Vibe check for Sep 29

Responses by PHIL 006 students, clustered using snowflake-arctic-embed2 and gpt-oss:20b

id	quote	question	answer
Industry Misinformation Accountability
9	Some particularly influential articles published in journals like Scientific American, Science, and the Journal of the American Medical Association were later found in a court case to contain apparent falsifications. When a prominent environmentalist attempted to publicize these findings, industry scientists sued him for libel.	Why can industries get away with hiding this information, should this type of misinformation lead to your credentials taken/inspected, and what other cases have had similar situations?	Industires can get away with doing this because they have money and they influence the American economy and provide many materials other companies need to make their product. I feel like if you get caught purposely spreading misinformation you should get a three strike warning with your credientals
Values as Evidence
5	“Thus, deeply held values can actually promote scientific uncertainty, in the sense that people will work very hard (both consciously and subconsciously) to challenge scientific evidence that conflicts with their values” (103).	Why is it the case that we feel the need to defend our values? How do we prevent this feeling from clouding our judgments?	I think it has to do with why we have confirmation bias which is that we assume we’re right. Moreover we assume the things we’ve chosen to believe are right. The sources they come from whether that be certain news, books, or people. When we feel any of these beliefs are under attack we feel the need to protect the thing in our camp.
11	Values influence science directly when values are treated as if they are a form of evidence. For example, if environmentally oriented scientist decided to adopt the conclusion that dioxin is harmful whether or not the evidence supported their position, they would apparently be allowing values to influence them directly(93).	Do values need to be treated as evidence to have a direct influence of science or are there other ways? What are the scientific concerns when values are treated as a form of evidence? Should science ever disregard evidence to support a conclusion?	values don’t necessarily need to be treated as evidence to have a direct influence in science. For example, values have a direct impact on choosing and funding research projects. Some scientific concerns when values are treated as a form of evidence, could include wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and loss of reliability.
Bold vs Cautious Messaging
6	When scientists tried to be responsible and carefully couch their findings in caveats and discussions of uncertainty, they lost the public attention that their claims merited	Is a more informed public a way to solve this issue? If so, is there a good way to make this happen?	I think if the public was aware of and knowledgeable about the topic, they might be more likely to pay attention to any findings that may be important. I do not think there is a good way for the general public to become knowledgeable about every topic, but maybe advertisement one way to accomplish this.
8	In other words, Kerr observed that when scientists tried to be responsible and carefully couch their findings in caveats and discussions of uncertainty, they lost the public attention that their claims merited. Therefore, Hansen decided that sometimes its more socially responsible to make somewhat bold, relatively straightforward claims in an effort to attract adequate public attention”(90)	If scientists didn’t care about the publics attention but rather focused on their values, how more advancements would society benefit from it?	I believe in someway it would be good as scientists would focus on the important parts rather than satisfying the people but there would be a lot more risk when it comes to focusing on your own values as there would be a lot more mistakes made with the freedom given.
Premature Disclosure Risks
2	In contrast, Hansen weighed the pros and cons differently and concluded that the most socially responsible approach was to alert the public to extreme weather events that they could face. He told reporters after his testimony that it was important to “stop waffling, and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” (86)	Is it better to share what what has been gathered so far or withhold claims until more evidence is gathered? What are pros/cons of each side?	In some cases, people may be seeking answers and will take anything they can get just to feel some certainty. In this regard, maybe researchers feel pressured to put something out there, and so it ends up not being a complete picture they paint. Regardless, it is part of a whole picture, and that gives people an idea of what’s going on, which i would say is good. But with the picture incomplete, it could lead to people being misled about the whole truth. There is a clear difference between the two approaches, with one being faster and not fully complete, and the other taking longer but giving a thorough report.
7	“weighed the costs of being wrong versus the costs of not talking,” and he concluded that it was best to draw greater public attention to the existence of climate change and its possible effects.“(84)	When has drawing attention gone wrong in our history?	While not directly involved in climate change an example of the the US government stating an incorrect fact before enough evidence was gathered, that Iraq possessed mass weapons of destruction that lead to the invasion of Iraq and the none existent WMD program was a very expensive war that cost several lives and forever changed the relationship of the US and Middle East.
12	Therefore, Hansen decided that sometimes it is more socially responsible to make somewhat bold, relatively straightforward claims in an effort to attract adequate public attention” (Elliott, 90)	Should we be criticizing the method of making quick conclusions when they are effectively done to protect public concerns and bring awareness, or is it such a large issue that these few incidents are worth criticizing?	This method may have had consequences if the conclusions were wrong, but they would not have been as negative as if the information was never presented in the first place. They were used appropriately and don’t deserve such widespread criticism.
Misinformation & Public Perception
1	“This manufactured uncertainty is not the sort of uncertainty that scientists talk about in their papers, but rather a public perception of uncertainty or controversy that helped to prevent policy action to address climate change”	If there are organizations dedicated to stirring up scientific doubt and controversy in the public how should scientists respond? and Should these organizations face consequences for intentionally spreading misinformation?	As Elliot said scientists can not just respond by constantly repeating the facts about the situation to de bunk the misinformation. In the ideal case that approach would work but we can see that is is relatively ineffective. A possibility Elliott proposes the solution might be in broader value debates that the narrow scientific debates don’t address. I think this is a step in the right direction as they may be the root of disagreement and the source of their denial of scientific evidence. I also think more should be done to shield against this type of misinformation spreading such as legal consequences for the organizations responsible (only in case where there is clear intentional misinformation speading).
3	We have seen that scientists seeking to communicate responsibly in these sorts of cases—where there is a good deal of uncertainty and important ramifications for the public—face a challenging conflict between different values. On one hand, if they attempt to be very cautious and to avoid making any questionable interpretations of the available data, they run the risk of failing to warn society of important threats. They also risk leaving policymakers confused and unable to make informed decisions. On the other hand, if they take greater liberties in interpreting data and drawing conclusions, they run the risk of losing their objectivity and drawing false conclusions that are influenced by their personal values.	In cases such as this, where it appears both sides can backfire horribly by attempting to be responsible. How do we approach very intricate situations like this?	The best approach I can think of is possibly a balanced approach of trying to be as certain as possible with a mixture of some very informed and calculated guesses.
4	Faced with this apparent conflict between the values of serving society and promoting objectivity, many scientists are likely to lean toward interpreting the available information cautiously and promoting objectivity, many scientists are likely to lean toward interpreting the available information cautiously and avoiding any controversial interpretations.	Does objectivity create miscommunication in science communication because it can be considered too broad?	Yes, objectivity creates miscommunication in science commination because it makes people want to lobby things and creates general ideas which leads to more miscommunication as well as more unanswered questions.
10	When citizens are concerned about their exposure to potentially hazardous substances, they are likely to demand less evidence than scientists typically expect from each other	What could happen if a scientist tried to “weaponize” this fact for their own values by claiming that something is more dangerous than it actually is?	I assume that other scientists would clear it up rather quickly. If its someone who opposes that value, they’ll do the deeper research to prove it wrong. If its someone who agrees with the value, they’ll also do deeper research to maintain credibility for that idea. However, if it really was such a big deal in the eyes of a public, I am unsure of how long it would take for the proper research and evidence to overwrite the previously influenced feelings of citizens.