Lying increases trust in science, study finds

[Timcognito]

And this is exactly what informs the public - the rhetoric. The rhetoric becomes "The Science" for the uninformed. Most people don't read peer-reviewed literature - they don't have the time, nor the skills. What reaches them is the politically expedient narrative - not the nuance.

Agreed and in the US and IMO the rest of the world freedom of the press and speech are among the most hallowed rights so that what is in the news is not all propaganda or entertainment. Reporting by so called news organizations of the facts and evidence on any topic is of the upmost importance and deliberate misleading reporting and defaming of truth tellers should held accountable with laws that require public acknowledgement and retraction. The fact that there are whole news networks with few or no reporters on the ground spouting propaganda 24/7 is travesty that goes unrectified. It is not news.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Agreed and in the US and IMO the rest of the world freedom of the press and speech are among the most hallowed rights so that what is in the news is not all propaganda or entertainment. Reporting by so called news organizations of the facts and evidence on any topic is of the upmost importance and deliberate misleading reporting and defaming of truth tellers should held accountable with laws that require public acknowledgement and retraction. The fact that there are whole news networks with few or no reporters on the ground spouting propaganda 24/7 is travesty that goes unrectified. It is not news.

And major online platforms having "news services", but no paid journalists. They scrape other people's work

 

[krabapple]

Just saw this posted on Slashdot. This is an interesting dichotomy (i.e., the general trust in the science decreases when transparency increases).



The way we understand how the world works (i,e,, Science) seems itself to reflect the weaknesses of the human condition wanting to believe the lies instead. Audiophilia is filled with convenient lies that people want to believe.

The declaration of the paper linked here reflects my own experiences (when the general public doesn't like the answers, they attack the science itself in order to perpetuate the myths).

This seems to be apropos to core subjects of this forum.

Chris

Ths study itself is a literature review used to put forward an argument.

So do the authors state as a finding what you wrote in the title of the thread?

It's the actual title of the article.

From my perspective, I spoke volumes.
Slashdot.
Is that peer reviewed?

ffs! Is anyone following links? The article isn't on Slashdot. It's a journal publication.

Lying increases trust in science - Theory and Society

This study begins by outlining the transparency paradox: that trust in science requires transparency, but being transparent about science, medicine and government reduces trust in science. A solution to the paradox is then advanced here: it is argued that, rather than just thinking in terms of...

link.springer.com

The journal is:
Theory and Society
An Interdisciplinary Social Science Journal

i.e. sociology

 

[krabapple]

Really enjoyed the paper. Still not sure if it’s the real deal or some Sokal/Boghossian–Lindsay–Pluckrose-style stunt - not that it’d make it any less real. The author checks out, though. The last section: "Data availability - Not applicable." Pure gold. A perfect tribute to transparency.

Because it's not an experimental report. It's a literature review in support of a 'theory'. The 'data' are the (numerous) citations.

Lotta Dunning-Krueger happening in this thread!

The paper is interesting. The author does a good job, for example, of outlining the social dynamic of 'Climategate'. But I question the wording of this conclusion:
While some have claimed that Climategate serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency (Maibach et al., 2012), the reality is that it’s transparency that caused the uproar in the first place.

More accurately, the 'transparency' that caused an uproar there was not chosen by the scientists; it was 'forced' on them via a hack of the East Anglia email server and subsequent publication of supposedly damning cherry-picked quotes by a hostile party.
(Such 'gotcha' selective quoting/decontextualization has become increasingly common and weaponized by the right, btw -- it happened in the Twitter files 'scandal', also in the Covid 'lab leak ' 'scandal'.)

So what are scientists to do? Never write anything in emails that could even remotely be construed as 'damning'? Never speak loosely in private? Publish every decision tree they ever engage in, and expect the public to follow along?

 

[Bjorn]

So true. Just like most on this forum seem to follow untruth regarding speaker design and what good acoustic is and belive it's actual science.
Just saying...

 

[krabapple]

So true. Just like most on this forum seem to follow untruth regarding speaker design and what good acoustic is and belive it's actual science.
Just saying...

Oh dear. Can you show us The Way?

 

[tengiz]

Because it's not an experimental report. It's a literature review in support of a 'theory'. The 'data' are the (numerous) citations.

That’s exactly why the empty Data Availability section reads like a charming meta-tribute to one of the core points of the paper: pragmatic transparency means either "good" data, or nothing at all.

 

[krabapple]

That’s exactly why the empty Data Availability section reads like a charming meta-tribute to one of the core points of the paper: pragmatic transparency means either "good" data, or nothing at all.

To me it reads as the default answer enforced by the journal for any paper that isn't reporting an author's experimental results.

 

[tengiz]

So what are scientists to do? Never write anything in emails that could even remotely be construed as 'damning'? Never speak loosely in private? Publish every decision tree they ever engage in, and expect the public to follow along?

Researchers now retract papers or avoid publishing altogether because they anticipate that otherwise valid, well-executed findings will be misrepresented. Preemptive self-silencing isn’t a hypothetical anymore — it’s already part of the landscape.

To me it reads as the default answer enforced by the journal for any paper that isn't reporting an author's experimental results.

That's right, but it still is an amusing unintended pun.

 

[krabapple]

Researchers now retract papers or avoid publishing altogether because they anticipate that otherwise valid, well-executed findings will be misrepresented. Preemptive self-silencing isn’t a hypothetical anymore — it’s already part of the landscape.

A retracted paper is already part of the landscape.

I didn't say self-silencing was hypothetical. Are you referring to the much-publicized case of a researcher on gender-affirming youth care outcomes who refrained from publishing her results because she didn't want them weaponized by opponents of such care? Or something else?

 

[Gitfiddle]

More accurately, the 'transparency' that caused an uproar there was not chosen by the scientists; it was 'forced' on them via a hack of the East Anglia email server and subsequent publication of supposedly damning cherry-picked quotes by a hostile party.

This is exactly this kind of missing context that makes the entire article laughable to me. EDIT: I re read the article and found it actually did give context. I retract my statement.

It really felt like data used without proper context to back up pre-formulated conclusions. Regardless of if I agree with some of the conclusions, I can't in good faith take this review seriously.

Now I DO want some satirist to have a go at it.

"New study finds when local butchers are transparent about why they are standing behind you at 3:00A.M., with a knife, in a dark alley; public trust in local butchers drop."

 

[tengiz]

A retracted paper is already part of the landscape.

Which means everyone else learns to think twice before publishing anything that goes against the current "right thing." Not because it's wrong, but because it's risky.

 

[tengiz]

Are you referring to the much-publicized case of a researcher on gender-affirming youth care outcomes who refrained from publishing her results because she didn't want them weaponized by opponents of such care? Or something else?

Maybe - I don’t recall all the details of the research. What stuck with me was the stark incompatibility between the “noble lie by omission” which was objectively not particularly controversial according to the findings, and what we usually mean when we talk about science. The whole thing depends on selective silence, when science, in principle, is supposed to prize disclosure.

Which brings us back to the publication that sparked this thread.

 

[krabapple]

This is exactly this kind of missing context that makes the entire article laughable to me.

I don't know that it's entirely missing. I don't know if the difference has been noted elswhere between transparency by choice versus , e.g., FOIA request

IOW, I need to sit with the article and read it all the way through! Have you?

 

[Gitfiddle]

I don't know that it's entirely missing. I don't know if the difference has been noted elswhere between transparency by choice versus , e.g., FOIA request

IOW, I need to sit with the article and read it all the way through! Have you?

I have, but quickly, so details were likely lost. I have not read the underlying studies that were used as sources and obviously that is where the real meat is. I think I'll re-read it and maybe find what kinds of questions were asked to elicit the response if any of the studies are easily accessible.

"Misinformation resolves the paradox"​

The first part of this section about vaccines really got to me.

So much missing context here about the gigantic misinformation campaign already erupting in defiance of ANY vaccine regardless of how safe it is. The article simply doesn't mention that public trust was already under an influence campaign.

EDIT: you were right about the climategate having some context added. After re-reading I found that part actually well done by the author.

 

[Sokel]

In an ideal world people's Science would first conduct a gigantic research about how to eliminate the various biases of its own people and would have unlimited recourses, steady sex life (yes, you read that right) , so no agenda.

It's not simple people's fault that they are suspicious, specially about the Divas but also about the few or single-sided research ( the one-eyed should not rule the blind in science)

The title is sad, it only exposes the crooked structure of scientists - society in general.
Want to avoid lying and grow trust? You have to give the example, tidy your house and then talk about other people's dirt

Three sides: The science, the people, and Nature (not the magazine) who laughs its heart out.

 

[RogerSmith]

The data is data and if repeatable by others is real and that is dictated physics and chemistry. Interpretations and bad experimental design can be flawed. There is a real world like it or not.

Again a naive approach of science. I am a physicist by education. Many data are not as clearly defined as you may think they are. The measurements might turn out to be flawed or ambiguous or badly performed or rigged or not supporting the claimed hypothesis or selective or overlooking something important or ..... This applies to any collision measurements of the LHC to ice kernels from the antartic. You might want to have a look at the book of Ludwik Fleck : Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache [Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact] (1935).
And if there is a real world or not, depends very much on which philosopher or quantum physicist you ask...

 

[Timcognito]

As licensed mechanical engineer with 35 year career in R&D of medical devices for cardiology and cardiac surgery, (9 startups) several of my projects were subject to double blind randomized studies where the investigators were blinded from the data and an data crunchers were independent, not investigators and blinded from the patient information until the data was complete. The most important things were experimental design, patient selection criteria, and study control, in many cases 1/2 not getting treatment as they were part of the control group even if an ideal candidate. My experience is far from naive and findings had low P-Value or no conclusion could be reached. Bad science abounds but is also easily detected by good scientists.

 

[Cbdb2]

Reporting by so called news organizations of the facts and evidence on any topic is of the upmost importance and deliberate misleading reporting and defaming of truth tellers should be held accountable with laws...

Yea good luck.

Trump’s War on the Truth: Robert Reich on Firing of BLS Head & Push to Replace Fed Chair

We speak to former Labor Secretary Robert Reich about how President Trump’s firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, hours after the agency released a weaker-than-expected jobs report, undermines a key agency. Trump claimed, without offering any evidence, that the numbers were...

www.democracynow.org

 

[RalphB]

What is worse? lying or only reporting selective context? Lying is obviously wrong but reporting news with selective facts is an insidious bias.