[ayngg]

I think like he said, it is all trust. Without trust, people are wary of your motivations. When you are in that position, having the people you don't trust do things like promote the narrative of "trust science" just looks like they are using scientists as mouthpieces to co-opt their trust to push a narrative. Moderating misinformation looks like censorship, mandates look like coercion, etc.

Overall it was just a colossal failure of communication by policy makers, who had already eroded most of their trust before the pandemic, which then got exacerbated by contemporary journalism that felt like it had no qualms about making everything as divisive as possible for engagement.

I don't think people have lost trust in science, but politicians using "science" in this way of communication are doing a pretty good job of trying to erode that trust.

[istinetz]

>Moderating misinformation looks like censorship

Not to be adversarial, but there have definitely been a few instances which are just censorship and not moderating misinformation. And there are definitely some hot topics on which I will flat out ignore research, because I know only some conclusions are allowed and publishable.

I think it's pointless to discuss specific examples - my point is, it's not only an issue of managing trust, because the science doesn't deserve that trust.

[ayngg]

No you are absolutely correct, I was just illustrating the disconnect between what people think they are communicating and what it actually comes across as.

There is a degree of nuance that is definitely lost when people say to trust the science, which is to say that the rigorous process is what is generally trusted, but that isn't how it is communicated which is why "trusting the science" is probably a slogan that does more harm than benefit. For example it is sort of tone deaf to say that now, after how science experts have handled the first part of the pandemic, or how science has been used to justify things like the oversubscribing of opioids, or what they have said regarding nutrition (sugars vs fats), or carbon emissions and even smoking in the past. Politicizing science taints science more than it benefits politicians, but since they don't bear the costs of that erosion of trust, they will continue to politicize it.