Modest Men With Much to be Modest About?

Theoretical Physicist and Nobel Prize-winner, Giorgio Parisi is obviously saddened by his online abuse for presenting evidence on Covid on Italian TV. Perhaps the first question one might ask is 'why is a theoretical physicist taking on this particular task?' The programme's organisers must have ranked Parisi's eminence, over his expertise. Parisi complains that scientists are publically regarded as part of 'the elite' and consquently an untrustworthy bunch. Perhaps, ranking fame higher as a criterion over expertise, simply adds to the unfair impression that scientists are a hierarchical cult? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/tiktok-global-crisis-world-trust-scientists-online-attack). Parisi accurately notes that "if citizens don't trust Science, we will not be able to fight global warming, infectious diseases, poverty and hunger and the depletion of the planet's natural resources". He finds it surprising that "as our societies become more and more dependent on advanced technologies based on scientific discoveries, people are becoming more and more suspicious of scientists". Parisi suggests that scientists showing a bit more modesty and talking about their failures might change public opinion. I'm not so sure. The general public seem to mostly prefer highly simplified accounts of science (if they have to hear about it at all). I don't think they would be interested in more scientific agonising, even if it could make scientists seem more 'human'. 'Too clever by half', seems to be a general label supplied by the public. Most members of the general public would never consider reading a scientific paper. It's certainly true that the immediacy of TV and online debate, puts most scientists at a disadvantage. Scientists generally like to consider things at length, before arriving at a consensus with their colleagues. That consensus also often changes as more evidence accumulates. The public seem, however, to often regard this as evidence of trickery rather than refinement. I think Parisi fails to fully appreciate that 'anti-science' plays by very different rules from science. In deed,'anti-science' may well be relatively immune to logical argument and corrections of fact. Agendas are also clearly at play. These may well include attempts to bolster commercial sectors (e.g. by climate change denial), to sow dissent (e.g. for political purposes) or just to provide as financially-rewarding 'click bait'. Conspiracy theories are very effective in all these respects.