An excellent paper on how scientific communications has changed in the digital age and how rejection of science has become prevalent in some circles. It certainly explains how such idiotic "movements" like anti-vaxx'ers gain traction. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/12/1805868115
Looks like to me, that scientific findings should be clear and concise, and available to the public. If someone takes such research and distorts it, the original source, if available would show the intentional distortion, and that would clear it up. No need for scientists to get involved, for journalism would serve that role. Of course, there have been cases where scientific research has been intentionally flawed from the get- go, in order to protect or promote something that is beneficial to some business. You have seen this in the nutritional sciences. And in the social sciences, those two academics who presented some absurd papers to social science journals were accepted and published because their conclusions appealed to the leftists that permeate the social sciences. So there are problems within the science itself, caused by ideologues. The only sciences that seem not to suffer from this are the hard sciences, like physics.
Except climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers reject or distort 'hard sciences" with regularity. Perhaps you should read the paper. It lays out their arguments with precision. And in fact it is journalists, pundits and special interests (financial and ideological) that contribute to massive distortions empowered and dessiminated thru digital media.
Then they are not journalists, and that is a problem that we have. And the problem is with people, who will not move beyond a few sources, to get different sides to the story. We see this with partisans when it comes to politics, but also other things. Given this is a large part of the problem, there is nothing we can do, outside of getting rid of free speech that will move it to where you want it to go. If science had not been biased and reached conclusions not supported by all of the facts, people would not mistrust science. Once you use science to sell margarine and keep people smoking, you insure a mistrust of science going into the future. How low did it take to debunk what science told us?
Society has fractured into two primary camps politically and this can be used as a gauge of science knowledge and acceptance. Unfortunately the right has gained an earned negative reputation with denial and warping or ignoring much of scientific data which has eliminated credibility for the most part and added to the angst of the split. They are almost ignored anymore whenever truth and fact are expected.
Well, as Indiana Jones told his students, if you want truth, go down the hall to the philosophy dept. While the people who ignore some of science, like the theory of evolution and AGW, are on the right side, the left also is guilty of ignoring facts in other areas of existence. So don't try to paint the left as rational, logical, reasonable beings, for they simply are not. They are partisans who ignore fact when it contracts their partisan, ideological, beliefs.
Show me a democratic leader who rejects science. With the righties, we aren't just talking about ditch diggers and sewer cleaners. Trump spews crap constantly and supports total nuts like Alex Jones. Trump has declared war on the truth.
I wasn't taking about science, I said, "other areas of existence". But with that said, enough research might find some cases where democrats didn't want to believe something science said, and didn't believe it. And before you misread this, as you did my last post, the key word here is, "might find". And to be clear, many of our ditch diggers, garbage men and sewer cleaners are democrats here where I live, just in case you were trying to equate repubs or trump voters with those dirty jobs. It is interesting you chose those words.
What are you, like, living in the stone age, or something? "In this semimanifesto, I approach how understandings of quantum physics and cyborgian bodies can (or always already do) ally with feminist anti-oppression practices long in use." https://muse.jhu.edu/article/654589
I think it's a little harder than that. People (including journalists) tend to report on a single study without doing the full research to determine whether the findings have been falsified by further study or have reached some level of acceptance in the scientific community. For example, people still find the ages old vaccination study that connects vaccinations and autism. It looks like a real study to them, and it's not that easy for such a person to take the next steps of finding, evaluating and accepting the numerous falsifications. New parents have legitimate concerns for their baby and with our education system they are quite likely to have essentially no idea how science works or how to decide what to believe.
Trouble is to get the message through to the “world nut daily/ brightfart/ faux news” readers you have to word it in monosyllables I keep posting “Do not confuse good science with bad journalism” but I fear even that has too many polysyllabic words The greatest tool we can give children is the gift of critical analysis
They are Google scholar is free and easy and might not get the full research paper but it will link to abstracts. Going to a library will give you free access to the full papers
Worse and on my opinion more concerning are those sites posting deliberate misinformation about vaccination in order to profit themselves. I am talking here if sites like “natural news” that is also in the business of selling homeopathic snake oil
Yes. Absolutely. We've tolerated fake homeopathic garbage as if it had the same value as science based medicine. We see that assault on our citizens supported by US congressmen.
We have science journalists who seem to get it right. I guess it's the other journalists, the ones that are political hacks that are loose with exercising responsible journalism. I think the rates of autism are greater today, than in the past, although some say it is more accurately diagnosed today. My own grandson is level 2. And these days, I hear about kids in my area being autistic all of the time. Whereas, in my early life, it was only heard of on tv. I never knew a family that has an autistic kid. I think there is something in our environment that has made the rates go up. What it is, I have no idea. And as far as I can tell, we really don't know what causes any autism. I read up on it a few weeks ago when my grandson was diagnosed with it, since he is not speaking and has an aversion to sound and texture. And changing one thing in his environment unsettles him. Now with ADD, I can recall several kids back when I was in school having that, but we didn't know what it was. They were punished for it.
I remember it that way, too. I should add autism to my personal giving - and, I'd sure get behind advancing our understanding of both ADD and autism. I think we have quite a ways to go on both.
Yeah, the water is fine, so come on in. A must view for those who trust the social sciences and academia. And just how badly a leftist bias corrupts people in particular fields, like the social sciences. Highly educated people, who claim to be objective are frauds. They have PHDs, after their name, giving them authority. The gatekeepers of facts.
Don't have the time to document. Just read enough threads and you will find a bunch of leftists on here who don't even bother reading the article that is posted, yet they have comments about it, usually with misstatements--last one I remember was the thread about the drunk white bartender who ended up punching out the black woman who drove down a oneway street and blocked his car. Half the leftists on there kept on spouting out about how the white guy "pistol-whipped" the black woman, which was contrary to the video posted. My real point is that both sides ignore facts and science that they don't like. It's just human nature.
wow. Thanks for the example of true a true thought crime. What a pretentious piece of garbage as most manifestos published these days, and while it uses scientific words, its sure as hell ain't a scientific paper. Because it has big words and draws creative correlations I suppose one could call it an academic paper.
Studies in the social sciences have serious difficulties in isolating variables, and implementing controls. One can't isolate humans like lab rats. You can't dissect them whenever you want. You can't force them to stay in studies. You can't incapacitate specific pieces of brains. Etc.
I wonder if it won an “Iggy”. The Ig nobelbprizes wre handed out for research that makes you smile Like the one on the colour of belly button fluff or if farts spread germs Someone posted a gem a while back on whether or not having a parachute improved survival when jumping out of a plane It was pure scientific humour