Scientists have to list all the sources they use. And they quickly get called out for doing mistakes in that regard and suffer a loss of trust in their work.

What would happen if everything politicians say or write had to contain sources?

Speeches are prepared anyway, so you have to publish all the sources of your speech right after you held it. Saying things differently than in the source would be illegal.

I think it would be quite interesting, and a completely different way to do politics.

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t think science has been successful in fields like sociology or psychology in the same way that it has been in hard sciences like physics.

    • SnuggleSnail@ani.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s pretty incredible what we know about history, just from guessing by what we find and second guessing the first guess with more findings.

      Or how we know pretty much all steps how the language evolved from Latin, thousands of years ago, to Italian, which is spoken today.

      What I despise is when things are quite clear and politics just act like we would not know. Like how „brain drain“ is still a valid talking point while science already knows it’s false.