To increase trust in science, being more transparent helps, until it doesn’t, and too much exposure of the questions and unresolved issues reduces trust.
One solution, lie. Maybe it’s tongue in cheek but, there’s a study
Well that looks interesting, you can even get at the entire study.
Off the top, I find it interesting that it’s aways the science and evidence that get’s put on the spot. But, We The people, seem to evade any responsibility for their disregard for anything that challenges their comfort level. Science can go through all the mental gyrations it want’s but if people don’t want to hear it - then what?
Interesting study worth the sharing for sure.
Oh for instance there’s this clinical paragraph:
“Climategate is, I think, a paradigm example of this. In November 2009, the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked and more than a thousand emails and two thousand documents were leaked (see Powell, 2011, ch. 14). Certain correspondence was interpreted by some as evidence of data manipulation and scientific misconduct aimed at exaggerating the threat of global warming. For instance, one of the most cited phrases was “hide the decline,” which some interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal data that didn’t support the prevailing narrative on climate change. The emails also revealed scientists expressing frustration with climate change skeptics and discussing ways to respond to their criticisms. Some interpreted these discussions as evidence of a conspiracy to suppress dissenting viewpoints and control the narrative around climate science. In reality, these were standard academic debates about how to handle what scientists viewed as misinformation and flawed analysis.”
Interpretation has nothing to do it, the email messages were malicious manipulated and grossly misrepresented by the media - but it’s always foisted off a benign happening - rather than deliberate brake-in, stealing tons of files, combing then for anything. Nothing of substance or irregularity was found, so they fabricated, lies, fraudulent intent. And the whole world simply went with it.
“The emails also revealed scientists expressing frustration with climate change skeptics and discussing ways to respond to their criticisms.”
Suddenly it became almost criminal for scientists to complain to each other about the dishonesty of opponents and their malicious calculated deliberate misreading of scientific data and facts.
In fact, this event and our leaders & the public’s utter apathy toward what happened, is one of many milestones to our eventual take over by a corporate funded puppet. And the hideous climate future we are being forced into.
What word would you use? When we read things, we interpret the meaning. An interpretation can be wrong but the quoted paragraph says “some interpreted”. That’s within a context of a discussion on how to handle misinterpretation, so not much ambiguity there that those “some” were wrong.
The words that fit: “Malicious Manipulation.”
This is where we could get into the philosophy of the difference between good faith behavior, and malicious intent.
Oh and I actually have read the emails that made all the stink, so I’m not going by someone else opinion.
Yep. Agreed. It’s in the history of this forum somewhere.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:4, topic:11781”]
malicious intent
[/quote]
No argument from me but I know it’s best to stick to more neutral terms in a paper. Think of the Big Lebowski, “like, that’s your opinion man.”