Science, social media, and the information landscape.

On scientific messaging, information transfer on social media, and desirable difficulties.

[In my previous essay, I described the thoughts that enter my mind when I think “science”. If you are yet to read that essay, I urge you to do so before reading on]

Science should stand for more than just research findings born out of a lab. From my observations, however, we are quite distant from establishing a consensus view of science that is anchored to the ‘scientific perspective’, and not solely on PubMed conclusions or black and white statements.

Encompassed by the scientific perspective are numerous scientific traits, some of which revolve around the messaging of information.

If you come across a research-based claim that is technically accurate, but either

1)    the underlying logic of the claim is flawed, or

2)    the credence awarded to the claim far-exceeds any associated uncertainties and real-world intricacies,

would you perceive the claim to be scientific? Or the individual behind the claim, to be scientific in their approach?

I think that the way a scientific message is conveyed is as important as the content of the claim itself (unless a false claim is of major risk to one’s health and safety). Personally, I’d prefer putting stock in an individual that conveys a sound scientific message, which is on average, accurate (despite potential inaccuracies here and there), as opposed to somebody who’s message always appears be accurate, but consists of flawed logic, unwarranted conviction, and a lack of intellectual humility.

It is possible for someone who is unable to formulate sound, unbiased logic, or modulate credence based on the uncertainties and limitations of research, to be correct, but is that the thought process you want bringing rise to the information you consume?

Sound scientific messaging is crucial, as information gets chewed up and spat out by social media; a nuanced paragraph is chewed up, and fragments of information are spat out. As information circulates, its precision and completeness, relative to its original form, starts to corrode, and defective messaging only accelerates this process.

What I’m describing here is a valley of information despair on social media. The original source of information, for example, a research article, is one of the few ‘peaks of accuracy’ on the information landscape. Long-form, thoughtful, and detail-oriented content, like podcast discussions also serve as peaks on the information landscape, but in many cases, are lost in the valley of information despair.

Indeed, the fragments of information circulating through social media, that appear to settle the unsettled, may imply that some complex, real-world questions, have simple answers. This is the modern issue with Occam’s Razor, a popular heuristic that supposes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Although this heuristic has utility, in certain contexts, the potential solutions proposed in a complex research article often can’t be summarised accurately in social media posts.

Upon winning his Nobel Prize, Richard Feynman was asked if he could summarise his prolific work in a single sentence. Feynman responded: “Hell! If I could explain in a few words what it was all about, it wouldn’t be worth no Nobel Prize!”

Arguments and explanations are becoming ever simpler, ignoring subtlety and complexity, and distilling issues into memes, tweets, and a short sentence or two with unwavering certainty. Some consumers of this information aren’t prepared to look deeper, beyond the superficial, evading desirable difficulties that are important for productive learning, which I propose, is doing education and learning an injustice.

I am not saying that complex topics shouldn’t be simplified at all, for people to understand; but it shouldn’t be a matter of: the simplest explanation, with the lowest cognitive strain, wins! When disseminating information to a large audience (not to one’s grandmother or a six-year-old), complex topics should be simplified enough for their essence, application, and associated uncertainties to be revealed, but no further.

My primary concern here is that people are becoming hesitant to climb to the peaks of the information landscape (e.g., read long-form articles they may not immediately understand, watch lectures, do research, read books, discuss ideas with others, have an open-mind), which in the short-term is no doubt a difficult endeavour. But getting to the top of the peaks is a desirable difficulty, where long-term learning is enhanced, and subsequently, the accuracy of information transfer is improved.