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 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
100% agree. I have seen a lot of nuanced science be called "consensus" prematurely and sides within legitimate debates be called "anti-science."
-
Vaccinations, lockdowns, the value of various NPIs, school closures - these are complex issues where disagreement over nuance shouldn't be cast as anti-science. How to distinguish though the very real denialism from the legitimate debate/questions?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That's not about any claim I made. My own article suggests that we should put every ounce of energy into *speeding up vaccination*, and consider relying on the supply chain for boosters—like Canada. She's referring to what the UK is doing. I've no connection to that!
End of conversation
-
-
-
BELIEVE SCIENCE "Okay, studies show that you can't just hammer people over the head with catch phrases to make them comply with certain behaviors" NOT LIKE THAT
-
yep haha *cries*
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Scientists are not good at understanding interactions of human systems w/science. Esp. for decisions have to be made without complete knowledge - science can’t help there. As a scientist, I’m working on better understanding this. I will never utter “follow the science” again!
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.