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

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#161

Post by white-flame » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #151

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…

I'm sorry you don't view my interpretation as charitable, but I do think a charitable interpretation of your first comment is that you don't propose ways of fixing problems in the scientific community but rather broadly dismiss the scientific community without proposing a better alternative other than "elite families."

Complaining about "the ever-growing list of regulatory failures, moral failures and outright abuses pushed in the guise of scientific expertise" does not read to me as dismissing the core scientific community itself.

Plus, one could easily distinguish between the terms "establishment"/"hierarchical structures" as entrenched leadership focused on power dynamics rather than the science itself, versus "community" which is involved in the science.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#162

Post by keenmaster » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #157

keenmaster wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with all those criticisms to some extent, but without some alternative I don't find the argument very useful, and I certainly don't find the original commenter's approach useful. It's like listing the many many examples of plane crashes due to pilot error. That's not controversial. I don't think many people claim that individual pilots act without flaw, or that the entire system of pilot training and qualific…

Criticism moderates duplicity and complacency. The mere presence of widespread criticism would help. It would also serve as a foundation for a system to mitigate these problems going forward. You can't solve the problem until you:

1. First identify it as a problem (which I don't think we've done enough but you think the problem is apparent to everyone)

2. Direct the criticism to the right people (not just politicians, but medical leaders and the medical establishment as a whole - believe it or not, they have a halo effect and are not sufficiently criticized. The industry systematically weaponizes our high regard for the medical profession in order to prevent what it sees as adverse reforms)

3. and acknowledge that there is a way to mitigate the problem ex ante, instead of saying "sure it's a problem but it's unsolvable because of all the emergent complexity." Say what you want about Elon Musk, but the man thought "I'm going to shoot multiple giant rockets through the atmosphere and land them back on a moving boat simultaneously" then proceeded to actually do it. He didn't throw his hands up to emergent complexity. SpaceX took complexity by the horns. Synthesizing and amplifying non-duplicitous, high quality advice from medical leaders/orgs is not that complicated! Only they can lead you to believe that it's complicated, and then somehow deny that they did that. If they contradict themselves, it's because "we used the best available facts at the time." Laughable, and completely non-falsifiable.

As an aside, perhaps Americans would be less anti-scientific if a majority of them weren't scammed by the medical industry and charged $150-$200 for a tiny consultation with someone who is bribed by pharmaceutical representatives to shill for harmful drugs. Maybe Americans would be less anti-scientific if their government wasn't captured by medical lobbyists for over a century so that there isn't a faint hope for reforms like universal healthcare. The industry doesn't care, because they know that if America wakes up, and politicians aren't captured, total compensation for doctors and surgeons would eventually drop 40% with negligible or no impact on innovation and medical outcomes. To them, something is wrong if a huge chunk of your disposable income isn't siphoned to their wallets every year (part of which you never even see - that is, insurance premiums paid by your employer that you would otherwise receive as income).

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#163

Post by Nasrudith » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

cuspy wrote: post #121

slg wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What if institutional science in the US has a legitimacy crisis because it has failed to police its own corruption and failed to address its own limitations and vulnerabilities? What if everyday people can see this more clearly than those striving on the margins of these institutions? You are giving the anti-science crowd a huge benefit of the doubt. I don't think people who believe the Earth is flat or that wearing…

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…

The snide yet accurate approach is "I will respond to reasoned critical thinking instead of blatant motivated reasoning when I see it."

Actually good questions and proposals deserve legitimate feedback regardless of source. Bullshit deserves to be ignored or called out.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#164

Post by xkcd-sucks » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:19 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…

"Science" is the iterative loop of observing reality, modeling reality, and correcting the model based on observation. It's how children learn to walk.

Science doesn't require formal training in principle; in practice training in critical thinking is good, and training in specific techniques might be necessary to observe + interpret specific phenomena.

As an aside - Many practicing scientists don't fully understand all the techniques they use day-to-day, and almost certainly don't understand techniques several steps removed from what they do themselves. To understand everything is simply impossible.

Everything else a matter of faith: In the honesty of people reporting results, in the competence of people reporting results, in the similarity between model systems and the "real world", etc. Of course one might apply one's training in techniques to validate the consistency of stuff asserted by other things - people, instrument readings, etc.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#165

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #26

Press2forEN wrote: post #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.

Democracy has never really relied on people being well-informed. The "wisdom of crowds" incorporates a lot of ignorance. It just assumes that ignorance is random, while informed opinion will tend to have a bias in favor of reality. If 49% of the people make a random guess one way, and 49% of people make a random guess the other way, then 2% of people who actually know something will put the best-informed answer over…

Democracy is intended to be a sort of "eventually correct" system; the people vote to make decision (a), see what happens, then vote again to make decision (b), etc. If decision (a) produces bad outcomes, then knowledge of those bad outcomes will presumably affect the way everyone votes in decision (b). Over time the voting populace converges the government toward their desired state, in theory.

The challenge here is in knowing whether an outcome was bad or good. Different people can have different perspective on facts, of course. But if people don't have direct experience in the outcomes, then they have to hear about it 2nd hand. That's where the opportunity opens up for them to hear lies, which corrupt the process.

The challenge in the 21st Century is that our most pressing issues seem to be those that don't produce immediate direct experience for most voters, like climate change, systemic racism, non-point-source pollution, threats of diseases, authoritarianism, etc.

People are increasingly reliant on 3rd parties to inform them on these issues, and the information ecosystem we've built to do that optimizes on engagement instead of accuracy.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#166

Post by ummonk » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:20 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…

Also claiming that China's totalitarian lockdown measures would achieve nothing.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#167

Post by unabst » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #77

unabst wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 98% are never split equally. And some percentage of 100% is always swayed by propaganda. That's why it's propaganda that pushes the vote over the top. And in today's democracy, its done under the guise of "education". That's why the self-declared "engaged and well-informed" are often the most targeted, readily swayed, and eager to back the wrong movement. The anti-vaccine movement is one example of the engaged be…

You're simply restating jfengel's 2nd 'graph. Domocracy is resilient against simple ignorance. It is susceptible to overt manipulation. Even manipulation often reflects a balance of interests, though shifting the margins can have profound effects.

I said more.

I posit it's susceptible to both, and that it is susceptible to any manipulation. Not just overt or malicious. Even in good faith. And even the article is a form of manipulation. And I am saying the "manipulated" and the "educated" are often one in the same especially in hindsight when wrong becomes clear.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#168

Post by Nasrudith » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #108

cuspy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all, the real target of these kinds of articles is obviously the supposedly right-wing extremist "science deniers" who reject the critical theory stuff even more strongly than scientists themselves do. We need to clean our own house. I can't even keep track of how many brilliant people I personally know who have left academic research. It's really very tragic and our duty as citizens should be to ignore all the…

The real reason so many have left academia is that it requires loads of work and skill but pays like shit. I don’t think it’s even vaguely to do with any of this “lack of free exchange of ideas” nonsense that a particular group of people love to bang on about.

Plus if they have something currently implementable as opposed to far theoretical why not go into the private practice to actually do it and learn more?

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#169

Post by ummonk » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #114

Consultant32452 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting thing to try to find is... during approximately what decade did "modern medicine" become a net benefit to health and longevity? The most common answers I've seen vary from the 1950s to we're not even 100% sure it's a net benefit now.

I think life expectancy started climbing up from 1850s, but it's hard to say which part of that is "medicine" and which is better nutrition and hygiene.

I'd still attribute hygiene improvements to medical science though, since it depended on scientific research into improved hygiene practices, as well as the adoption of e.g. germ theory.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#170

Post by UncleOxidant » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

cuspy wrote: post #123

UncleOxidant wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything new here, though? Science is and always has been a human endeavor - it didn't arrive out of the sky delivered to us by gods or aliens. There have always been "regulatory failures (since we've had regulations, anyway), moral failures and outright abuses pushed in the guise of scientific expertise." this is nothing new.

Right, but what's your point? If it's an old problem we shouldn't try to address it? I think the evidence points to it getting worse and more importantly becoming more and more of a liability for our future ability to compete on the world stage.

I'm not completely convinced that it's getting worse (that was my point), but if it is getting worse then we should try to figure out what changed. Maybe it's the drive for Universities to profit off of their research due to less public funding? If we think of the example of Jonas Salk and the the polio vaccine he developed he didn't want to make any money off of it - he essentially gave it away. Maybe we've developed into more of a dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself society in general where you've got to get as much as you can else you might end up on the streets? I don't know, but if the problem is indeed worse then maybe those are a couple of reasons.