One problem is the people telling us to just “follow the science” rarely seem to understand the interaction between things science can and has resolved and the unknowns and trade-offs that cannot be resolved by appeals to “The Science.” They’re often using science as a talisman.https://twitter.com/jflier/status/1345417443909500931 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zeynep
That's why many of us are open science advocates, wanting data to be shared widely from research. That is why so many of us are out in the public sphere talking to those outside of our bubble. Follow the science is an empty phrase, now "follow the data," is something else.
4 replies 5 retweets 49 likes -
Replying to @gregggonsalves @zeynep
As much as I favor warning data shared widely from research, having done what I've done for so many years I know that that approach has hazards as well.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Basically, the hazard is that cranks, conspiracy theorists, and deniers will cherry pick and misrepresent that data in order to promote their conspiracy theories and disinformation.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Science deniers will, for example, hone in on one part of one panel of one figure or one line of one table and try to use that to discredit entire scientific consensuses. I've seen antivaxxers do it more times than I can remember.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Indeed, the entire "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy theory that turned into Andrew Wakefield's and Del Bigtree's antivax propaganda film VAXXED resulted from just such a bit of cherry picking and misrepresentation.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
In fairness, the antivaxxers used the published paper, and it was a paper published before open access publishing was much of a thing, but open access to scientific data is a two-edged sword. We must recognize that, and, as science communicators, be prepared to deal with it.
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.