O que é realidade na era da pós-verdade? | Nerdologia

Summary

This video delves into the impact of misinformation and public pressure on scientific decision-making, using the cases of thalidomide and phosphoethanolamine as key examples. The narrative explores how popular demand sometimes contradicts scientific evidence, as seen in the Brazilian government's approval of the 'Cancer Pill.' It also touches on the evolving role of science in society, questioning how we perceive scientific truths, influenced by social media and information overload. The video stresses the importance of a self-correcting scientific community and advocates for continuous inquiry to ensure progress and trust in science.

Takeaways

• 😀 The script discusses how misinformation and fake news are prevalent and how we need to question the status quo.
• 😀 The example of the thalidomide tragedy highlights how scientific evidence sometimes gets ignored or misused by the public and government, leading to widespread harm.
• 😀 The controversial case of fosfoethanolamine, the so-called 'cancer pill,' illustrates the dangers of public pressure overriding scientific evidence.
• 😀 The script emphasizes that public opinion, even when influenced by emotions, often competes with scientific evidence, which can affect societal changes.
• 😀 Bruno Latour's philosophy argues that science should be questioned, not just accepted, and that scientific knowledge is a product of human work and not an absolute truth.
• 😀 The author compares the story of Hari Seldon from Isaac Asimov's 'Foundation,' highlighting how scientific truths can be inaccessible or misunderstood by the general public.
• 😀 It points out that the evolution of scientific ideas is a process of constant questioning and refining, not the pursuit of unchanging absolute truths.
• 😀 The script explains that scientific truths are created and defended by human beings, making them subject to interpretation and challenge.
• 😀 A key point is that science and society often speak different languages, and science cannot always expect the public to accept its conclusions without understanding the underlying processes.
• 😀 The growing influence of social media and its role in shaping public opinion is critiqued, showing how algorithms prioritize content that may mix personal opinions with factual information.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video script?

The main focus is on how scientific knowledge is communicated, the importance of questioning science, and how popular opinion and pressure can influence scientific decisions, sometimes leading to both positive and negative outcomes.

How does the video use the example of thalidomide to explain the importance of scientific regulation?

The video highlights the tragic consequences of thalidomide in the 1950s and 1960s, where the drug caused birth defects. It emphasizes how the lack of regulation led to harm, and how public pressure eventually led to more effective regulation of drugs in Brazil.

What was the public reaction to phosfoetanolamina in Brazil in 2015?

In 2015, there was significant public pressure for the approval of phosfoetanolamina as a potential cancer cure, even though the drug was not scientifically proven to be effective. The Brazilian Congress fast-tracked its approval, which was later reversed after research and investigations proved the drug was ineffective.

What does the video suggest about the role of public pressure in scientific decisions?

The video suggests that public pressure can have a strong impact on scientific and political decisions, sometimes leading to harmful outcomes if not based on proper evidence. However, it can also prompt positive changes, such as when it led to better drug regulation after the thalidomide tragedy.

What role does the concept of science as a social construct play in the script?

The script incorporates the idea that science is not an absolute truth but a social construct shaped by human interpretation, biases, and decisions. It refers to philosophers like Bruno Latour, who argue that science should be viewed critically and questioned, as it is the product of collective human effort.

How does the video use the example of Isaac Asimov's 'Foundation' to illustrate the relationship between science and society?

The video references Asimov's 'Foundation' to highlight the tension between scientific knowledge and societal understanding. It draws a parallel with the idea that society does not always accept scientific truths without question, as depicted in the book where mathematical proofs are inaccessible to the common people.

What critique of science does the video present through Bruno Latour's work?

Bruno Latour critiques the view that science is purely objective. He emphasizes that science is influenced by human actions and biases. The video suggests that science should be seen as a process of constant questioning and self-correction rather than as a final, unquestionable truth.

How does the video explain the concept of 'post-truth' and its relationship to social media?

The video discusses the rise of 'post-truth,' where emotions and beliefs sometimes outweigh objective facts, especially on social media. It highlights how platforms like Facebook prioritize content based on algorithms, leading to a mix of personal opinions and institutional information, which can blur the line between fact and opinion.

What does the video suggest about the scientific process of self-correction?

The video suggests that one of the strengths of science is its ability to self-correct. It argues that the scientific process is dynamic, where errors are identified and corrected through peer review, experimentation, and ongoing research, which refines scientific knowledge over time.

Why does the video mention the philosopher Alan Sokal and his critique of scientific objectivity?

The video mentions Alan Sokal to illustrate the tension between objective science and its critique by philosophers like Latour. Sokal famously published a parody article in a scientific journal to expose the flaws in certain intellectual approaches, particularly those questioning scientific authority without solid evidence.