Show newer
PaulT boosted

What we don't teach is how science functions as a social institution that allows tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals to work together collectively to undercover the workings of the physical universe. Everything we teach about the process of science involves that which one can do alone at night in an empty laboratory.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

We teach how to execute the technical procedures used in science and technology: how do you sequence a genome, design a regression, or implement a random forest algorithm. We even teach some aspects of a so-called "scientific method"—making observations, forming hypotheses, designing experiments, testing against data, refining hypotheses, and back around again (3).

Show thread
PaulT boosted

To dispell disinformation about science, we need to teach people why science is trustworthy. Right now, I think we're failing to do that in the K-12 classroom and even at the college level. We teach the settled facts of science: how does photosynthesis work, what is special relativity, what explains the often exquisite fit of organisms to their environments.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

My initial views came down strongly in favor of teaching more data reasoning, more critical thinking, and more media literacy. Indeed, all of things are necessary. But they're not sufficient to combat disinformation about science. Over a series of meetings with the working group, I came to view that I lay out below.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

In addition to all of these, I think that there reasons specific to science why people struggle to see through lies like these. I believe that misinformation and disinformation about science spreads because our current system of science education is inadequate. Last year I joined a Moore Foundation working group charged with identifying the ways in which science education needs to change to adapt to our current misinformation environment.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

So why not? Why does anyone believe this nonsense? There are any number of domain-general factors involved that contribute to the spread of any sort of disinformation. People fall prey to conformation bias. People consume social media for entertainment, and share social media posts as signifiers of group membership rather than because they believe they are true. The rise of tribal epistemology leads readers to set aside critical thinking in deference to the in-group nature of the source.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

One could go on and on in this vein, unpacking the reasons why Kennedy's story — and Musk's affirmation — are ridiculous. That's not my aim here, however. What I want to do with this post is look at why people aren't able immediately to see through this brazen dishonesty.

---

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Moreover the conspirators would have to somehow ensure that none of these tens of thousands breath a word of the conspiracy itself—this in a world where everything gets leaked even from tight closed circles: the Supreme Court, the White House, corporate boardrooms.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

For Kennedy's story to be even plausible, the NIAID would have to be paying off literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of people — and paying them so much that not a one of them would choose to break ranks and provide the world with credible evidence of the vaccine harms that Kennedy proclaims are omnipresent.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Kennedy's story is a common conspiracist trope, in which some higher authority orchestrates a massive worldwide coverup of publicly beneficial information. With an understanding of the scale of the scientific endeavor, such tales become laughable. Think about what it takes to buy silence. If everyone in the community knows what is happening or can find out, everyone in the community has to be getting paid off, or hoping that they will be soon.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Third, the story that Kennedy is trying to spin ignores the huge incentives —both in terms of prestige and financial reward (2) — that researchers have to demonstrate that conventional wisdom is incorrect. Fourth, even in the absence of career and monetary incentives, the story supposes that not a single person out of tens of thousands would choose to follow conscience over profit.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

First of all, as NIAID director, Fauci has little if any involvement in individual funding decisions. Second, while NIAID does fund some work conducted internationally, scientists overseas are far from reliant on NIAID/NIH funding. (Even virologists in the US are not entirely reliant on NIAID/NIH funding.)

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Here, Kennedy is claiming that Fauci used grant funding to obtain worldwide omertà — silence purchased by the Mafia — with regard to vaccine harms. Set aside the immediate errors about Fauci's position and available budget (1). The notion that the head of a granting agency — even a large granting agency — could somehow purchase worldwide silence is absurd.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Today, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the longest-standing and highest-profile activists in the antivax movement, tweeted a blatant lie. Nothing newsworthy there. The newsworthy part is that Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk—yes, the supposed scientific visionary—affirmed and amplified Kennedy's message. The two men's posts are below.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

With even a rudimentary understanding of how science works as a social institution, it is obvious that Kennedy is lying yet again. But in the classroom, we don't teach how science works as a social institution. It's time to fix that.

---

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Science education in an age of twitter disinformation

tl;dr — Science education needs to adapt to a world of misinformation on social media and beyond. Today, prominent antivaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tweeted the ridiculous claim that as director of the NIAID, Dr. Fauci bought the silence of the entire worldwide virology community by handing out research grants. Elon Musk then affirmed and amplified his claim.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Alternatively, if you prefer to read it here, I'm posting here as well by request. I have mixed feelings about cross-posting like this, but people have asked — and I sure understand the rationale for not wanting to use post.news. I've written about it myself.

So, anyway, here you go.

Show thread
PaulT boosted

Some of you may have seen Elon Musk's endorsement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s crazy antivax conspiracy theories today.

Over at post.news, I just posted a long-form piece about this, and about how science education needs to adapt to online disinformation.

Please a look. If you like it, boost it there or here or — if you dare — over on the birdsite.

post.news/article/2J7VEapSIpNW

PaulT boosted

Public Service Warning

Mastodon has a very big surge of new users right now. There's no way to tell if it will be sustained, but at this early point it looks similar to Nov 18 when when Musk pulled the employee purge.

It is very challenging for system administration to accommodate so many new users. If your server starts to struggle, it is not broken and will get sorted out.

We're all in this together. It's our social network. Be patient. What we are building is amazing.

#twittermigration

Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.