The thing about scientists and us other "smart people" is that we're just as emotional as anybody, but because we try so hard not to be it comes out in hard-to-understand ways, and leads to us being extra pushy when we think we're right. The fact that we can't see this about ourselves, predominantly, makes a lot of people pretty skeptical about us.
If we actually are generally smart, and have no pride, I imagine we'd eventually get pretty good at understanding people for who they are, what they want, and how to persuade them.
Just for example, talking to friends or family it becomes pretty clear that they don't have an accurate mental picture of the size of the scientific community, or the level of rigor and scrutiny their work goes through (often because what they read in the news sounds spurious - coffee causes/prevents cancer). I understand this natural skepticism, because other authorities (e.g. politicians, church) are often incredibly confident and wrong. The reason the scientific community has an merit isn't their number, isn't the titles, isn't their lab coats (religion has number, titles, and costumes). It's their method, but many people have never even been notified of that difference.
When I hear "W.H.O." this or that, it's meaningless to me. All I know is that's an acronym. Do I know if the people who work there are scientists or politicians? Do I know if they are well vetted? Do I know if they have any financial interests? It's a pure appeal to authority.
During COVID, it seems there was more a concentration on trying to persuade people than to inform. A big example is at the beginning where masks were not recommended, even though the scientists knew they were effective, in an effort to try to maintain stockpiles for medical professionals and hospitals. Although this was understandable, it lost a lot of trust with the public.
Persuasion is often a side effect of engagement. Well written facts, even without persuasive language, can still give the impression that the listed facts are more important than other ones.
Two facts from March 2020:
We have a shortage of masks.
Masks keep you from spreading disease.
If you read an engaging article about fact 2, you'll likely ignore fact 1.
If we actually are generally smart, and have no pride, I imagine we'd eventually get pretty good at understanding people for who they are, what they want, and how to persuade them.
Just for example, talking to friends or family it becomes pretty clear that they don't have an accurate mental picture of the size of the scientific community, or the level of rigor and scrutiny their work goes through (often because what they read in the news sounds spurious - coffee causes/prevents cancer). I understand this natural skepticism, because other authorities (e.g. politicians, church) are often incredibly confident and wrong. The reason the scientific community has an merit isn't their number, isn't the titles, isn't their lab coats (religion has number, titles, and costumes). It's their method, but many people have never even been notified of that difference.
When I hear "W.H.O." this or that, it's meaningless to me. All I know is that's an acronym. Do I know if the people who work there are scientists or politicians? Do I know if they are well vetted? Do I know if they have any financial interests? It's a pure appeal to authority.