| > If scientists are trying to warn the public about the dangers of climate change are they trying to manipulate public opinion, educate the public, or convince the public? Depending on the person, the methods used, and the level of integrity maintained, some combination of all three. If you suppress legitimate criticism and intentionally distort facts, you are engaging in trickery. If you correct misinformation and do your best to present an accurate representation of your understanding, you are educating. Generally, scientists tend to do a pretty good job of focusing on education, but the dynamics of the discussion around the information they share tends to cloud that distinction. The problem is that many groups have decided that trickery is more convincing than education and that should make compromising ethics and integrity mandatory. (While other groups seem to have had no integrity to start with.) As a result, the discussion of the distinction between education and trickery and accusations of trickery often drown out the actual attempts at education. |
Scientist: Chemical XYZ seen to reduce growth rate of cancer ABC cultured in a petri dish compared to control group. Around 10% reduction average, p < .01, see table 4. Not statistically significantly better than chemical MNO which was also being tested. Further research needed.
Science News: Chemical XYZ helps fight cancer ABC.
Normal News: Does <something that contains chemical XYZ> cure cancer?
If scientists were better at manipulating education to be engaging to the public they wouldn't lose out as often to those pushing fake (or at least far more questionable) information.