Is it remotely conceivable that the people who disagree with you might be right or have any valid points? Or is it written in stone that you're right and the "wagon circlers" are wrong?
-
-
I ask because it's difficult to think of an instance in which you haven't been absolutely certain you were right and immunologists/virologists/epidemiologists were wrong and some might view that as a red flag as to the soundness of your arguments.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Experts of course can be wrong and should admit when we/they are. But if your through-line is that they're *always* wrong I think you are just undermining science more than anyone frankly and it comes across as very prior-driven rather than data-driven.
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @tarahaelle and
Who said they're always wrong? Plus, on things not in my direct field, I am obviously super duper cautious and thus my track record. But here we're talking about something directly in my field here, public sphere an communication. If we are deferring to expertise, I'm the expert.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle and
The question of what we do and don’t know about vaccine efficacy against transmission is a matter of immunology and virology and you have accused experts of *deliberately* withholding scientific information from the public on this.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Incredibly damaging attacks on scientific matters. I’ll be honest. It’s disheartening to see from a fellow academic and leads experts to consider simply disengaging from public outreach at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
If that’s not your intent, fine, I accept that. But consider perhaps the way you frame your criticisms and their impact on the targets and whether we’ll be better off if scientists withdraw from science communication.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @tarahaelle and
In this thread, I've responded to a claim that the NYT article (which I did not write) about the evolution of messaging was irresponsible and harmful. I completely disagree on that, and again, if deferring to expertise, this is very much a field where *I'm* the expert.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle and
Did you write this suggesting scientists are being dishonest and empowering charlatans or not?pic.twitter.com/4TlQLp7AAi
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @stgoldst @tarahaelle and
Thank you for including the screenshot so it's clear exactly what I wrote. When people feel like they are not getting the full message from the authorities, of course, charlatans are empowered. This is a genuinely mundane point in study of medical mistrust and public health.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I'll try again—there are tons of people providing examples, and we see this in communities I monitor, and even among health care workers. We are underselling the benefits of these vaccines in the messaging. No issue with uncertainty/warnings but on framing and emphasis.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle and
Look I didn’t come here to change your mind. But I hope you’ll consider whether the tenor of your criticisms are driving scientists out of the science comms space. I’ll think about whether my messaging is destructive. Candidly, I’m also thinking about checking out of the public
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
sphere and just getting through the next few months as best as possible. The relentless attacks from armchair experts and academics in other fields just takes a toll and at some point it’s not worth it.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes - 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.