We have failed in our science education of people at large. Many not only do not understand where knowledge comes from but cannot even begin to comprehend it, when it is explained to them. 
We do need a way to answer people who are stuck in this situation.
It is agonising for them because they feel that science is a religion, which scientists and doctors "worship" for unclear reasons.
They actually think they are being deprived of something.
It is agonising for them because they feel that science is a religion, which scientists and doctors "worship" for unclear reasons.
They actually think they are being deprived of something.
They think the medical profession "know" that medreservoir or chlorophyll are lifesaving drugs, which cruel, heartless docs are withholding from dying patients.
THAT is why we need to fight back against ignorance. This is an information emergency, of our own making.
THAT is why we need to fight back against ignorance. This is an information emergency, of our own making.
Traditionally, sensible clinicians and scientists take the following approach.
When you have nothing to say, you don't say anything.
When you have nothing to say, you don't say anything.
That is logical, efficient and safe.
HOWEVER
It only works when there are no other speakers.
HOWEVER
It only works when there are no other speakers.
In the current climate, social media and TV turn this vacuum into a disaster.
"All that is needed for the pandemic of ignorance
is for people with knowledge to be silent"
Tweet by Edmund Burke
is for people with knowledge to be silent"
Tweet by Edmund Burke
Yes, we cannot have an efficient conversation, and this is why we have not tried, or not succeeded, in the past.
But maybe we need to have an inefficient conversation?
Need, in the sense of societal survival. (Not need, in the sense of needing a Mercedes.)
But maybe we need to have an inefficient conversation?
Need, in the sense of societal survival. (Not need, in the sense of needing a Mercedes.)
I am open to suggestions as to how to make it easy for people like Donovan, who are earnest, literate and angry.
How can we explain to them that we do not know whether chloroplasts or redmeservoir save you or kill you?
How can we combat disinformation that is widely spreading?
How can we explain to them that we do not know whether chloroplasts or redmeservoir save you or kill you?
How can we combat disinformation that is widely spreading?
And with your ideas I propose we make a global effort to apply this to individuals, and people, who are spreading wrong information.
In particular, those who present information, and then say "but this is only early data, blah blah blah;
needs formal confirmation etc"
That is the most dangerous of all, because people do not understand what that means, namely we don't know if the stuff kills you or saves you.
needs formal confirmation etc"
That is the most dangerous of all, because people do not understand what that means, namely we don't know if the stuff kills you or saves you.
