I’m not a fan of the phrase “trust the science” without any further explanation. Like okay we obviously don’t know everything in your field but if you know enough you should at least be able to explain it like we’re 5. Otherwise it’s just “trust me bro, you’re too dumb to understand” and that’s not good for anyone.
Aside from a very loud, very small minority, most people are willing to learn and understand, but won’t follow blindly.
There’s a reason why science communicators exist and most times they’re not the ones doing the science. If you’re asking the actual scientists there’s a good chance they’re better off just saying “Trust me, I understand that better than you do” instead of trying to dumb things down to a layman’s level.
If they explain it like your 5, it’s just a longer way of saying trust the science… if you go and verify experiments, recreating them and do all the maths, then you would also just be trusting the science…
I am not willing to study biology and zoology, but I will read scientific research published in reputable journals or newspaper articles based on those studies, especially if it’s about pandas!
Not all things can easily be explained to the general public. Scientists have spent years of training to get where they are, and even then they’re only trained to communicate with peers in their field.
That’s half the problem we face - people equate simplicity with absolute correctness or they internalize things as universal when something is drowning in nuance and situationality. Half of how science has changed in the last half century is a change from trying to understand perfect absolutes to getting down and dirty and figuring out and embracing spectrums and variations. The desire for simplicity does not serve. The catch all explanation is at best a placeholder that is incorrect but better than nothing and at worst it’s a siren song that leads you to damn yourself into believing a very untrue picture of the world.
I’m not a fan of the phrase “trust the science” without any further explanation. Like okay we obviously don’t know everything in your field but if you know enough you should at least be able to explain it like we’re 5. Otherwise it’s just “trust me bro, you’re too dumb to understand” and that’s not good for anyone.
Aside from a very loud, very small minority, most people are willing to learn and understand, but won’t follow blindly.
There’s a reason why science communicators exist and most times they’re not the ones doing the science. If you’re asking the actual scientists there’s a good chance they’re better off just saying “Trust me, I understand that better than you do” instead of trying to dumb things down to a layman’s level.
If they explain it like your 5, it’s just a longer way of saying trust the science… if you go and verify experiments, recreating them and do all the maths, then you would also just be trusting the science…
I am not willing to study biology and zoology, but I will read scientific research published in reputable journals or newspaper articles based on those studies, especially if it’s about pandas!
Not all things can easily be explained to the general public. Scientists have spent years of training to get where they are, and even then they’re only trained to communicate with peers in their field.
Not every short quippy explanation is correct…
That’s half the problem we face - people equate simplicity with absolute correctness or they internalize things as universal when something is drowning in nuance and situationality. Half of how science has changed in the last half century is a change from trying to understand perfect absolutes to getting down and dirty and figuring out and embracing spectrums and variations. The desire for simplicity does not serve. The catch all explanation is at best a placeholder that is incorrect but better than nothing and at worst it’s a siren song that leads you to damn yourself into believing a very untrue picture of the world.