Inside Trump’s “no data, just vibes” approach to science

5️⃣ Explain Like I'm 5

Imagine you have a big box of crayons and you decide to color only with the blue ones because they're your favorite. Now, if someone asks why you aren't using red or yellow, you say because blue is the best! This is a bit like what's happening with President Trump. He likes some types of information because they make him feel good or fit what he believes. So, he's not paying much attention to other important information that could help us understand big problems, like changes in our weather. It's like he's coloring with only one part of the crayon box and ignoring all the other colors that could make the picture better.

🔟 Explain Like I'm 10

Imagine you're playing a video game where you need to make decisions based on clues and information you find along the way. If you start ignoring some clues just because they make the game harder, you might not finish the game successfully. President Trump, during his time in office, has been kind of like that player who ignores some of the clues. He hasn’t been paying attention to all the data and information from scientists, especially about the environment and health, because they don't fit what he believes or what he wants to hear. This approach is like deciding you’re not going to listen to advice from someone because it’s not what you want to do, even if the advice is good for you. It’s kind of risky because it means big decisions are made without considering all the helpful information available.

1️⃣5️⃣ Explain Like I'm 15

President Trump's approach to handling scientific data during his term has been highly selective and often dismissive, particularly concerning environmental and health data. This approach, often termed as "no data, just vibes," essentially means making decisions based on personal beliefs or the immediate political benefits rather than grounded scientific evidence. This can be problematic because it overlooks the importance of comprehensive data in policy-making, which can lead to underinformed or misinformed decisions that affect millions of people.

Historically, ignoring scientific data can lead to detrimental outcomes, like worsening climate change effects or inadequate public health responses. In the broader perspective, this approach could undermine public trust in scientific and governmental institutions, as decisions seem based more on what's politically expedient rather than what's factually correct. Moving forward, this could polarize public opinion on critical issues like climate change and public health, making it harder to address these challenges effectively. The experts in these fields generally advocate for decisions based on robust data to ensure policies are not only effective but also adaptable to new discoveries and technologies.