How fake experts are used to mislead

Neurology. They were too smart for their own good : )

That negative trend is coupled to a blind acceptance of whatever conforms to their pre-existing political views.

Racism and eugenics has nothing to do with science. Who should or shouldn’t have children is a matter of politics and ethics, not science.

2 Likes

The problem is that much of what science has to counter isn’t skepticism. What they face is misinformation, dogmatic denial, and politically/religiously motivated propaganda. This movement to cast doubt on science itself is pushed by people who use terms like “scientists are not the new priesthood” and try to paint science with the brush of eugenics and racism. Anything to distract and misinform.

5 Likes

And who do you think collected that data? A bunch of non-experts?

How about some empty rhetoric. Exactly how do you propose to put science “back into the hands of the people”? Silliness on steroids.

Here’s what I see: A guy who can’t accept the mainstream, well-accepted science of evolution and thinks he can overturn the whole of biology armed solely with his laptop climbs on the nearest soapbox to warn everyone that we can’t always trust the science. Forgive me if I’m not impressed.

You and your friends at the DI are part of the problem, not the solution. Too many churchgoers have been fed a steady diet of anti-science propaganda for too long. Now that we need them to listen to the scientists in order to save lives, it’s too late. They’ve acquired herd immunity to the truth.

4 Likes

I could not agree more.

6 Likes

Yes. Why does Ben Stein of ID claim that science leads to killing people? Not just evolutionary science, just science?

2 Likes

The issue here is scientific communication. And we are rubbish at it as a community in my view. We need to ensure that the best experts are also taught how to SPEAK. And how to WRITE in a way that is not just shorthand that helps their fellow experts understand but will help the non experts understand. It is a real problem that we do not always think about how to summarise our data and make it make sense to everyone. Take RCTs for example on which I think I have a really fairly good level of knowledge. The number of times you pick up a publication of an RCT and they are not clear. I get that we may need to include sections in our papers that explain the detail to other colleagues. But the abstract and the introduction, the results section as it begins and the discussion and conclusions need to be written with the understanding that ANYONE can read them. So for example I have had to explain to many blood cancer patients that there is a bit of an assumption that can lead to a major error in the case series that are being published at the moment for people with blood cancer who catch Covid. You see if you catch covid19 and tell your blood Cacner doctor you have it, well it turns out you have a 30-40% chance of DYING. Yes that is right DYING. And the rate is pretty consistent in something like five different case series. But NOT ONE of those case series made the crucial point (which I am sure all the experts writing them KNEW and ASSUMED) which is that some people even with blood cancer may get covid19 assymptompatically or with mild symptoms and so do not think to tell their blood cancer doctors… This would mean that whilst you could argue that the CASE mortality is probably 30-40% the INFECTION mortality must be lower than that even for this group of patients (who are probably the highest risk of all, and yours truly is in that group!) So yes, I am shielding carefully and using masks etc. But we shouldn’t assume that our risk of dying is 30% if our partner gets COVID19 (since not only might we be able to prevent ourselves catching it from them, even if we do our weird immune system might somehow find a way of fighting it off anyway… I have explained all this in the following post which may be of some interest to you and is an example of what I hope is a good way where someone like me who has some level of expertise can read the real experts and “translate” them for regular folks. Those of us that can speak medical jargon need to find ways of doing this for our friends. And maybe we need to build up our own white coats and develop some of our own experts and put them out there on the internet and even try to get them onto the news to be listened to by people out there but make sure they can actually explain stuff as well as understand it! High risk for Blood Cancer patients with COVID19 - Blood Cancer Uncensored Right I really MUST go to sleep now!

1 Like

I’m of two minds on this topic. Scientists can’t be experts in everything, and it should be enough to be good at science. Communicating ideas to the lay public is a different talent than doing the science, and not all scientists have it. Also, many are foreign born and aren’t comfortable with English.

A potential asset for the scientific community is a strong roster of journalists that specialize in science reporting. There are people who may not have the research chops, but they do have the writing chops and an ability to communicate to the public. Sadly, a not so small portion of science reporting is awful and it seems geared more towards getting clicks and views.

5 Likes

Agreed. Accurate communication takes time, and few good scientists have a lot of it to spare. I’ve just spent most of the last day and a half talking to a reporter, talking about talking to the reporter, editing a press summary, and talking to someone else who’e going to talk to the reporter. I didn’t get a lot of science done in there.

3 Likes

Honestly most journalists have NO CLUE about science. I recently saw an article about the Covid BACTERIA in a British newspaper! And it wasn’t even one of the low brow ones either. Maybe some of us need to take up the mantle.

They haven’t proven very good at math either. I’ve seen people fail to multiply by 100 when converting a decimal to a percent and say things like “20% of negative test results were false negatives and 10% of positive test results were false positives, therefore 30% of tests give wrong results.”

1 Like

That is why science writers like Carl Zimmer are so appreciated.

1 Like

I suppose you saw the article criticizing the CDC and NIH for releasing information on a 12th grade reading level, and recommending dropping to a 7-8th grade level. That may even be too high, as 13-14 year olds can be pretty sharp. I wonder if you can effectively communicate some on the key scientific concepts at that level in a simple public service blurb.

3 Likes

I think that we can simplify really quite complex stuff. Thats what I try to do over on my blood cancer blog. Would be interested in some of your thoughts on the communication aspects of that. To be honest I am not as good at it as I used to be as I am doing it through a form of brain fog at the moment caused by the fatigue my blood cancer has left me with. I blame the typos on that too…there has to be some benefits to being so sick for three and a bit years, and having something to blame is definitely one of them!

But I have always seen it as a challenge in scientific communication which has been a BIG part of my career to not assume ANYTHING and try and explain things in a simple way. But one way I would try and do it more is to start simple and then go deeper.

I do think it is possible to dumb things down too much sometimes. To really get things comprehensible requires a lot of work. I guess a post like this one on RCT evidence for COVID drugs https://bloodcanceruncensored.com/which-medicines-treat-covid-19-dexamethasone-hydroxychloroquine-antivirals-monoclonal-antibodies/ would probably function as a first draft if I was really serious about it and I would get loads of people to read it and see if they understand and ask for editorial input and help.

Blogging since 2003 has helped a lot as I discovered how easy it is early on to write something that you understand and assume everyone else will too! Sometimes its is a function of what language you use but sometimes it is a function of the person writing not quite understanding things as well as they thought they did.

Interestingly when you start asking some experts difficult questions, imaginative questions, questions that show you are thinking deeply some of them do not seem to be able to answer. There is a lot of assumptions that go with being particularly deep inside the well of a specific scientific concept that sometimes makes it hard to speak to someone who is inside their own well or even familiar with a lot of wells. Somewhat arrogantly I have always thought that if a scientist cannot explain their theory or research to me, a reasonably intelligent scientist myself, then they are the ones with the problem not me! But it is SUCH a good exercise for any of us to try and explain our work or our theories to someone who knows nothing of them.

Imagine an alien who had never heard of anything about our scientific understanding and assume NOTHING if you can… having said that I bet some of you can see things I have assumed in my RCT post as it is impossible not to.

So go ahead and tell me what I got wrong in my own attempt at a simple but hopefully reasonably accurate explanation… I didn’t mention double blind for example maybe I should have (tho many of the large studies are not double blind for practical reasons and in many cases that doesnt matter as much as you would think so there is lots I could have said about that…).

1 Like

Excellent article, I enjoyed reading it and can see referring people to it. It would be interesting to see what level it would grade out, but I know lots of high school graduates who would have trouble with some of the vocabulary, and some college kids if not in a science track. Such is the state of education in USA.

Microsoft word says Flesch Reading ease 54.4 and : flesch Kincaid grade ar 10.4. Not sure what that means tho!

1 Like

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: What is the relationship between the theory of evolution and racism?

If you can find anything that isn’t true in what I wrote, by all means do so.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.