Some thoughts on #scicomm and how science is actually pretty damn hard to communicate sometimes 1/?
It's certainly possible that we'll uncover harms associated with eating conventionally-farmed vegetables that organics protect you against. Given the state of the evidence, I think it's unlikely, but you can never rule it out 10/?
-
-
If this happens, I'll retract what I've said about organics. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong 11/?
Show this thread -
But hedging around to make sure that no statement you'll ever make could be considered wrong helps no one. In my opinion, it just adds to public confusion 12/?
Show this thread -
Take the Daily Mail. They cheerfully print total garbage as if it were God's Own Truth. In response, you often see scientists taking a bland, neutral position 13/?
Show this thread -
I'm not saying you have to be certain of everything. But being reasonably certain - based on the best current evidence - is totally fine 14/?
Show this thread -
Anyway, just some thoughts. I'm wrong all the time. I try to be honest about it when I am. I feel like that's more helpful than trying to be 100% right by dodging affirmative statements until I never say anything definitive at all
#scicomm 15/15Show this thread -
P.S. This is NOT true IN ANY WAY for scientific publications. I think science encourages a culture of pedanticism, or maybe we're all just weird people, but regardless everything you say has to be 100% supportable or it's all wrong otherwise reviewers will be mean to you
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.