[Tanny (OP)]

With many thanks to evan_au, I just subscribed to the mailing list for this site....

https://www.cser.ac.uk/

The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk is an interdisciplinary research centre at CRASSH within the University of Cambridge dedicated to the study and mitigation of risks that could lead to human extinction or civilisational collapse.

It seems to me they are doing very important work.  But as best I can tell so far, they appear not to have a mechanism for DIALOG with the general public.

If I understand correctly, this Naked Scientist site is focused to some degree on explaining science to the general public.  Thus, it seems this site might further it's mission by providing a deeper conversational bridge between CSER and general public visitors such as myself.

How do we make that happen? 

How might the mods manage such conversations so they are as open to the public as possible, but still interesting enough to engage those who work in this field?

I'm a retired forum software developer, so such questions are always of interest here.  What are your thoughts?

[Tanny (OP)]

Operating from a position of ignorance on this topic, here's an attempt to list possible obstacles obstructing this proposal.  Emphasis, these are not assertions, but questions.

1) CSER doesn't want to talk to the public?

2) Naked Scientists don't want to talk any further with CSER?

3) This forum is for fooling around and not serious conversation?

4) This forum is for serious conservation, but not for organizing effective action?

5) Nobody saw this thread, and that's a good thing?

6) Forum mods have no idea how to craft a conversation environment that people like themselves would want to use?

7) We're waiting for someone without scientific credentials to extend an invitation to CSER so that the invitation will be completely ignored?

Other?

[Bored chemist]

But as best I can tell so far, they appear not to have a mechanism for DIALOG with the general public.

That's disappointing. You would think that would at least have a web site and some sort of mailing list you can sign up to.

[Zer0]

This Additional Information might also be Helpful.

Centre for the Study of EXISTENTIAL RISK.

Offers of support
We are actively seeking support. If you’re interested in supporting our mission to study and reduce existential risk, please get in touch for an initial conversation.
EMAIL US - admin@cser.org

Other enquiries
Please feel free to get in touch.
(+44) 0122-3766-838

Our address
We're located in the centre of Cambirdge.
Centre for the Study of Existential Risk
16 Mill Lane
Cambridge, CB2 1SB
United Kingdom

I personally do not think the CSER would be Interested in knowing/hearing the opinions/views of TheNakedScientists Forum.
And if they are, they could easily collect Data in Guest modes.
Besides it seems all their data is already being made Public.
Still creating a Bridge between "them" & "us" although not an impossible feat, would most certainly depend upon Them(more) & Us(less).
👍

[Tanny (OP)]

That's disappointing. You would think that would at least have a web site and some sort of mailing list you can sign up to.

They do have a web site, and mailing list you can sign up to, as reported in the first sentence of this thread.

[Tanny (OP)]

I personally do not think the CSER would be Interested in knowing/hearing the opinions/views of TheNakedScientists Forum.

That makes sense.  If they wanted to engage the public in real dialog, they'd probably already have a mechanism for that.  Personally, I don't feel that Facebook and Twitter pages etc qualify.   

It's not just CSER, and it's not just scientists, most websites are about talking TO the audience, not WITH the audience.  It seems this should be said in fairness.  And it's not just websites, generally speaking much of the time, humans want to talk, not listen.

I think CSER might be interested in talking with the Naked Scientists themselves, after all, they did do an interview with them.   I found that article to be informative and useful, and thank you for linking us to it.  An ongoing public exchange on the forum limited to the scientists would be better than nothing.

The problem I see is this. 

As best I can tell, neither CSER or the Naked Scientists fully grasp the implications of the accelerating knowledge explosion, making them representative of science culture as a whole, imho.  See my other posts for further explanation.

I think we can rule out lack of intelligence or education as being the cause of that limitation.  I sense the problem is instead that academics and scientists are locked inside a career system which is not going to reward anyone who challenges the foundation of that system, our "more is better" relationship with knowledge.  There's a built-in disincentive to see the big picture.  Too scary, can't go there!

While we in the peanut gallery public are not as educated or articulate as academics generally speaking, we don't suffer from this built-in bias.  We can afford to make mistakes, look ridiculous, follow the logic where ever it leads etc. 

Imho, scientists lock out the public at their peril.  As more and more people come to understand that scientists don't actually fully understand the knowledge explosion they are leading, and that we in the public could suffer dearly for that, the credibility of the scientific community, and thus funding, could take a substantial hit.  It would be in everybody's interest that the knowledge explosion challenge be seen as a problem we are all facing together.

Still creating a Bridge between "them" & "us" although not an impossible feat, would most certainly depend upon Them(more) & Us(less).

Well, recognizing that this is unlikely to ever happen, I would say that right now the possibility depends on some Naked Scientist making a credible invitation to the CSER.

[alancalverd]

Not sure what "public" input would be useful that is not already by definition in the public domain.

It seems that CSER doesn't consult with Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk in the Statistical Laboratory at the University of Cambridge. Since his department is tasked with the public communication of risk, I wonder why not?

[Tanny (OP)]

Not sure what "public" input would be useful that is not already by definition in the public domain.

Please link us to the public or scientific commentary which explores how our simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge is increasingly outdated and dangerous.   

Sincerely, I don't claim to know the entire Internet.  If somebody else is talking about this in an intelligent manner, public or scientist, I'd be most happy to learn about them.

[alancalverd]

our simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge is increasingly outdated and dangerous.   

Please supply an example, and describe the logic that extends this to a generality.

[chris]

depends on some Naked Scientist making a credible invitation to the CSER.

We do speak with them, in a variety of contexts; recently we featured CSER members on the programme about artificial intelligence.

And before that we made a show with them about Maverick Rooms and Maverick Scientists saving the world.

[Tanny (OP)]

Please supply an example, and describe the logic that extends this to a generality.

Good God man, are you daft??  That's exactly what I've been doing in an excessive number of threads ever since I got here, most of which you've replied to repeatedly.