Idea for improving public scientific literacy

[colin2176]

Science works because scientific institutions create environments where bad ideas can’t survive. On the other hand, bad ideas thrive in other environments such as social media, news media, and other forms of public discourse. There are many topics of importance where public opinion is drastically at odds with current state of knowledge in the scientific community, partially due to the fact that it is very difficult for scientists and science communicators to relay technical information to a non technical audience. The importance of these communication efforts can not be understated. However, it is also important to draw a clear line between the areas where scientific research is formally debated, such as conferences and the technical literature, and non technical areas where scientific information may be communicated in some sense. Blurring this line is extremely counterproductive because it gives the appearance of legitimacy to those who have none. On the other hand, many view scientific institutions as corrupt and motivated by politics or greed rather than open scientific inquiry. I don’t believe this to be true in general, but nonetheless there is really no good argument that the public should simply submit to the authority of scientists. A possible remedy for both these problems is not for scientists to meet the public in non technical public forums, but rather for the public to have the opportunity meet scientists in scientific forums. One avenue for this type of interaction is the creation of conferences where members of the lay-public whose views differ from that of the scientific community have the opportunity to present their ideas to the professional scientists.


There are many benefits to creating this sort of conference, the first being that it would put the burden of proof back where it belongs. Many in the public do not realize that if an idea manages to gain some level of acceptance in the scientific community then it has already undergone a great deal of scrutiny. Many also do not realize that any idea, regardless of the level of acceptance it has gained among experts so far, must be discarded if the idea is falsified by the presentation of proper evidence. Members of the public who disagree with a scientifically accepted idea should realize that it is up to them to present an argument on why that idea is wrong. They should also be given the opportunity to do so and have their view subjected to the same scrutiny that the scientific community would give to one of its own members.


Even if someone never participates in such a conference, it’s mere existence would provide some benefit. Anyone from a public figure to a person posting thoughts on social media might rethink their views if they know they may be challenged to present their ideas to professionals. Some will of course miss this opportunity for introspection, but others will not. This may lead to many members of the lay public to finally consider the crucial question “what if my views are wrong?”. Hopefully, this will open up a small intellectual space for critical thinking to begin, and some of those with strong opinions in opposition to scientifically accepted ideas may consider the possibility that they had previously overestimated their competence.


If a person or group is trying to advance a particular argument, an interesting sort of litmus test for that group's intentions is who this group is targeting. Efforts by a group focused on convincing the lay-public while making no attempt, or perhaps just a minimal attempt, to present their case to the relevant scientific community are telling. This sort of behavior impugns the credibility of those who engage in it since anyone who is confident in professing the truth of their claims to the public should also be comfortable presenting their ideas to the scientific community. Hopefully, a forum entirely dedicated to the public presenting their dissenting views to professional scientists will make it unambiguously clear who is willing to have their ideas challenged and who is not.


Like practically any topic, many public discussions on scientific subjects have resulted in the formation of highly polarized camps. Toxic rhetoric about one side being pro science and another being anti science are completely counter productive. Science should not be viewed as us vs them, but rather all of vs bad ideas. If someone presents a view that is contrary to accepted science, do not call them anti science but rather invite them to participate in the scientific process on the same playing field as anyone on the inside of the scientific community. Either they fail and we can congratulate them for their intellectual courage, or they succeed and we can congratulate them on their accomplishment.


There is no doubt that many scientists would view this sort of engagement with the public as a waste of time that could be spent on more meaningful research. However, I don’t think that any scientist really has the luxury of conducting their work in isolation within the ivory tower. It is far too dangerous to have a scientifically illiterate public. If anyone has any thoughts on this idea, especially if you think it is terrible, please let me know. If you have any other thoughts on how to actually implement something like this or any other ideas related to improving public scientific literacy, please let me know as well. Regards, Colin

 

[Ladewig]

First. Welcome.

Second. I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of such an approach. Almost all of us say to ourselves, "of course I use evidence as the foundation of my beliefs. The problem is that so many other people ignore the evidence which I consider both obvious and irrefutable." Many Christians say the Bible is unimpeachable evidence. Many conspiracy folks say that Infowars is unimpeachable evidence. Many people who frequent psychics say their personal experiences are unimpeachable evidence.

If these people are challenged by a skeptic who questions their evidence, they will not say, "Of course! Now, I understand why I put too much credence in ideas that appeared quite convincing but in reality fall far short of what the scientific community considers evidence." Instead they will provide complaints from science being somewhat unfair when it examines these people's beliefs to science being inherently corrupt or self-serving. They will say that any forum, conference, or formal debate is biased because the scientists are setting the rules.

If someone holds a strong belief or a belief they use to define themselves, then presenting counter-evidence is a formal and structured manner is seldom effective.

I consider myself a skeptic. Therefore I can say that my interpretation of your suggestion might be completely false and that I will adopt a different interpretation if presented with compelling evidence. But that approach is not as popular as we might think it is.

A lot of science becomes accepted by the general public not through formal presentations of logical facts, but rather through the deaths of vocal opponents.

 

[colin2176]

Thanks for the welcome and your thoughts.

I don't think that this idea is a silver bullet but it is just one piece in the puzzle. There is a whole spectrum out there of how committed people are in their beliefs, and I agree that there are some who are pretty much hopeless. Many more are not hopeless though, and the key to reaching them is to get them to first consider the possibility that their views are wrong. Most people would recognize that whatever they do for a living requires specific skills and knowledge that can not be acquired simply by watching the news, and yet many of those same people will confidently proclaim that an entire scientific community is wrong based solely on what they have seen in the news or on a few websites. I think reasonable people would see that this is a contradiction, and the thought of being asked to present their views to professional scientists will hopefully force some people to see this contradiction.

This goes to your point about how uncommon skepticism is. Many people are not naturally skeptical or self critical, which is why I am interested in ways to create environments where people are forced (implicitly not directly) to be skeptical to preserve their credibility. Professional scientists must be skeptical of their own work because failing to properly self-scrutinize could lead to their mistakes being pointed out by their peers or their research being rejected. Public discourse does not have this same built in corrective mechanism because saying things that are plainly wrong essentially has no consequences and is often rewarded.

To make an analogy, if I believe I can beat up anyone on the planet, and the UFC offers me the chance for a match with their current champion, there are a few things that can happen. Maybe I decline the opportunity in which case it should be apparent to any observer that I was just blowing hot air. Or perhaps this challenge causes a moment of self doubt which results in a more accurate evaluation of my abilities. I could also accept the fight, get whooped, and then insist that the whole thing was unfair and that I really can beat up anyone in a fair fight. I also might win, in which case hooray for me.
There is not much downside to any of these outcomes, since the worst case scenario of me losing and insisting it was unfair is not too different from the status quo before the challenge from my perspective.

So really what I am interested in doing is figuring out how to make a lack of skepticism as dangerous to a person's reputation in public discourse as it is in professional scientific pursuits. I am also interested in taking away the ability of people to attempt to win in public debate when they realize that they have no hope of winning scientific debate in the proper forums. Hopefully then, the vocal opponents that drive much of the public confusion and who may be undeterred by evidence of any kind will have a harder time gaining traction in the first place.

 

[Belz...]

Welcome Colin. I think you have the highest word-to-post ratio of any member here. Keep it up.