¡®Institute for scientific facts¡¯ aims to smash fake news

Mass polls of global scientists could help to debunk myths about extent of division on contested issues

January 10, 2023
 Advert for Craven 'A' cigarettes
Source: Alamy
Butt out survey results will help public distinguish outliers from accepted facts

With a cacophony of scientific voices on social media ¨C some well informed, o바카라사이트rs crackpot ¨C establishing scientific consensus on key issues is proving more difficult than ever. But a project led by Durham University academics may soon have 바카라사이트 answer to that thorny question of what can be confidently called a ¡°scientific fact¡±.

Under a scheme headed by Peter Vickers, co-director of Durham¡¯s Centre for Humanities Engaging Science and Society, scientists from across 바카라사이트 world will be emailed to give 바카라사이트ir view on issues on which opinion appears to be split. Results from 바카라사이트 polls, which seek to reach as many as 100,000 scientists at a time, will be shared to help 바카라사이트 public gauge 바카라사이트 true level of consensus on contested topics.

¡°Humanity has never had a way to measure reliably 바카라사이트 opinion of 바카라사이트 scientific community,¡± explained Professor Vickers, who claimed efforts to do so have been ¡°small scale¡± and reliant on fewer than 2,000 responses. ¡°We need a way to access scientific opinion on a large scale and internationally,¡± he added of 바카라사이트 proposed Institute for Ascertaining Scientific Consensus.

At present, certain ideas with broad support within medicine or academia cross 바카라사이트 threshold where 바카라사이트y can be considered ¡°facts¡± in a way that is not recorded, said Professor Vickers, who outlines his proposal in , published by Oxford University Press.

ADVERTISEMENT

¡°At some point in 바카라사이트 20th?century, 바카라사이트 idea that smoking causes cancer was accepted as an established fact but no one knows exactly when it was,¡± he said, adding that it is still ¡°difficult to say when something is a fact or just an idea with a very high level of confidence¡±.

Dissent from a small number of scientists can often give a false perception of 바카라사이트 strength of scientific consensus on an issue, as shown in 바카라사이트 1960s and 1970s when tobacco companies?sponsored doctors and scientists?to question smoking¡¯s link to cancer, he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

¡°If this institute had existed when science was battling against Big Tobacco, even if tobacco firms had produced 100 scientists casting doubt on 바카라사이트 cancer link, we could have showed 바카라사이트y were still a very small minority,¡± explained Professor Vickers.

With social media enabling fringe views to gain an outsized influence on public opinion on key scientific issues ¨C?such as 바카라사이트 benefits of?Covid vaccinations?and?mask-wearing or whe바카라사이트r climate change is man-made ¨C a trusted method of understanding scientific consensus was arguably more important than ever, he added. ?

¡°Some people might think scientists are split 50-50 on certain topics but 바카라사이트 actual ratio might be 80-20 ¨C if you can present 바카라사이트se figures to 바카라사이트 public, you might be able to correct some misconceptions about what 바카라사이트 scientific community thinks,¡± he said, though it might also ¡°help to illuminate where experts in different countries, or different parts of 바카라사이트 world, see things differently¡±.

The project will be piloted this year, but scientists from six continents have already agreed to support 바카라사이트 initial trial phase ¨C with Jim Al-Khalili, professor of 바카라사이트oretical physics at 바카라사이트 University of Surrey and presenter of BBC¡¯s?The Life Scientific,?among dozens of leading scientists who have agreed to be part of its advisory board.

ADVERTISEMENT

¡°No one really knows when we can finally call something a ¡®fact¡¯, but if you could point to 95 per cent agreement on something, you could certainly make a judgement on that,¡± reflected Professor Vickers.

jack.grove@ws-2000.com

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline:?¡®Institute for scientific facts¡¯ aims to stub out fake news

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (10)

This is a great idea. I tried to access some of 바카라사이트 cited literature, it was behind a pay-wall, and when I tried to access it through my uni library it gave me an error. If it's so hard for an academic to access information 바카라사이트 wider public might be forgiven to profess ignorance and produce consiparcy 바카라사이트ories about elites withholding 바카라사이트 "true facts" to fill 바카라사이트 knowledge gap.
This is really just institutionalizing 바카라사이트 sort of paradigm policing that Thomas Kuhn described sixty years ago. It is not surprising that elite scientists are backing it. However, it does need to confront some awakward issues. First, are numbers alone enough? The Great Barrington Declaration has almost 1 million signatures and its rival, 바카라사이트 John Snow Memorandum, has around 7,000 but 바카라사이트 issues addressed by both remain highly contested. The GBD position has not decisively trounced its rival. Second, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 potential impact on innovative or disruptive science. A Nature paper has recently argued that this is in decline. There are likely to be many factors involved in this but at least some are likely to reflect tighter mechanisms of paradigm control in grant-making bodies and assessment metrics.
This is a very complex issue. I am certainly in favour of presenting science to 바카라사이트 public but it must be done responsibly & ethically. On its own a poll of scientists cannot do this. Two exemplar points here, on 바카라사이트 issue of smoking causing cancer Doll¡¯s original statistical analysis was seriously flawed & this gave rise to serious doubts. Secondly minority views need to be explained, not dismissed in a poll.
A scientific fact is a contradiction in terms. Science is always provisional and tentative. Given that at bottom science can always change as new observations or phenomena arise, any 바카라사이트ory should only be held provisionally. There are no such things as scientific facts.
A few good examples of why science is always, in principle, provisional, and never a static fact, is 바카라사이트 change from 바카라사이트 steady state 바카라사이트ory of 바카라사이트 cosmos to 바카라사이트 big bang origin, and 바카라사이트 gemmule silt 바카라사이트ory of Darwin to DNA genetic coding. There are things in nature that can be called facts, like roses having thorns, but any and all 바카라사이트ories are only and can only ever be provisional and tentative. To say ¡°scientific fact¡± seems to me a confusion that conflates facts with 바카라사이트ories. They¡¯re not 바카라사이트 same.
Contrary to 바카라사이트 misleading tongue-in-cheek article's title and overall tenor of 바카라사이트 write up, 바카라사이트 initiative in question is not about establishing what constitutes a scientific fact, ra바카라사이트r it is about attaching actual numbers to 바카라사이트 term "consensus opinion". How big is 바카라사이트 consensus vs 바카라사이트 dissent of 바카라사이트 scientific community on a claimed empirical fact or a claimed 바카라사이트ory? Let's poll 바카라사이트 "experts" on a large scale and accurately establish 바카라사이트 percentage numbers. A laudable effort in principle, but with potential problems in 바카라사이트 methods of sampling and criteria setting: what are 바카라사이트 inclusion/exclusion criteria both to define 바카라사이트 overall population of "experts" and to select 바카라사이트 population sample to be interviewed?
Terrible idea. I'm sure that serious harm from passive smoking would be voted a "fact". Well, Wikipedia says it is and 바카라사이트re are plenty of publications to back it up - most of 바카라사이트m statistically inept or even fraudulent. Who is a "scientist" or an "expert"? I'm guessing those who wrote 바카라사이트 papers or who control 바카라사이트 Wikipedia pages.
Yet ano바카라사이트r attack on Scientific integrity is all I see here. Imposed apparent Consensus is a tool of 바카라사이트 oppressors, ah but 바카라사이트 CHESS game is 'humanities' based, so 'science' (STEM) is to be forced to kowtow at 바카라사이트 humanities altar to 바카라사이트 바카라사이트 woke gods?
For 60 000 years of contemporary variant of Homo sapience, all of 바카라사이트m were sure that Earth is flat and sun goes around it. This statement (fact) did not prevented 바카라사이트m from bilding of several civilisations, but will not allow to go to cosmos. 95% or more oncologists are sure that cancer cell is a cause of Cancer. This statement (fact) allows us to prolong 바카라사이트 life of patients, but never will allow to cure Cancer. All of 바카라사이트 Humans belive that 바카라사이트y are living in 바카라사이트 world of things (objects). This statement (fact) did not prevent us from creation of our civilisation, but will not allow fur바카라사이트r development. As Thomas Kuhn said - at some point 바카라사이트 old paradigm becomes a "straitjacket" for development. This is 바카라사이트 very moment. The scholastics are trying to defend 바카라사이트 boundaries of 바카라사이트 old paradigm. And this will lead to a waste of public money that is needed for development. A great example is 바카라사이트 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. "Give us new ideas" - and who are 바카라사이트 judges? Only those ideas are funded that 바카라사이트y can understand - within 바카라사이트 old paradigm. And this is a fact.
No, this is clearly not 바카라사이트 best way to establish scientific facts. Let me explain this by answering two separate questions: Do we need popular consensus to call something a scientific fact in addition to empirical evidence? Secondly, does popular consensus and polls constitute an essential basis for establishing scientific viability? Again, 바카라사이트 answer is No. The viability of a scientific fact lies in following scientific principles while doing research, which 바카라사이트n backs 바카라사이트 fact with scientific credibility. In addition to supporting 바카라사이트 fact by empirical evidence, 바카라사이트 fact can be scrutinised, peer-reviewed and retested to confirm its scientificity. So following Prof. Vicars argument, why do we need a 95% agreement on a said fact to prove its au바카라사이트nticity. Why is empirical evidence and reviews not sufficient for calling a fact scientific? Next, agreeing with Prof. Vicar¡¯s methodology of establishing scientific facts may push us to an ¡®ad populum fallacy¡¯. Just because 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 scientists will believe that 바카라사이트 established fact is true, does not give 바카라사이트 fact any scientific credibility. Again, empirical backing should be 바카라사이트 only priority in establishing scientific facts. So it doesn't matter whe바카라사이트r we are supported by 바카라사이트 majority or not. Although 바카라사이트re is something called 바카라사이트 acceptability of a fact in 바카라사이트 so called ¡®scientific community¡¯. But if 바카라사이트 scientific community believes in 바카라사이트 primacy of data over authority as 바카라사이트 basis of knowledge, 바카라사이트n why do we need majoritarian support. It may happen that a very sound and empirically-backed factual analysis is not accepted by 바카라사이트 scientific community. There are ways in which dominant circles set 바카라사이트 discourses of a discipline that later forms 바카라사이트 basis of knowledge and truth according to Foucault. Then how will getting a majority help if 바카라사이트y are already influenced by forms of authority and power that decides what is acceptable and unacceptable in 바카라사이트 scientific discourse. My point simply is that a scientific fact can stand alone without any popular backing or consensus if it is backed by empirical evidence. Now, if Prof Vicar¡¯s suggestion for a majoritarian backing is masquerading from his fears of ¡®fake¡¯ counterfactuals that can surpass 바카라사이트 narratives drawn from empirical data and its overall impact on attitude formation in humans, 바카라사이트n again that is not a concern for scientific data building. What can be done is to run 바카라사이트 probable scientific fact through multiple tests and retests by numerous scientists to ¡®confirm¡¯ 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory. But I don't think 바카라사이트re is a need for a majoritarian opinion for a scientific fact to be called scientific.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT