Article How stupid has science been?

[C C]

How stupid has science been?
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.10...25-00562-x

EXCERPTS (Arthur Caplan): Watching mainstream science in America under attack by the US federal and many state governments, most scientists and health care providers are wondering how this could be happening...

[...] Part of the answer is that US science itself is to blame. It has disparaged its public communication as unnecessary and looked down on those few who tried to educate broader audiences about the wonders, benefits, methods and advancements of science. The belittling of the astronomer and planetary scientist Carl Sagan is a prime example...

[...] Sapolsky and Carroll capture the contempt and intolerance much of mainstream science has had for those speaking off-campus to non-science audiences. The resulting failure to communicate about science to the public is a major factor in explaining why so few have rallied to science’s defense today against government policies promoting ignorance, illiteracy and quackery.

[...] Sagan was not the only scientist to see their work as a popularizer denigrated and their competency challenged [...] The price for years and years of unwarranted, misguided snobbery is now being paid. Populists and right-wing thinkers have been losing faith in science for years... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - -

Maybe there was an epidemic of science communicators being criticized and disparaged by the science establishment itself (I have no idea), but it hardly looks like it could result in a shortage of them in an era of internet and social media. Compared to Sagan's era, where there was only publishing, television, and maybe an occasional radio program like Science Friday.

[Railko]

Watching mainstream science in America under attack by the US federal and many state governments, most scientists and health care providers are wondering how this could be happening...

Part of the answer is that US science itself is to blame. It has disparaged its public communication as unnecessary and looked down on those few who tried to educate broader audiences about the wonders, benefits, methods and advancements of science.

Sapolsky and Carroll capture the contempt and intolerance much of mainstream science has had for those speaking off-campus to non-science audiences. The resulting failure to communicate about science to the public is a major factor in explaining why so few have rallied to science’s defense today against government policies promoting ignorance, illiteracy and quackery.

It's that, but it's also the way some scientists communicate with others, and the way science is sometimes treated as this thing to bludgeon people with instead of something to learn from. I've heard about the dislike most scientists have when it comes to interacting with the media, but it's necessary if you want to get your findings out there in a way that isn't distorted. 

Most scientists also don't seem to know how to communicate to others in a way that doesn't make them seem arrogant or elitist. If you get something wrong you're likely to be looked down upon and mistreated (at worst), having a degree of skepticism gets you immediately dismissed (when having a degree of skepticism for anything is a somewhat healthy way to go about life) and since they're the ones with the access to the science, they're often treated as almost these oracles of knowledge when most people want to see this knowledge for themselves. If you can't talk normally to the public and you can't show the science that led to your answer (or educate the public on how to find their own research) how can you expect people to trust you? 

This is something that influencers have mastered (being a normal person, communicating their results efficiently) and that's why you can see someone say to put potatoes in your eyes and it will really stop the flu and everyone will just listen to them without question. And also since they've mastered their public face and showing their work, it shouldn't be surprising they and alternate theories gain more ground than regular ones. 

Then also, a lot of scientists can just be plain mean. Sometimes you'll see a scientist coming down on someone who doesn't know better and while it might be good to school that person and tell them they're wrong, they're going to associate that with embarrassment and will be less likely to interact with the establishment in the future. I'm not saying people should use kid gloves when interacting with someone who is getting the science wrong, but at least read the room and try to see if it's a literal misunderstanding coming from a place of concern, or if they're trying to be malicious. Whichever one it is, choose the best way to handle the situation.

I support science, but I'm not surprised this is happening - it's been a long time coming.