> but they are not in effect shaping the discourse nor the policies
But again, shaping where? In America not at all, as a matter of politics. In Germany, they seem to be listened to and shaping both discourse and policies. In UK, experts put up the fight and ended up being listened to. Not the first moment, but politics turned around.
> They are just voices in a crowd of equally credentialed institutions that have been caught doing very bad science
But that is the thing ... this does not seem to me to be the case. There was plenty of good scientific discussion. It more of seems to be the case that you had to cherry-pick studies other experts criticized a lot and then ignore said criticism.
This was absolutely done for political reason, but politicians doing it were already known for lying. The fans of these politicians are unmovable and their trust wont change either way. Their primary motivation seems to be destruction of government institutions anyway, it is not like that would changed.
> The Stanford Study being the best example.
The Stanford Study was being criticized from get go and the conflict of interests was pointed out quick. This particular study is good example of study being promoted for political reasons. And the people doing that should not be trusted. If the "one outlier in Stanford says it, therefore it is true" idea dies, that is a good thing for science. Institutional pedestals are bad for science, but knee jerk eagerness to promote outlier instead of consensus is even worst.
You should absolutely mistrust those who were involved in apparently bad studies. I just dont understand how outlier non-peer reviewed studies that got criticized quickly imply that you cant trust anything and anyone ever.
That is the irrational part and uneducated part. It implies not understanding how science work, how peer review works, how common disagreements are in science, how scientific consensus emerges, why it is important and how it fails. It implies uncritically trusting feel good outliers studies before they were peer reviewed and before multiple other studies were confirming results.
>That is the irrational part and uneducated part. It implies not understanding how science works
Yes. The public is irrational, uneducated, doesn't understand how science works and they have been told conflicting information by the media and politicians that "came from the experts", so now people's trust in science is falling too. I think that's what the parent is lamenting. We need better leaders and editors.
> I know a couple of well educated and rational people that are already stating they will not take a vaccine once it's available, simply because they "can't" trust any data and study done on it."
And the point is, they are neither rational nor educated. Too much of irrational is defended by "he is rational person" even when the person in question is demonstrably not acting rationally and demonstrably does not know what he is talking about.
Had there been new vaccine defended by only one study that has not been even peer reviewed yet, they and you absolutely should not trust it. You absolutely should not trust vaccine because author wrote article in popular non scientific journal either.
But again, shaping where? In America not at all, as a matter of politics. In Germany, they seem to be listened to and shaping both discourse and policies. In UK, experts put up the fight and ended up being listened to. Not the first moment, but politics turned around.
> They are just voices in a crowd of equally credentialed institutions that have been caught doing very bad science
But that is the thing ... this does not seem to me to be the case. There was plenty of good scientific discussion. It more of seems to be the case that you had to cherry-pick studies other experts criticized a lot and then ignore said criticism.
This was absolutely done for political reason, but politicians doing it were already known for lying. The fans of these politicians are unmovable and their trust wont change either way. Their primary motivation seems to be destruction of government institutions anyway, it is not like that would changed.
> The Stanford Study being the best example.
The Stanford Study was being criticized from get go and the conflict of interests was pointed out quick. This particular study is good example of study being promoted for political reasons. And the people doing that should not be trusted. If the "one outlier in Stanford says it, therefore it is true" idea dies, that is a good thing for science. Institutional pedestals are bad for science, but knee jerk eagerness to promote outlier instead of consensus is even worst.
You should absolutely mistrust those who were involved in apparently bad studies. I just dont understand how outlier non-peer reviewed studies that got criticized quickly imply that you cant trust anything and anyone ever.
That is the irrational part and uneducated part. It implies not understanding how science work, how peer review works, how common disagreements are in science, how scientific consensus emerges, why it is important and how it fails. It implies uncritically trusting feel good outliers studies before they were peer reviewed and before multiple other studies were confirming results.
reply