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.
Thank you so much and for such an insightful comment! I appreciate you raising the issue of replicability in scientific studies. You're right that peer review doesn't always catch irreproducible results. Danny Kahneman was deeply concerned about this.
Increasing transparency throughout the research process can help address this. For example, preregistering studies and making data and methods openly available can improve the trustworthiness of research.
You are right, uncertainty is a natural part of science. It's important to communicate this to the public and avoid giving the impression that we always have all the answers.
On the topic of vaccines, I believe it's important to strike a balance here between acknowledging the benefits and risks. Vaccines are incredibly effective at preventing serious diseases, but no medical intervention is without some risk.
I completely agree that we need a more centralized and accessible source of scientific information. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and it can be hard for people to know what to trust, even peer review gets this wrong, and Nature journal had issues!
It would be terrific if schools across the world adopted the Finnish methodology - "Nullius in verba" how true.
Wow, remarkably prescient Sagan quote
Sagan was certainly ahead of his time in many ways.
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.
Thank you so much and for such an insightful comment! I appreciate you raising the issue of replicability in scientific studies. You're right that peer review doesn't always catch irreproducible results. Danny Kahneman was deeply concerned about this.
Increasing transparency throughout the research process can help address this. For example, preregistering studies and making data and methods openly available can improve the trustworthiness of research.
You are right, uncertainty is a natural part of science. It's important to communicate this to the public and avoid giving the impression that we always have all the answers.
On the topic of vaccines, I believe it's important to strike a balance here between acknowledging the benefits and risks. Vaccines are incredibly effective at preventing serious diseases, but no medical intervention is without some risk.
I completely agree that we need a more centralized and accessible source of scientific information. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and it can be hard for people to know what to trust, even peer review gets this wrong, and Nature journal had issues!
It would be terrific if schools across the world adopted the Finnish methodology - "Nullius in verba" how true.