Draft skeleton structure for manifesto
Polis 1 | Polis 2
Contents of Notes (Notes from day 1 panel are under Keynote, not sure why they won't show on the TOC ☹️)
Day 1 (18 Nov)
We will introduce the workshop and why we are focusing on science communication and collective intelligence. We will hear from Prof Kai Spiekermann on the need for science communication and how it supports the pivotal role of knowledge in a functioning democracy. We will discuss the limitations of traditional models of science communication for reaching the public and policy-makers, and what collective intelligence has to offer. We aim to explore some examples of collective intelligence in science communication during the pandemic and learn from their lessons.
Notes from Keynote
- the role of science in a democracy:
- the scientific role
- creating knowledge through scientific enquiry and developing new tech (e.g., vaccines)
- the societal role
- advise on how scientific knowledge can be applied (e.g., current pandemic)
- demonstrating the values and methods that guide scientific inquiry, in action = how science actually works
- motivation by collective knowledge gains not personal advantage
- value of objectivity
- being committed to standards of reproducibility
- avoid the creeping in of personal interest in scientific research
- not meaning avoiding value judgments
- show the value of constructive debate
- importance of skepticism and query
- Science and democracy
- 2 systems of knowledge creation, each with distinct set of epistemic standards and norms, procedures and dynamics
- a scientific system
- public sphere
- information exchange between these systems
- controlled by gatekeepers (mainstream media)
- selective info flow (those who are allowed to speak for scientists, picked for reasons that can be problematic)
- characterised by skepticism about representativeness (public sceptical that those who speak are representative of science)
- Pathways to distortion of science:
- Representation—the public sphere often draws on science by identifying and consulting “the expert”, who is often a single individual, specifically selected according to (opaque?) criteria.
- Problem of undervaluing reports from single scientitsts
- Does the audience believe they are representative of the whole field?
- Single expert mental model: is the expert selected representative of a large majority? or a random draw from a divided group? If the working hypothesis is that science is divided, the representative scientists may not get recognised as such (and vice versa)
- Problem for the public is that they don't know what unselected experts really think.
- Problem of perceived cancelling
- Media selects for "balance", but this can distort the representation of a large majority, such that the public false concludes that scientific opinion is divided.