Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joe Hovde's avatar

Wow, remarkably prescient Sagan quote

Expand full comment
Marginal Gains's avatar

Excellent post! I recently read Carl Sagan's work and found it insightful and thought-provoking. His emphasis on critical thinking feels more relevant than ever.

I want to share a few thoughts. To provide some context, I hold graduate degrees in science and understand scientific processes.

The scientific community occasionally undermines itself by producing difficult or not-at-all-replicable studies. While peer review is a cornerstone of science, most unreplicable studies are peer-reviewed. A lack of humility in admitting uncertainty erodes trust over time, and that's what we see today. A notable example was during the early stages of COVID-19. Instead of clearly stating, "We don't know yet whether masks are effective," the messaging shifted from "masks are unnecessary" to "everyone must wear masks." Similarly, prolonged school closures disproportionately harmed students from low-income families when we knew quickly that very few children are impacted by COVID. While I understand that people expect experts to provide definitive answers, it's far better to acknowledge uncertainty upfront than to issue retractions or conflicting guidance later. Transparency builds trust, especially when dealing with evolving situations.

The same applies to vaccines. While no vaccine is 100% effective for 100% of people, any criticism of vaccines is often dismissed as "anti-science." This polarized discourse stifles meaningful dialogue and alienates those who might otherwise engage in good faith. Science thrives on open discussion, and we need to embrace nuance, especially in public health communication.

Another major challenge is the lack of a centralized, reliable source of information. Critical data is scattered across government and commercial websites, often written in technical language inaccessible to the average person. While the media attempts to bridge this gap, it's usually biased by political leanings. Developing a single, trusted repository of information—written in layperson's terms and updated as science evolves—would significantly improve public understanding. Yes, some will still mistrust this source, but it would be a step forward compared to the widespread mistrust we see today, where nearly half the population doubts government information.

This issue extends beyond science and into general public trust. For example, take the current drone situation. Even if the government provides accurate explanations, many people won't trust them. The erosion of institutional trust is a systemic problem.

Education is the key to reversing this trend. Teaching schoolchildren how to identify misinformation, evaluate sources, and think critically is essential, as Finland does in their schools (https://tinyurl.com/4pcf8n4c). The Royal Society's motto, "Nullius in verba" ("Take nobody's word for it"), is a principle we should instill early. While it's difficult to independently verify everything in a world where science and technology evolve rapidly, we can encourage people to consult multiple experts and seek out conflicting perspectives when making important decisions. This approach fosters a more nuanced understanding while acknowledging that our opinions may sometimes be wrong.

In conclusion, we need humility in scientific communication, better public access to trustworthy information, and a renewed focus on critical thinking education. These steps won't solve everything, but they could rebuild trust and improve society's engagement with science and expertise.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts