[fffrad]

One of the problems is that facts are usually presented in the most boring ways, think lectures. Facts, should be spread the same way. Using propaganda, using sex, using means as creative as those who decide to spread false information.

Next time you watch a speech by Donald Trump, don't look at him, look at the faces of the people behind him. He is winning them emotionally, not factually.

Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.

[TeMPOraL]

That's why I think Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian are the best things that happened for space popularization since 1987 (Star Trek: The Next Generation). They cleared out tons of misconceptions people have about space, while introducing very little of their own (Gravity being the biggest offender) - and they did it in a way that captured the interest of general population. I like the trend of making realistic science fiction, and I hope it continues.

> Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.

There's a risk with going too far with that though. A scientist who makes their writing too creative can do more harm than good to the domain, and to public perception of science. The risk increases exponentially if the work is being managed by a creative director - they'll likely take liberties with accuracy in order to make the work more general-population-friendly. Science is a hard thing to explain right. Yes, quite a lot of even the most advanced concepts can be presented simply, but it's a very delicate and precise work, if you want the simplification to be right, and not misleading.

--

As for space education, Kerbal Space Program is absolutely the best thing ever. It's hard to even count the number of people 12 y.o. and less who are proficient in basic orbital mechanics, math included, thanks to this game. Seeing kids talking about Δv budgets and orbital transfers really warms my heart. The game's realism, combined with fun setting and identifiable characters, makes it a perfect vehicle for teaching physics intuition that is hard to acquire even for professionals. And the best thing? It even teaches hard math the right way!

You don't have to know or learn any math to play KSP and have fun. You can literally eyeball your Mun mission. But as you play you quickly discover the benefits of learning a bit of theory. It makes your rockets more efficient. It makes your maneuvers better. It helps you understand why your ship seems to go away from your space station when you accelerate towards it. Soon, your game turns from this[0] to this[1] (via mods, and yes, all those numbers and plots mean something to you).

[0] - http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg

[1] - http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png

[Swizec]

As many people have said: Good stories are true, not factual.

True. Not factual.

A lot of us in the sciences forget that the distinction exist. Or worse, want to pretend it doesn't.

[davidwihl]

As Farley Mowat, the Canadian novelist, said: "I never let the facts get in the way of the truth!"

Also relevant: Lee McIntyre's book on willful ignorance in the Internet age. With so many facts readily at hand, the flip side of agnotology is an audience who decides to stay ignorant in the face of contrary facts.

http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Int...

[TeMPOraL]

I'd like to think of it as general population operating under a different definition of the word "truth".

[Swizec]

No, it's deeper than that.

For instance: the fact is that 32,727 people died from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014.

The truth is that this is number is insignificant. Over 55 million people died in 2014.

The truth is also that we fear what we feel is random more than what we feel is the result of our actions. We are disproportionately afraid of black swan events. This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.

Facts are just facts. Truth is the interpretation of facts.

[kwhitefoot]

A little off-topic perhaps:

> This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp.

Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?

I lived half my life in England while the IRA was active, I have a friend who was in a building in London when the IRA threatened to blow it up (it wasn't an empty threat, the device was in place and armed). Neither of us lose any sleep over it.

My children have friends and acquaintances who were shot at Utøya (we live not far away). None of them are letting the event stop them being politically active.

But if I read English language newspapers like the Daily Mail now I am bombarded with 'terrorism' related 'news' and the newspaper tries very hard to give the impression that everyone is really worried.

I'm not convinced that people are that worried.

[TeMPOraL]

People are not that worried in terms of actual expectations. I doubt many people in the West are seriously afraid of getting blown up or shot on their way to work. I remember being terribly worried after the Towers fell; the fear lasted maybe a week or three. You learn to ignore it if you want to function properly in the society.

But, the fear is very well alive and visible when it comes to more abstract issues, like policy decisions. Should we invade the Middle East or not? Should we kick out Muslims or not? Should we hate immigrants or not? Should we let the government surveil us more or not? The general population's answer to all of that seems to be a resounding "yes". And the attacks that happen every now and then make things harder for those who disagree.

[dghf]

Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge? I lived half my life in England while the IRA was active, I have a friend who was in a building in London when the IRA threatened to blow it up (it wasn't an empty threat, the device was in place and armed). Neither of us lose any sleep over it.

Did the IRA achieve the restoration of the 32-county republic declared in 1916 and ratified in 1919? No. But they did get a devolved administration, with power-sharing guarantees to prevent the domination of one community by the other and with their political wing holding nearly a third of the seats in its legislature and nearly a third of the positions in its executive.

[GFischer]

It is effective. I know of people that have changed their travel plans to avoid France, and apparently they weren't alone:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338173/Terror-attac...

Terror attacks in Paris means visitor numbers across Europe tumble and France has already lost £1.4bn in tourism revenue

[icebraining]

Yeap. Tunisia was hit even harder, with y/y growth dropping from around 10% to -90% in the months after the attacks.

[dagw]

Is it effective? What are the criteria by which one could judge?

Take a look at the number of European tourists visiting Tunisia and Egypt.

[TeMPOraL]

I see your point and I agree. I understood your wrongly. Thanks for the clarification.

So another example would be relative effects in medical and nutritional studies. That the red meat was correlated with 3-fold increase of cancer in some tests is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the absolute size, because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.

[trhway]

>because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.

you must be kidding - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probabili...

The risk of getting only colorectal cancer is almost 5% and dying from that cancer - 2%.

The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..

I'd say your post is a perfect example of spreading of ignorance even when the Google is just one click away.

To the comment below: it seems you again ignored the chance to google for the info, in particular for the link between prostate cancer and red meat/obesity/etc. The same goes for breast cancer too. Even when specifically pointed out to easy available source of clear info, you still continue to spread ignorance.

[TeMPOraL]

I didn't imply I was using actual numbers. I was trying to clarify an issue. But since you ask.

The last study that made people panic about meat[0][1] estimated an increase of 18% of the chance you'll get colorectal cancer. Using your data, it means the rate of getting that cancer rises from 5% to 5.9% and the risk of dying from it rises from 2% to 2.36%. That is not a significant increase.

> The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc..

Well, it's important to qualify precisely. The list you provided shows that the dominant part of the 40%/20% stat is prostate (15%/2.7%) and breast cancer (12%/3%), followed by lung cancer (7%/6%). That's about 1/2 of your the risk of developing and dying from cancer accounted for in stuff not directly related to food and beverages. The rest is spread among other cancer types (turns out there's quite a lot of them) with most of them having rates below 3%/1%, so still, even 2-fold increase in risk of getting a particular type of cancer doesn't mean much.

[0] - http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451950828/pro...

[1] - http://mashable.com/2015/10/31/processed-meat-cancer-risk/

[harryjo]

What is the trend in terrorist attacks? How old are terrorism victims compared to the average of the 55million?

Your version of the truth is as facty as the version you are refuting.

[tomp]

This is a really good example of truth vs. facts. I wish this was a top-level comment.

[eli_gottlieb]

And the fact is that the human brain uses utility-weighted sampling, which causes us to systematically over-consider "black swan events" that proceed to never happen.

[mobiuscog]

The film 'Big Fish' is a great example of this.