[cuspy]

Maybe I'm being too charitable, but wouldn't it be worse if it turned out that you were holding back progress in the conversation by insisting that ALL of your interlocutors are incapable of thinking critically?

We need to be more strategic than vindictive. Why not forget about the notion of a mass "anti-science crowd" and have some basic respect for your fellow citizens as individuals with widely varying levels of education due in no small part to these same institutional problems. We've failed them. I think your examples are straw men that contribute no real insight to the cause of the problems.

Also, just to be clear, a variation of that rumor about masks was indeed pushed by the surgeon general in early March:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-corona...

[slg]

I am not suggesting we be vindictive over strategic. I am suggesting that fixing corruption in the scientific community isn't going to solve this problem because the causes of the anti-science movement don't solely originate from within the scientific community.

If my specific examples are too much of a straw man, how about climate change? The US has largely been ignoring the science on that for decades. What is the more likely reason? The scientific consensus on climate change is the result of corruption, the scientific community ignores this corruption, and the general public turns to climate deniers as a result of this corruption. Or is it the most reasonable explanation that there are countless groups that have an invested financial and political interest in downplaying the scientific consensus regarding the issue? It seems obvious this is a situation in which the corruption leading to anti-science viewpoints is an outside force acting on the scientific community and not the other way around.

I also threw in a note about the mask issue in my original comment since I was unclear. To add another note on top, I'm not sure this administration is one I would point to as somehow anti-corruption especially when it comes to their interpretation of science.

[DenisM]

Nutters will be nutters, you can't affect that. What you can affect is how the general public perceives the difference between the two camps. They may not know enough to judge on the merit of the arguments, but they understand reputation and character.

Every single bit of bullshit to come out of academia is one extra point for the detractors. I won't enumerate it here because there is an even chance you're in support of what I consider "bullshit" and vice versa, but it's not the point - the point is that people use their assessment of what they understand to extrapolate to things they don't, as a signal of trustworthiness of the source.

The entire intellectual class is marred by now, it's not just academia. If one does not denounce bullshit pronounced in their name the bullshit will stick.

[slg]

Why doesn't this apply in both directions? If BS from academia invalidates the entire intellectual community shouldn't Flat Earthers invalidate the anti-institutional science community?

[DenisM]

It does. Both sides take a hit on intellectual integrity, except that intellectuals put a lot of weight on it so they stand more to lose.

When that field is “leveled” rhetoric becomes decisive.

[slg]

>Both sides take a hit on intellectual integrity, except that intellectuals put a lot of weight on it so they stand more to lose.

Wasn't your original argument about what the public thinks of the integrity of these groups? I'm not seeing how that meshes with this comment. Are you implying that the public sees intellectuals valuing their own integrity as a sign of a lack of integrity?

[lopmotr]

Ignoring the science or knowing the science and deciding the best course of action is to carry on as usual? The science doesn't tell us what the best action to take on climate change is.

[cuspy]

Well, we won't know if the "anti-science movement" can actually be dealt with until we fix the corruption first, will we? Why assume that things can't be improved? You wouldn't try to secure a second funding round without a viable product or even a concrete business plan, would you? Bad example maybe...

Regardless, simply telling people they need to listen obediently to experts is going to do much more harm than good. If we take concrete steps to fix the massive problems in our institutions and there are still legions of anti-science activists holding us back through political means, we can at least point to our own reformed system with integrity and say that we're doing our best to get it right. Until then, we have no solid ground to stand on, and we'll continue to lose our own base of supporters, myself included. Scientists themselves will look elsewhere for a system that supports them.

[Nasrudith]

The snide yet accurate approach is "I will respond to reasoned critical thinking instead of blatant motivated reasoning when I see it."

Actually good questions and proposals deserve legitimate feedback regardless of source. Bullshit deserves to be ignored or called out.