Insights Is Science an Authority? How to View Announcements from Scientists

[PeterDonis]

Even journalists say, "The era of trust-me has long gone. We are in the show-me era."

IMO journalists have no one to blame but themselves if the public does not trust them.

That said, I don't think journalism should be a "trust-me" profession. It should be a "show-me" profession. As in, show me your past track record of accurate reporting, and of scrupulous attention to detail in distinguishing the different kinds of things you're reporting, not to mention in distinguishing reporting from editorializing.

Of course there is a basic level of trust involved whenever someone is reporting things they have witnessed that the reader has not. If a reporter gives an eyewitness account of an important event they personally observed, I have to trust that they are honestly reporting what they witnessed. But I don't have to trust their opinions about what they witnessed or how it fits into some larger context, and they should be doing their best not to let such opinions color their straight reporting of what they witnessed.

But in any case that kind of reporting is extremely rare in science journalism. Most journalists just repeat what scientists say about their research, so to me the journalist is not really adding any value. Just give me the link to the paper on arxiv. I don't need the reporter's take on it. It would be nice if journalists would try to keep score on predictions by scientists, but I have not seen any signs that they are trying to do so.

 

[anorlunda]

I don't think journalism should be a "trust-me" profession.

My post wasn't clear. Even though a journalist said it, my meaning was that "the trust-me era is over" applies to all of society in all contexts. It is a rejection of leadership. It is the cynicism that all news is fake news.

Of course it is not black and white, there are degrees of grey, but science is not immune to these trends.

 

[anorlunda]

Why can’t we agree on what’s true any more?

That is an article from The Guardian, that is many ways is a dual to @PeterDonis ' Insights article. Rather than treating science as a special case considered in isolation, it treats distrust of authority more generally.

From the article:

This is not as simple as distrust. The appearance of digital platforms, smartphones and the ubiquitous surveillance they enable has ushered in a new public mood that is instinctively suspicious of anyone claiming to describe reality in a fair and objective fashion. It is a mindset that begins with legitimate curiosity about what motivates a given media story, but which ends in a [bleep] refusal to accept any mainstream or official account of the world. We can all probably locate ourselves somewhere on this spectrum, between the curiosity of the engaged citizen and the corrosive cynicism of the climate denier. The question is whether this mentality is doing us any good, either individually or collectively.

We may squirm with discomfort at having a scientific truth lumped with political issues like Brexit, but that is the trend, and it is not confined to the USA. Science is part of that mainstream being rejected.

 

[PeterDonis]

it treats distrust of authority more generally

There is an interesting use of language in what you quote: "any mainstream or official account of the world". The Guardian appears to think these two terms, "mainstream" and "official", mean the same thing. But they don't. "Mainstream" just means "what most people believe". "Official" means "what some authority tells you to believe". If journalists confuse those two things, it's no wonder the public distrusts them.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think the big issue here is confounding the authority of science (which is a method with a good track record in the long run) with the authority of small groups of scientists or individual scientists in the shorter term.

For a few decades there, too many folks accepted scientific "truth" on the authority of small groups of scientists. Real science has always been about "show me." But the shorter, easier road is usually "tell me."

 

[Vanadium 50]

We may squirm with discomfort at having a scientific truth lumped with political issues like Brexit

Part of the problem is that value judgements are getting lumped in with scientific judgements. Two recent examples:

"Climate change is such a threat to humanity that we all have to give up our wealth and freedoms to combat it, but not such a threat to humanity to increase our use of nuclear power."

"Anti-lockdown protests must be stopped because of risk of the spreading of disease, but BLM protests should not, because of the importance of the issue".

Both statements might even be true (although getting people to agree on what "true" means in this case may be difficult) but they are not scientific statements. Yet both are being presented as such.