There's currently a 'war on facts', generally instituted online by prominent folk, with millions of 'followers'. The motivations of these 'influencers' may be political, financial and/or purely to generate attention-seeking disruption. Emily Bell opines that urgent pushback is need, if we are to avoid a fact-free world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/11/trump-musk-zuckerberg-war-on-facts-truth-pushback-now). I can only comment these trends in relation to science. The difficulty for science is, that even in the developed world, the general population can have a surprisingly poor grasp of this diverse body of knowledge. A survey was carried out several years ago, assessing the science knowledge of US citizens. Almost as many believed the sun travelled round the Earth as vice versa. A substantial majority thought humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, rather than present at times hundreds of millions of years apart. Most respondents thought radioactive milk could be rendered safe by boiling it. Actual public understanding of science, in most countries, is consequently poor. Followers may not even want to understand the science. They may simply want to feel valued by their group. One has to admit that science often doesn't help itself, by over-complicating the language it uses. In fiction, scientists are also often portrayed as 'evil' megalomaniacs, intent on world domination. We have a bad 'press'. In actuality, of course, it's the mega-rich 'war on truthers' who really want to take over the planet. Sadly. I don't think the current anti-science trends can be simply countered, by scientists stressing scientific truths harder. Who's to say the algorithms will even allow folk to see the alternatives? The assumption is made that scientists have vested interests, as a slightly frightening 'unelected' cohort with a superiority complex. 'Too clever, by half', as they say!
No comments:
Post a Comment