Live data from Hacker News

Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

scientificamerican.com

1–10 of 211 posts

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#2
I've seen the term 'evidence-based policy' pop up all over the place. I take issue with people who use this phrase because most of the time their definition of evidence is not very well developed, and when the evidence is something they don't like they start to stretch their definition of evidence so they can dismiss implementing a certain policy. If evidence is only restricted to, and dictated by, academic papers, you leave room for companies and news media to start selectively reporting and funding studies they want to see or want people to see. And where are the scientific papers dedicated to studying this problem? No one is going to fund them. Now you have an entire society believing that corporate influence is not real because there is seemingly no evidence for it.

If you only make decisions based on science you can pretend problems aren't real without a scientist's approval, and you can pretend solutions to those problems are bad if there is even a tiny bit of counter-evidence that supports your viewpoint.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#4
post #2

I've seen the term 'evidence-based policy' pop up all over the place. I take issue with people who use this phrase because most of the time their definition of evidence is not very well developed, and when the evidence is something they don't like they start to stretch their definition of evidence so they can dismiss implementing a certain policy. If evidence is only restricted to, and dictated by, academic papers, y…

If you only make decisions based on science you can pretend problems aren't real without a scientist's approval, and you can pretend solutions to those problems are bad if there is even a tiny bit of counter-evidence that supports your viewpoint.

And if you make decisions based on anything other than science, is the final outcome going to be any better?

I admit that something that we might call "misuse of science" is a real thing, and a problem. But I don't see any solution that in any way involves de-emphasizing the importance of science in decision making.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#6
> An engaged and well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy

Is there even a shred of scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? I see it in print so often that it appears to be a axiom that is considered so correct as to be unquestionable.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#7
post #2

I've seen the term 'evidence-based policy' pop up all over the place. I take issue with people who use this phrase because most of the time their definition of evidence is not very well developed, and when the evidence is something they don't like they start to stretch their definition of evidence so they can dismiss implementing a certain policy. If evidence is only restricted to, and dictated by, academic papers, y…

Even evidence might not be showing you what you think.

Eg if you fund 10 studies in support of, er, say cats being dangerous to humans. 2 might find that to be true, 2 find that false, and 6 remain neutral. You can leave the 8 you that don't support what you want to show unpublished. You can then fund more studies that build on the 2 you like. Rinse and repeat.

Pretty soon, driven by funding alone, you will have lots of 'evidence' that caters to your viewpoint. Is that science? Unfortunately, funding determines scientific reality.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#8
post #2

I've seen the term 'evidence-based policy' pop up all over the place. I take issue with people who use this phrase because most of the time their definition of evidence is not very well developed, and when the evidence is something they don't like they start to stretch their definition of evidence so they can dismiss implementing a certain policy. If evidence is only restricted to, and dictated by, academic papers, y…

If you only make decisions based on science you can pretend problems aren't real without a scientist's approval, and you can pretend solutions to those problems are bad if there is even a tiny bit of counter-evidence that supports your viewpoint. And if you make decisions based on anything other than science, is the final outcome going to be any better? I admit that something that we might call "misuse of science" is…

Here's a scenario: You are tasked with dealing with a problem where there is little research and no scientific consensus. There is plenty of video evidence and other related pieces of non-so-scientific evidence, but most people don't count that in evidence-based policy. What do you do?

Sometimes, I think, we have to make decisions when there's no clear solution, and it's better than just dismissing a very obvious problem as non-existent. So yes, include science in every decision, but it's not the be all end all of society, it never has been, and it's not good to teach people that you can't tackle issues without a known best solution.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#9

> An engaged and well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy Is there even a shred of scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? I see it in print so often that it appears to be a axiom that is considered so correct as to be unquestionable.

I agree.

In my lifetime I have never known the average person to be engaged, nor informed. I think they're mostly mis-informed for the past 10+ years.

People just believe whatever outlandish title comes across their facebook feed. I had about 12 people ask me if I heard the news--that wayfair was selling missing children on their website, disguised as fancy cabinets. It took me about 12 seconds to find out it was a theory with no evidence put forth by an anonymous reddit poster. 2/12 changed their minds when I showed them that.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#10

> An engaged and well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy Is there even a shred of scientific evidence to support this hypothesis? I see it in print so often that it appears to be a axiom that is considered so correct as to be unquestionable.

Since you bring it up, I agree with you!

I would say that in the past, the engaged and well-informed public (and few honestly) were valued by the policy/decision makers because they generally were or closely related to the decision makers.

The democratization of opinion and influence has not gone well for technical experts and correct information getting to (or influencing) people in positions of responsibility.

Everyone (no matter how ill-informed) is so able to issue opinions and "make their voices heard" that people in responsibility get confused who they should worry about satisfying.

Sometimes democracy (and democratization of information) is not a purely good thing.

Post reply on HN