Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

feralimal wrote: post #7

arotical wrote: post #2

I've seen the term 'evidence-based policy' pop up all over the place. I take issue with people who use this phrase because most of the time their definition of evidence is not very well developed, and when the evidence is something they don't like they start to stretch their definition of evidence so they can dismiss implementing a certain policy. If evidence is only restricted to, and dictated by, academic papers, y…

Even evidence might not be showing you what you think. Eg if you fund 10 studies in support of, er, say cats being dangerous to humans. 2 might find that to be true, 2 find that false, and 6 remain neutral. You can leave the 8 you that don't support what you want to show unpublished. You can then fund more studies that build on the 2 you like. Rinse and repeat. Pretty soon, driven by funding alone, you will have lots…

Post by acqq » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

arotical wrote: post #8

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you only make decisions based on science you can pretend problems aren't real without a scientist's approval, and you can pretend solutions to those problems are bad if there is even a tiny bit of counter-evidence that supports your viewpoint. And if you make decisions based on anything other than science, is the final outcome going to be any better? I admit that something that we might call "misuse of science" is…

Here's a scenario: You are tasked with dealing with a problem where there is little research and no scientific consensus. There is plenty of video evidence and other related pieces of non-so-scientific evidence, but most people don't count that in evidence-based policy. What do you do? Sometimes, I think, we have to make decisions when there's no clear solution, and it's better than just dismissing a very obvious pro…

Post by phkahler » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #10

Press2forEN wrote: post #6

> An engaged and well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy Is there even a shred of scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? I see it in print so often that it appears to be a axiom that is considered so correct as to be unquestionable.

Since you bring it up, I agree with you! I would say that in the past, the engaged and well-informed public (and few honestly) were valued by the policy/decision makers because they generally were or closely related to the decision makers. The democratization of opinion and influence has not gone well for technical experts and correct information getting to (or influencing) people in positions of responsibility. Ever…

Post by boxed » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

Post by 0d9eooo » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

octaveguin wrote: post #5

Politicizing science will make science less scientific and more political. It will not work the other way.