Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever • Hacker News Board

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#141

Post by keenmaster » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #91

cuspy wrote: post #55

Given the track record of institutional science and the ever-growing list of regulatory failures, moral failures and outright abuses pushed in the guise of scientific expertise, why do so many people seem to think that simply doubling down and bullying the general population into compliance with expert consensus will ever work? What if institutional science in the US has a legitimacy crisis because it has failed to p…

> Personally, as a scientist, I am comforted that there are enough others out there who doubt the entire notion of a scientific establishment that the population should "trust" to make decisions without oversight. I'm not sure what you're actually proposing, but it sounds dangerously close to "pilots have been in control of airplanes for decades, and they've caused so many crashes, so maybe it's time to try people wh…

I'm not 100% agreeing with the OP, but I am horrified by the massive number of scientists, medical leaders, and medical professionals who:

1. Downplayed the role of masks as a public measure to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 early on (often out of a duplicitous desire to preserve PPE for the medical community, without considering that homemade cotton masks would not reduce PPE supply for medical workers)

2. Didn't advocate for the use of masks, beginning with cotton masks (this is actually a different point than #1. Spreading confusion and not providing clarity are two different bad things.)

3. Downplayed COVID in general, and publicly wondered whether a ton more people had immunity than we thought. That was with specious evidence and, damningly, it increased confusion and probably reduced compliance with mitigation measures.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#142

Post by patagurbon » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #103

readingnews wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four examples of bad science? I see a trend in these comments that people here are pretty anti-science. I would like to remind us all to just take a peek around us, and look at what was not even possible, not even imaginable, a mere fifty to one hundred years ago. We are speaking to one another using faradays laws and discoveries, teslas fascination with wireless and countless physicists and engineers that build prac…

Were all of them bad science? (The first two were clearly so, but I'm not sure about the last ones.) Because if so, it's easy to look a bit more and find completely wrong conclusions taken from good science too. But anyway, all of those were mainstream at some time. The point is that yielding to experts is anti-science. The fact that your experts work in a research lab instead of a church makes little difference here…

Is it possible for non-experts to verify science in most fields? It's possible and important for other experts to verify, but research is very hard to contextualize and verify without being or becoming an expert.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#143

Post by nickff » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:04 PM UTC

defterGoose wrote: post #93

ptero wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard of tailoring findings to the preferences of the grant giver (advocate a wrong view and kiss your grant good-bye). This is very worrisome as a lot of experimental science labs are so grant dependent. I actually think this is partly a self-inflicted wound -- a large fraction of major grant givers want truth and can stand findings that go against their beliefs, but given the heavy dependence of labs on grants th…

> Which is totally, completely and absolutely against the spirit of real science. My 2c. Absolutely true, but examine the power dynamic. The scientists are only able to provide results (whether for or against) if they have bread on the table. The funders (as private entities) provide an almost inescapable dilemma then for the researchers. So who's more at fault, the scientist or the ones holding the purse strings? Wh…

In the United States, the majority of research funding is from the Federal Government, and it has been increasing since before the Second World War. If there is a problem, it is likely in the government grant process.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-govern...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science#United_Stat...

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#144

Post by patagurbon » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #134

patagurbon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What number of those would've died without care?

What number of people who got medical care would've lived/recovered without it? My point is not that I know the answer to when medical care became a net benefit, my point is that it's an extremely complicated thing that there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to.

Sure, and I'd love to read good research on the topic. But I think there's a reasonable assumption that our verifiably increased understanding of the human body has led to some net benefit, no?

I'll probably look at some reviews on modern medicine statistics, it's an interesting question. While I have no doubt we've made net progress, I wonder if some specific areas of medicine haven't.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#145

Post by cyberrod411 » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

This is true, but at least in the US, its more and more devalued everyday.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#146

Post by cuspy » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #139

cuspy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not proposing anything like that. I said that I'm glad others are becoming more skeptical of the message of relying on trust without oversight. The fact that you read my comment as advocating a total disregard for training and expertise is exactly why we are in this mess. Where is nuance? No, I look at the current situation and conclude that our institutions are failing us. Notice that I didn't say I'd prefer to…

> Where is nuance? The problem with language is we have to make certain assumptions. It is easy to read your comment in that way. Just as it could be easy to read > cuspy 15 minutes ago | parent | on: Science and Scientific Expertise Are More Importan... I'm not proposing anything like that. I said that I'm glad others are becoming more skeptical of the message of relying on trust without oversight. The fact that you…

When you come into a conversation not knowing your interlocutor's intentions, I believe it is deeply unethical, inefficient and really a complete waste of everyone's time and energy to assume based on some weak superficial heuristic rhetorical cues that they are simply repeating a divisive talking point that you've heard elsewhere.

Again it's this a priori assumption that the other person is dumb that has gotten us into this situation. It's also just bad manners. All else equal, I do not see how you can possible read what I wrote as specifically promoting anti-vaxers. I didn't say a word about vaccination. You're applying your own baggage to a simple message. Anti-vaxers are for the most part just frightened people who deserve compassion, not derision. They've simply overgeneralized a very rational fear of institutions that have indeed made some very careless decisions for profit.

If you treat every conversation as adversarial by default, you will continue making all your conversations worse. I recommend following the Gricean Maxims in your conversations. Be productive and cooperative with others until you are certain that they're not being productive and cooperative. That's when you leave the conversation. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#147

Post by nkiller » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

keenmaster wrote: post #141

baddox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, as a scientist, I am comforted that there are enough others out there who doubt the entire notion of a scientific establishment that the population should "trust" to make decisions without oversight. I'm not sure what you're actually proposing, but it sounds dangerously close to "pilots have been in control of airplanes for decades, and they've caused so many crashes, so maybe it's time to try people wh…

I'm not 100% agreeing with the OP, but I am horrified by the massive number of scientists, medical leaders, and medical professionals who: 1. Downplayed the role of masks as a public measure to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 early on (often out of a duplicitous desire to preserve PPE for the medical community, without considering that homemade cotton masks would not reduce PPE supply for medical workers) 2. Didn't a…

That's what makes "trust the science" or "trust the experts" a terrible mantra or budgeon to bash skeptical or uninformed people with. Whose science? What kind of science?

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#148

Post by Consultant32452 » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

patagurbon wrote: post #144

Consultant32452 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What number of people who got medical care would've lived/recovered without it? My point is not that I know the answer to when medical care became a net benefit, my point is that it's an extremely complicated thing that there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to.

Sure, and I'd love to read good research on the topic. But I think there's a reasonable assumption that our verifiably increased understanding of the human body has led to some net benefit, no? I'll probably look at some reviews on modern medicine statistics, it's an interesting question. While I have no doubt we've made net progress, I wonder if some specific areas of medicine haven't.

Every generation throughout history believed it was a reasonable assumption that their state-of-the-art medical care was a net benefit. We're no different in that regard. This is a matter of faith, not hard fact. Intuitively this feels like a "simple question of fact" that I should be able to google and find in seconds. But it's a real brain scratcher. I love questions like that.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#149

Post by vorpalhex » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #83

jccc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult, tiring, and demoralizing to keep on and on trying to maintain sincere and reasoned argument with seemingly unreasonable and ignorant people. But we really can't give in to that cynicism. These conversations almost always have an audience, and the point isn't just to convince this person in front of you and win, but to keep your side of the argument alive and in front of as many people as possible. And…

Do you also put that much effort into arguing against climate exaggerationism? Claims like the world is on fire, civilization will end or humans will go extinct because of it? People who won't have children because they believe the world will no longer be suitable for human habitation during their lives.

If we're arguing for something rationally it is important to be honest in that argument. That means not pretending the risk doesn't exist, but also not over-inflating the risk.

One of the worst things the CDC did was take an anti-mask position initially when it was a bald faced lie unsupported by data. That destroyed their trust relationship and continues to haunt us now.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#150

Post by cuspy » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #138

cuspy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm being too charitable, but wouldn't it be worse if it turned out that you were holding back progress in the conversation by insisting that ALL of your interlocutors are incapable of thinking critically? We need to be more strategic than vindictive. Why not forget about the notion of a mass "anti-science crowd" and have some basic respect for your fellow citizens as individuals with widely varying levels of e…

I am not suggesting we be vindictive over strategic. I am suggesting that fixing corruption in the scientific community isn't going to solve this problem because the causes of the anti-science movement don't solely originate from within the scientific community. If my specific examples are too much of a straw man, how about climate change? The US has largely been ignoring the science on that for decades. What is the…

Well, we won't know if the "anti-science movement" can actually be dealt with until we fix the corruption first, will we? Why assume that things can't be improved? You wouldn't try to secure a second funding round without a viable product or even a concrete business plan, would you? Bad example maybe...

Regardless, simply telling people they need to listen obediently to experts is going to do much more harm than good. If we take concrete steps to fix the massive problems in our institutions and there are still legions of anti-science activists holding us back through political means, we can at least point to our own reformed system with integrity and say that we're doing our best to get it right. Until then, we have no solid ground to stand on, and we'll continue to lose our own base of supporters, myself included. Scientists themselves will look elsewhere for a system that supports them.