To make it fast.. yes scientists shuld be very careful when they talk , explaining what they know, what are the prediction, guesses.. a lot of details. If they get worrisome data they should say so.. but not alarm with stupid not-cehecked scenario..
I agree with that.. the point is... they should do that ONLY WHEN TALKING TO OTHER SCIENTISTS USING THE SAME NARRATIVE.
As strange as it may seem saying the truth to someone in a completely different narrative (wavelength we used to say) is typically a lie. I know it might sound strange... an example?
take the case of spain and water. All the predictions show strong and virulent stroms (more than now) but stronger and deeper drought. The details are not clear and depends on a lot of details.. but the data so far is worrisome..and the prediction lead to basically the same conclusion (different strength). Climatologists in Spain know that it is very worrrisome, that the worst scenario could cause serious problems...actually huge problems, they can debate the probabilitites, their own opinion... but what they should say the average voter in Spain??
Ei.. do not worry it is not the end of the world you guys!!... well this would be a lie. In a society where no show business mean no business this is not the way to proceed (even more taking into account the blatant lies from the money interests of some industries).
So , the correct way (according to my point of view) is to put the correct information out there. Anyone in the same narrative wavelength will get the nuance.. but you would be actually lying if you would not describe the situation in dramatic terms...in TV stations
So bar end of the world scenarios or end of the present civilization as we know it... I will agree with quite any metaphor used on the field.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
Two things. Firstly, I always return a question. It's fine with me to use two different frameworks, packaging, narrative as you say. Lies to children. I do the same when I was busy teaching. But does everyone other than scientists and capable to understand the distinction between the two narratives need to believe the lie to make it real? That's what bugs me, and I find it fundamentally wrong if so.
Al Gore's movie works to educate the larger public on global warming. It also contains nonsense. In fact, it has enough inconsistencies that some Dutch newspapers written for an audience that can handle science to a degree have criticised Gore's movie at those points. And that shows an exception to what I find to be sorely lacking in intellectual circles: those who can distinguish the lies for children, no longer are given the chance to do so. We all become children in the process. I ask you: Do we want that? Is it necessary?
Secondly, I will start with another example. For the past 24 hours the EU has began a new and severe set of guidelines to regulate liquid transportation at airplanes. A 100 ml max total, toothpaste, moisturiser, apples etc end up in sealed bags. Comments are beginning to trickle in and from the expert mood I receive the impression that this policy is fabricated in haste and with a severe lack of understanding in liquid explosives. In other words, the policy has increased tediousness, while it is stupid and worst of all: the security may get so focussed on watching for illegal liquids, it detracts attention from possible real threats. Today I read about ceramic knifes which will pass through the metallic detector without a beep - who will watch for that? The guard wrapping up Axe showergel?
As Plan9 eloquently wrote, playing Chicken Little. And this went straight to the highest political circles, out rolled a policy.... and it seems foolish! I sincerely believe myth making can potentially have adverse results or become counter-productive in the decision making, and I'm strongly getting signs the aviation liquid policy is just one more example.
Just to say: There are at least two sides of this coin. Perhaps more.
