Research by philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, Byron Hyde, looked at the role of transparency in fostering public trust in science.
The study revealed that, while transparency about good news increases trust, transparency about bad news, such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments, decreases it.
Yes, that’s generally how a Bayesian agent would determine the extent to which an institution is trustworthy. A failed attempt to hide “bad news” would be stronger evidence that an institution is not trustworthy than a frank admission is, but that frank admission is still a reason to revise one’s estimate of trustworthiness downwards.
The missing piece is that hiding bad news should be harder. For example, if you’re a researcher and all you claim from your research are the good news, people (and the ideal Bayesian agent) should immediately suspect “maybe they’re hiding the bad news”.
Yes, that’s generally how a Bayesian agent would determine the extent to which an institution is trustworthy. A failed attempt to hide “bad news” would be stronger evidence that an institution is not trustworthy than a frank admission is, but that frank admission is still a reason to revise one’s estimate of trustworthiness downwards.
The missing piece is that hiding bad news should be harder. For example, if you’re a researcher and all you claim from your research are the good news, people (and the ideal Bayesian agent) should immediately suspect “maybe they’re hiding the bad news”.