But what I think is so interesting here is how god damn hard it is to communicate uncertainty. We don’t know A TON about covid, but what we don’t know is discarded as useless, or imagined as certainty of the opposite, when actually, unknowns are vital to keep in mind.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @hankgreen
It would be nice if science communicators communicated in probabilities or best guesses instead of just "we don't know", which makes many different things sound equally probable and is reminiscent of the early covid communications failures
6 replies 3 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @ChanaMessinger @hankgreen
There is definitely an argument for some institutions taking the "only say things we know basically for sure" approach, but not every single one should
3 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
-
Replying to @hankgreen
Strongly strongly agree. This is my view. I think "there is no evidence for", for instance, tends to be heard and "we have evidence against" instead of "reasonable people can make reasonable guesses if they have some background knowledge"
2 replies 1 retweet 48 likes -
Replying to @ChanaMessinger @hankgreen
My sense is that a lot of science communicators online think of themselves as announcing the optimal message to the masses when instead they should think about it as injecting as much scientific understanding as they can into the ecosystem.
7 replies 10 retweets 144 likes -
I couldn't agree more. I've been trying to give people tools to understand the pandemic rather than messaging for desired behavior.
4 replies 2 retweets 136 likes -
Yes and yes. I’ve been trying to tell people that the message out there has become “it won’t stop you from transmitting” instead of “it probably will, maybe even a lot, but we’re waiting for more data to be sure” and.. getting disbelieved that’s the message out there. But it is!
6 replies 21 retweets 323 likes -
The problem we have in this country is a serious lack of an informed citizenry. As a population we are incapable of grasping nuance. A lack of trust in science, and of the educated in general, has fueled an environment where pundits spewing forth propaganda have become Truth.
1 reply 2 retweets 29 likes -
I think a big problem is that when you watch a crime show and the court has “no evidence” that means they can’t convict or whatever. But in science having “no evidence” just means it hasn’t been researched or found yet
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes
We had the same problem with WHO’s “no evidence” stuff on human-to-human transmission communication. Even after the lady tested positive in Thailand! The presumption was, of course, that it existed but not fully proven. “No evidence” doesn’t communicate the correct meaning.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @AvgJoeBaker and
This is exactly the kind of nuance that is difficult to capture in the modern sound-bite and headline driven culture we find ourselves in.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
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.