Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science • Hacker News Board

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#21

Post by finid » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

veidr wrote: post #7

melling wrote: post #2

Funny, today on the Drudge Report, I read that we've had record cooling in the past 8 months. http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/record-global-cooling-... There's a large online anti-global warming movement that needs to be addressed. Actually, there's an anti-everyhing movement (e.g vaccines). The general public is not going to know who to believe. Do more people read Drudge or Scientific American?

Sadly, you probably already intuitively know the answer. Scientific American annual circulation[1]: 425,000 Drudge Report monthly unique visitors[2]: 25,000,000 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American [2]: https://www.quantcast.com/drudgereport.com?country=US

You're comparing the circulation of the physical magazine to online metrics of Drudge Report. Not good, my friend, not good.

Do the right thing, and compare unique visitors of SciAm website to that of Drudge Report.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#22

Post by millettjon » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…

If a large portion of the population does not value or understand science, how can you have a rational debate on values?

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#23

Post by SonicSoul » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…

its hard to do an objective value based analysis because it's hard to put a price on environment. That's the problem with capitalism. Making the world better for our kids does not maximize shareholder value. We can at least be honest with ourselves instead of simply denying facts to justify our decisions

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#24

Post by mattnewton » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…

I think a lot of people don't need to infer scientific illiteracy from policy, they can take it from the horse's mouth.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/26/mobile-cli...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ben-carson-argued-ev...

Etc etc

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#25

Post by nonbel » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #10

nonbel wrote: post #3

The impression that schools and media gives of how "science" is being implemented these days is inaccurate enough that I would call it propaganda. The reality is that the research literature is filled with over 90% junk, and a small percent of value, just like everything else. The funding and publication system is set up to force this junk percentage as high as the public will tolerate, so I do not think this "positi…

> The reality is that the research literature is filled with over 90% jun Based on what? There is a problem of non-replicated papers - but where exactly are you getting your claim of 9 out of 10 - particularly in high quality journals?

Personal experience. It is great that the replication issue is getting attention, but really that is a minor aspect of the problem. Producing reproducible reports of your research is supposed to be the easy part... The real difficulty is how results are interpreted.

What I was taught to do (along with basically my entire worldwide cohort of research colleagues) is test a "null hypothesis" rather than my hypothesis. Then when the null hypothesis was deemed to be inconsistent with the data, I was supposed to conclude my hypothesis was supported, with at most some hand-waving about other explanations.

A crucial part of scientific research is distinguishing between different explanations for the results, and this is almost never found (at least for fields like medicine, psych, etc). If we can get the public eye to look behind that curtain, oh man...

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#26

Post by tzs » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…

> In the case of climate change, it's pretending that there's cost/benefit analysis to be done. It ignores the possibility that the cost of doing something will exceed the likely damage expected. (I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that folks are trying to skip that part of the conversation)

In the case of climate change, we can't even get to the cost/benefit analysis part of the conversation because some people (including the presedint-elect, and important members of the majority party in Congress who lead the committees that where climate action would originate) say that climate change is not happening, or that if it is happening humans are not contributing to it and cannot do anything about it.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#27

Post by MrZongle2 » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

touleier wrote: post #11

Taking Dan Rather's advice on a responsible attitude to science is like going to Bill Cosby for dating advice, or asking Rolf Harris to run your kindergarten. Booted from CBS in disgrace for confusing journalism with character assassination. Read the original CBS report. "This man is a truth teller". Indeed. Here is the full report. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report...

I'm glad somebody brought this up. Rather is no Cronkite, Murrow or Brinkley: the Killian documents debacle demonstrated that he was sloppy at best, and was more interested in pushing a political agenda than digging for the truth. That's the antithesis of science.

This doesn't invalidate the need for climate change research -- not by far! -- but he shouldn't be the poster boy for any fact-based cause at this point.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#28

Post by nsxwolf » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

millettjon wrote: post #22

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…

If a large portion of the population does not value or understand science, how can you have a rational debate on values?

Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept, and future policy decisions should reflect that consensus.

You'd resist those policy proposals, and I think most people would. You'd base that resistance on your values - values, which in this case at least, you did NOT derive from the scientific consensus.

My point is there are non-scientific origins for value systems, and they are more real and valid than scientifically derived ones - science can only give you facts about the material universe.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#29

Post by gbrs » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

mordocai wrote: post #16

veidr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were made by people thinking they were glorifying god by doing their work. Faith and science go together just fine, and I say this as a hard atheist.

Doesn't that depend on the religion though? Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation. I think most people will accept the evidence as long as it doesn't go against some of their core beliefs (which can be expanded beyond religion). It's just that for a lot of scientific discoveries there is at least one group that refuses to accept it.

Re: Dan Rather: Now, More Than Ever, We Must Stand Up for Science

#30

Post by bitwize » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #17

These claims that we must do what science dictates are self-serving, and the ongoing chant is getting really tiresome. Science does not lead inexorably to policy. Science is only the first step, in how it allows us to understand the world around us. What we want to do about that is an entirely value-based decision. Deciding to implement policy demands filtering that understanding through a lens of our collective valu…

You can either wait around for the market to catch up with reality and account for the externalities of environmental damage, or you can pass government regulations that help fix or mitigate the damage NOW. Case in point: the bans on CFCs and agricultural DDT.