one major roadblock in getting credible information to the masses is the divide between experts and communicators. most experts aren't communicators and most communicators aren't experts. this often results in research being spun with a narrative by the time it reaches the public

research makes descriptive claims, while humans draw prescriptive claims from it. these interpretations are often necessary to discover the "why" and "how," but one fact remains: the experts who do the work itself are the ones with the best interpretation of their own methodology

since experts are often inadequate communicators, this allows space for anyone with a microphone to interpret their research however they want and project it to the masses, even if it directly opposes their conclusions. this drives partisan divide, as well as fringe conspiracies

there are cases when experts oppose the conclusions of other experts within their specific fields. that debate and refining is part of the scientific process, but just because someone is an expert in (x) doesn't mean they're an expert in (y), and each expert's credentials vary

many people seek out fringe dissenters of an expert consensus to reinforce their biases, and many times those dissenters are not credentialed in the relevant area, meaning they are:

1) wrong
2) wrong / acting in bad faith
3) wrong / a useful idiot
4) the next galileo (unlikely)

the vast majority of any population look to communicators (often entertainers) for answers. because of this, we need to demand higher standards of our communicators when dealing with expert information, and we also need to encourage our experts to become better communicators

if people can be educated on the motivated reasoning behind where they get information from, while remaining open to expert consensus, there's room for thoughtful discussion that will hopefully bend toward the truth. but it has to start with genuine understanding

steak-umm bless