Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 112 posts

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

#31

Post by ancap »

SonicSoul wrote: post #23
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

Capitalism has no problem with pricing the environment. It is governments which have prevented it from doing so. Privatize the skies, oceans and lands and you would clearly see the prices come into play. Now we could argue about the merits of doing such, but claiming a man tied to a chair is incapable of walking is incorrect.

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

#32

Post by guscost »

tzs wrote: post #26
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 som…

> In the case of climate change, we can't even get to the cost/benefit analysis part of the conversation

Sorry? We were already at the "let's bribe farmers to grow extra corn and then burn it for fuel" stage, years ago.

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

#33

Post by CWuestefeld »

ancap wrote: post #31
SonicSoul wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Capitalism has no problem with pricing the environment. It is governments which have prevented it from doing so. Privatize the skies, oceans and lands and you would clearly see the prices come into play. Now we could argue about the merits of doing such, but claiming a man tied to a chair is incapable of walking is incorrect.

This is correct. The problem isn't capitalism, except in that we don't have enough of it. Our framework for private property won't recognize rights in air or running water, and so they become an easy sink for externalities.

If someone contaminates your land (say, by spilling heating oil), there's a well-defined path for recovering the damages. But since we don't recognize an owner of air or water, when those are contaminated, there's nobody who can claim damages.

By not fully recognizing property rights, we lose the ability to prevent polluters from externalizing their costs.

EDIT: s/Or/Our/

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

#34

Post by intended »

nonbel wrote: post #20
qntty wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we need not better debate, but better dogma. It shouldn't be necessary to argue that climate change is real every time the topic comes up. Just like we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer, we should dogmatically accept that climate change is happening and it's caused by us. The science that establishes this fact is far beyond anything that the general public should be expected to understand. I don't…

>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer" The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", everything seems to "cause" cancer: >"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogen…

How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse.

I ask because while I think its an awful conclusion, I've seen and experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized to what we see today.

The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication problem - because science has been DESPERATELY trying to do that in whatever fair and logical manner they can.

It's been met by concerted efforts to confuse, muddle, emotionalize, subvert, defund, ridicule, and physically attack people on what used to be "boring nerd territory".

This is a political/emotional problem, and for that, isn't dogma a horrid but simplistic solution.

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

#35

Post by treehau5 »

gbrs wrote: post #29
mordocai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation

Certain types of Christian denominations tend to strongly profess biblical literalism, which encourages this type of thinking, but this isn't representative of the entire group. This type of thinking is what enforces the problem I mentioned. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I have yet to find some type of scientific discovery incompatible with my faith -- how silly would this be regardless. If science is true observation of God's earth, and God is indeed the creator of all, the contradictions only arise when we use flawed logic or reasoning (for example -- biblical literalism and mis-interpretation). The problem is, as I mentioned, when we use science as political tools, or to draw vague conclusions or hasty generalizations.

Side note: evangelicalism, while being the loudest and most representative form of Christianity in the states, doesn't even crack the top 10 of largest denomination of Christians in the world. Catholic is first, Eastern Orthodoxy is second, then the various Protestant denominations are all after.

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

#36

Post by veidr »

finid wrote: post #21
veidr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, point taken... so maybe still roughly 25:1 in favor of science isn't real? [1]

[1]: https://www.quantcast.com/scientificamerican.com

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

#37

Post by nonbel »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #9
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…

I think your interpretation of the situation is a bit off. The 90% number, best I can tell, comes from a rather limited meta study which found the papers they tried to replicate had a low repoducablity rate. Note this doesn't immediately make them "junk" just adds another data point in support of the null hypothesis or in some cases points to the existence of confounding factors [0]. Looking at research literature at…

>"this doesn't immediately make them "junk" just adds another data point in support of the null hypothesis"

Unless the null hypothesis happens to correspond to someone's actual hypothesis, chances are your study was designed to be junk from the beginning and anything of value that occurred was despite that.

For example, no one actually believes humans have exactly zero impact on climate, or smoking has exactly zero impact on cancer incidence. Yet the vast majority of studies on these topics will be testing those "hypotheses". That is the junk.

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

#38

Post by nonbel »

intended wrote: post #34
nonbel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer" The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", everything seems to "cause" cancer: >"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogen…

How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse. I ask because while I think its an awful conclusion, I've seen and experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized to what we see today. The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication proble…

>"dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse."

You want a ministry of science devoted to spreading dogma? Do people still know about the book 1984?

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

#39

Post by whateveracct »

nsxwolf wrote: post #28
millettjon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

> 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

That last part is a value statement that I doubt science could prove.

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

#40

Post by jff »

tbskm wrote: post #14
lordnacho wrote: post #6

I heard the incoming Vice President, Mike Pence, does not believe in evolution. In fact there's a video of him, admittedly a long while ago now, making a speech where he seems to not understand what the scientific meaning of "theory" is. Are people not concerned about this at all? People in high positions ought to know basic things about how science functions, yet as the article points out, barely a word was said abo…

There are plenty of Americans who would disqualify a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution, global warming, or some other widely known scientific fact. Unfortunately, there are just as many ill-informed Americans that share these views. It's sad and depressing, and is usually just the result of being in a conservative bubble. If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things…

> If you live in rural America, your friends and family all regurgitate the same things they hear from Fox News, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Breitbart, and other conservative sources

It's funny that conservatives 'regurgitate', while liberals are simply repeating things they've thought about deeply after hearing John Oliver say them.

Post reply on HN