Hi Ed (and very nice to hear from you!). One of the challenges for the general public is that uncertainty is not widely understood, and is viewed as some sort of innate scientific weakness that casts doubt on the science. Scientists, of course, know otherwise - that uncertainty is really just a number or value that describes our confidence in a result. But because (in theory) it’s the general public that drive rule-making via a political process, uncertainty is exploited by others with a horse in the race (and usually lots of money) to invoke fear, confusion, or doubt in the science. If you’re 95% confident in a result, a ne’er do well might want to convince the public (wrongly), that scientists are not always right, and in this case, then might actually be wrong. Therefore, don’t pass the rule. These are the kinds of arguments I see from time to time - e.g. ‘the science isn’t always correct because uncertainty remains, therefore, I don’t trust it’. Our job, as scientists, has to be to convince them otherwise.
Critical thinking is just that- taking in information and arguments, and critically making a judgement about what you think. I feel it is important to encourage that among scientists, and non-scientists. This means that when we present scientific results, we try to clearly separate the data/statistics, from the judgement/conclusions. We can form judgement and conclusions even in the presence of uncertainty. Others judgement and conclusions may be different- and accepting that is part of the scientific process. Following this process may not always convince others that my conclusions are right, but it should help to engage others in critical thinking- which I believe is our best way forward.
I think there is a point to the comments that ‘there is uncertainty and we can’t be sure’. Decision rules are decision rules, not facts
Hi Ed (and very nice to hear from you!). One of the challenges for the general public is that uncertainty is not widely understood, and is viewed as some sort of innate scientific weakness that casts doubt on the science. Scientists, of course, know otherwise - that uncertainty is really just a number or value that describes our confidence in a result. But because (in theory) it’s the general public that drive rule-making via a political process, uncertainty is exploited by others with a horse in the race (and usually lots of money) to invoke fear, confusion, or doubt in the science. If you’re 95% confident in a result, a ne’er do well might want to convince the public (wrongly), that scientists are not always right, and in this case, then might actually be wrong. Therefore, don’t pass the rule. These are the kinds of arguments I see from time to time - e.g. ‘the science isn’t always correct because uncertainty remains, therefore, I don’t trust it’. Our job, as scientists, has to be to convince them otherwise.
Critical thinking is just that- taking in information and arguments, and critically making a judgement about what you think. I feel it is important to encourage that among scientists, and non-scientists. This means that when we present scientific results, we try to clearly separate the data/statistics, from the judgement/conclusions. We can form judgement and conclusions even in the presence of uncertainty. Others judgement and conclusions may be different- and accepting that is part of the scientific process. Following this process may not always convince others that my conclusions are right, but it should help to engage others in critical thinking- which I believe is our best way forward.