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.
-
-
One of the problems that plagues messaging is how the (often null-hypothesis trained) scientists communicate versus how it is heard. Colloquially, "no evidence for.." is often heard as "evidence that there there is no.." [immunity/benefit etc.] (Not my rules, just the way it is).
-
And to follow, I don't think we should be forced to express more certainty than we are comfortable with. But then it helps to give priors as to why we are uncertain. E.g. flu vaccines kinda suck, but MMR is great. Not sure how this one will be. Then people can understand context.
- 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.