In this podcast, @atrembath's mom talks about the unscientific way that environmentalists wield science --- as an endpoint, a revealed truth that can be cudgelized, rather than a process that uncovers truth in ways that improve over time and self-correct.
It got me thinking about ways that try to replace common unscientific phrasing with more scientific formulations (hopefully without being too awkward).
So I never refer to 'this is proof' or 'the study proves such and such". 'This is EVIDENCE' 'the study DEMONSTRATES ..."
I always try to refer to 'RELATIVE risk' rather than simply 'risk'. I try to use 'hypothesis' rather than 'theory' (though I don't think 'theory' as colloquial for 'hypothesis' is the worst transgression (Transgression! a call back to the podcast)).
(And yes. Sometimes I use a double parenthetical.)
This practice is not just about more accurately conveying what's going to others, but to remind myself and re-internalize over and over that science is a process, not an endpoint called 'Science'.
This practice is not just about more accurately conveying what's going to others, but to remind myself and re-internalize over and over that science is a process, not an endpoint called 'Science'.
What are examples you use to rework common unscientific tropes and shorthands? And how do you keep yourself in a 'scout mindset' affirming that science is a project, not a truth-cudgel?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
