academic circles.
Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit.
What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?
It's worse than that, because the media keeps saying "73 cents per dollar for the same work" when, first, the current number is 79 cents (73 cents is out of date), and second, it's not for the same work, it's overall across all jobs. For the same work it's around 95 cents, which is within the margin of error.
Basically, the "wage gap" doesn't even exist.