2/ Unless you understand how it fits into the rest of the evidence, you risk drawing bad inferences and mistaken conclusions. When people *present* a single study or two as conclusive "proof" of something, they either don't understand this or they're selling you something.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ That's also why I think social science
#SciComm is so much harder than other fields. If you constrict evidence for pedagogical reasons in something mind-bending like quantum mechanics, the harm is very contained. The learner won't break quantum mechanics.Show this thread -
4/ But in the social sciences, people are very prone to using scientific evidence as Scientism to support unsupported prescriptions, either at institutional or policy level, or socially. Here, bad scicomm can induce harmful changes in the objects under study!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's extremely sage parenting right there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The other thing about social science (and scicomm) is that most people _feel_ like they know very little about, eg Newtonian physics even though they use gravity all the time but also _feel_ like they're equipped to intuit social phenomena bc of general familiarity w people.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.