tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post2946966473620375060..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: "No Evidence" = Terrible CommunicationJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-84706321401021813672021-12-17T19:18:26.376-05:002021-12-17T19:18:26.376-05:00To a scientist, believing in something for which t...To a scientist, believing in something for which there is no evidence is absurd. It might be true, and you might have a very strong sense and inclination that it is true, but to act upon the assumption that it is true, without evidence, is the height of irresponsibility to a scientist.<br /><br />Also, it is my sense that scientists tend to be relatively polite and humble people who prefer to couch their statements in non-absolute terms. This perception of mine, if accurate, may in fact tie into science's overall comfort with uncertainty - everything in science is treated as suppositional, even the things for which there are overwhelming amounts of evidence, like gravity. There's a quote by Richard Feynman which I think demonstrates this mindset exceptionally:<br /><br /><i>“You see... one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more ~interesting~ to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here ... but I don't ~have~ to know an answer. I don't feel ~frightened~ by not knowing things. By being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell, ~possibly~. It doesn't frighten me.”</i><br /><br />Scientists, as a rule, aren't very good at communicating scientific fact and consensus to the general public, because they think and speak in a fundamentally different way that the average person does.<br /><br />The job of a scientist is to work on science - not to translate it and restate it in a way that the public can understand despite being largely science illiterate. That's the job of a <i>science educator</i>, not a scientist.<br /><br />This is much like how most automotive mechanics aren't terribly good at communicating complex automotive issues to the general public - they know their stuff when it comes to fixing cars, but there's a reason when you go to the auto shop they have a specialized customer service representative sitting behind the front desk, not one of the actual technicians. The guys in the garage turning the wrenches aren't expected to have to try to explain complicated and unintuitive things to ignorant customers - they're just there to get those things done, and they leave the explanations to other people who are trained for that purpose.<br /><br />Scientists generally are NOT good communicators when it comes to informing the general public - but it's insane that we expect them to be! In virtually every other field and industry, we have zero expectation for specialists to be experts both in their own specialization AND in communicating with the general public... but for some reason, we think that's how scientists should work?<br /><br />Science needs spokespeople, that's all.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com