Ethics, Politics, and the Misunderstanding & Misrepresentation of Science

[Pinkie-Dawn]

There's an article I've read from Disquis' Ethics group 2 months ago that I wanted to share in this subforum but kept forgetting to do so, so here it is.

According to the OP, there's a misunderstanding of what constitutes "science," the willful misrepresentation of political and social beliefs and theories as "science," and the attempt to cloak political and social actions with the legitimacy of "science," which has only tarnish that legacy. Scientists are viewed as people who are above all else because of their constant research in certain fields, even if they happen to be flawed on their hypothesis and theories such as climate change, which the OP doesn't believe in. There's also the fact that politics cherrypick existing scientific research that fit their agendas and gains followers.

Do you believe science is being misunderstood/misrepresented by politics and the mainstream?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Sort of, media picking up every non-peer reviewed study that ever finds something mildly interesting and running with it without any understanding is pretty common, i mean how often do you hear "science says X thing is good/bad for you!".
And yes, (generally right wing) politicians do misrepresent science to justify things.

However, this person is pretty anti-science in general and is trying to instill that same kind of opinion in the readers, ironically by misrepresenting facts/science in the process. Generally someone who doesn't believe in climate change, something with the scientific consensus behind it and observable fact backing it up, is someone who can't be trusted with scientific opinions and shouldn't really be listened to

 

[string555]

Science is misrepresented in general. Since the media only showcases certain research subjects, then it's those research subjects that get the most funding. As for the rest, they suffer, especially if media puts them down. And so, they end up getting minimal funding, and in some cases, they just die out because of that.

So yes, IMO, certain research subjects suffer and so the world is held back as a whole. I don't really want to start a religion argument, but I believe that religion also commonly plays a factor into this.

 

[BlazingCobaltX]

I think a big problem among people not schooled in some form of science is that it is not commonly taught how to interpret scientific findings. Scientists are well aware that the things they discovered might as well be a one-time thing caused by coincidence. Nothing is one hundred percent certain and nothing should be considered an absolute fact. It's why contemporary science (ideally) works towards falsification (seeking knowledge that contradicts information they have) instead of verification (seeking information that verifies it).

Without knowing this, you can easily walk into the trap of trusting science too much and believing everything they state. Add selective media coverage and ulterior, political motives to this and you get a mix of misinformation and distrust in science - why do we keep hearing different things about the effects of wine on the body? People misusing science for their own purposes can't be stopped really, but we wouldn't have to worry about them if the general public has a little more knowledge on how science works, and why exactly information from science shouldn't be believed so simply.

At least, I think this would improve the climate (in both senses of the word, haha) greatly.

 

[Rogue planet]

Science is constantly misrepresented because political figures see something to gain by discrediting legitimate scientific research. Bizarrely, the American public seems to believe politicians with a blatant agenda; rather than scientists who care about our planet's well being.

Like, really, come on... Science isn't debatable. You either trust people who have devoted their life to credible research. OR you choose to bury your head in the sand. It's one or the other, any debate around it is pure semantics.