Science AMA Series: We're a social scientist & physical scientist who just launched Evidence Squared, a podcast on the science of why science fails to persuade. Ask Us Anything!

Hi, I have three questions marked in bold below with some context. Personally it seems that pressing science as a justification for policy is always going to backfire because it is so easy to hijack so why do you work towards pressing it towards the debate. Recent research seems to suggest that simplified explanations and soundbites reduce trust in experts because they assert too much, which is a natural thing to distrust. It is because it is difficult for everyday people to weigh in on the details and most media is geared towards short soundbites which results in complexity being lost and each side having to aggressively assert an opinion for fear of having admitted they were wrong. This attitude polarizes those in the middle but also moves the public dialogue away from the aspects that the public actually can weigh in on. These are values like – adopt energy policy that reduces reliance on foreign nations etc etc etc. There is then a lot more room for an engaged democracy. Heres a broad question to start off. What role do you think the means by which we consume information ie fast and short media plays in determining the effectiveness of science in policy debate? Was science a more robust influence on policy and policy makers decades or hundreds of years ago or is this a common theme that has just been recognized more broadly in the digital age?

On the subject of partisanship, there is (seemingly) little to no attempt at education by the side that professes a monopoly on knowledge. By this I mean resources that are purely science based, that separate the certain bits from the uncertain bits so we can get to focusing on what is important. Not just blogs/news etc, but even textbooks have a spin to them which is unnecessary when the aim is to learn science and assess evidence. How are we supposed to find common ground without resources to educate on science without bringing policy or advocacy into it? Take Skeptical Science for example, it is essentially a site aimed at people that already 'believe' in climate change so that they can shit on anyone who disagrees with them on the internet. Compare that with say Science of Doom which acts to educate from the basics up and acts as a non-controversial resource I can recommend to anyone with any uncertainties. If you were to restart Skeptical Science, do you think that you would change your approach now that you are familiar with a lot more research on science communication? A quantification of scientific consensus does nothing to increase certainty but merely tells people scientists are certain - the problem then lies in the definition of what they are certain about which is often that there is a certainty of catastrophic climate change that demands extreme policy changes. This consensus has been a strongly worked over talking point. Are you sure it (the consensus project) has done more good than bad in the public sphere?

/r/science Thread