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

Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#71

Post by mistermann »

Balgair wrote: post #70
mistermann wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand what you're saying, but I think there's some "both sides"-ism at play here. Why do these conversations "always" go like this, even on a site as rational as HN ? If we can't even discuss these very real issues here without rhetoric, how do we expect politicians and the masses (and here I include literal deniers) to do so? Because that is what we are asking of them, is it not? To stop being stupid (which…

> even on a site as rational as HN? This site is made up of people, just like all the other sites out there. As a group, HN is no more or less susceptible to biases and irrationality than any other group of people or any other website. Our starting lemma should be that we are flawed, not that we are inherently less flawed. Acknowledging our biases and irrationalities is the first step toward overcoming them.

> This site is made up of people, just like all the other sites out there. As a group, HN is no more or less susceptible to biases and irrationality than any other group of people or any other website.

From a binary perspective, agreed. From this non-comprehensive perspective, you are correct.

But the reality here is more complex than a binary.

From a continuum perspective, is it actually correct that HN is "just like all the other sites out there", that they are "no more or less susceptible to biases and irrationality than any other group of people or any other website"?

This level of precise consistency across any arbitrary grouping of people seems rather unlikely to occur in reality, and if it was like this, you'd think someone would have noticed it. Also, this take on it seems rather contrary to my "feel" for the aggregate self-evaluation that the individuals members of this community have voiced. I'm fine with either one, but perhaps it might be useful for us to decide on which it is.

If you think about it, if superior rationality is literally impossible, then are we not completely wasting our time on discussing where flaws exist in society, and which groups need to be focused on and improved (which is a very common topic of conversation around here)? If nothing can be done, why do we not just abandon the entire topic of improving the world and devote the remainder of our short lives to enjoying ourselves?

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#72

Post by mistermann »

lordnacho wrote: post #19

Actually the problem is not just that people don't know about science, they know so little that they don't know who to ask, either. Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative. I blame the education system. There's way too much specific knowledge that you will be tested on, and barely any theory of knowledge or scientific method fundamentals. And in the end, you will forget the silly q…

> Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative.

Every single individual within that group thinks "Wakefield is authoritative", and thinks that precisely and literally?

Might we be asking of others, that which we refuse to do ourselves?

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#73

Post by EForEndeavour »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #69
EForEndeavour wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "How much material do I need in this region of the bridge to sustain the load of traffic going across it?" To nitpick a bit: anyone who answers that question for a living will be practicing engineering, not science. Just as an excellent physician can espouse wildly unscientific beliefs, so too can someone become quite good at the craft of engineering without actually doing much science at all. > I can't come to sci…

Statistics by definition is not science. The vernacular usage of science refers to the empirical sciences; physics, chemistry, geography, biology. Mathematics, statistics, and computer science are all formal sciences, sometimes simply referred to as math . See the application section of https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section1.html . And for when the two fields clash: https://www.nature.com/articles/s4…

1. Good luck doing science without at least basic statistics. Have fun trying to combine your experimental results without using some notion of averages, pooled uncertainties, etc.

2. My original point was that the presence of uncertainty and the need for statistical analysis does not magically mean that whatever you're doing isn't scientific.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#74

Post by lordnacho »

Loughla wrote: post #46
lordnacho wrote: post #19

Actually the problem is not just that people don't know about science, they know so little that they don't know who to ask, either. Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative. I blame the education system. There's way too much specific knowledge that you will be tested on, and barely any theory of knowledge or scientific method fundamentals. And in the end, you will forget the silly q…

How can an education system teach evaluating sources, and acceptable methods of evaluating facts, when those two things are at the heart of almost every disagreement in the areas we're talking about? Fake news isn't just a meme, it's a belief system. So how does a public school system tackle that? >Just so you don't think that we had enough time at school to teach you everything. Is there literally one person (in the…

> How can an education system teach evaluating sources, and acceptable methods of evaluating facts, when those two things are at the heart of almost every disagreement in the areas we're talking about?

You can disagree about what the evidence is, or what it means, despite having properly followed the principles of reasonable inquiry. The issue is more identifying when those principles haven't been followed. The problem is that school doesn't really get into the tug-of-war between different strands of thought, it's quite parochial: you are told there are galaxies, not about the great debate that led to us knowing that.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#75

Post by username90 »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #28
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #11

Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much…

> "How much material do I need in this region of the bridge to sustain the load of traffic going across it?" To nitpick a bit: anyone who answers that question for a living will be practicing engineering, not science. Just as an excellent physician can espouse wildly unscientific beliefs, so too can someone become quite good at the craft of engineering without actually doing much science at all. > I can't come to sci…

> To nitpick a bit: anyone who answers that question for a living will be practicing engineering, not science. Just as an excellent physician can espouse wildly unscientific beliefs, so too can someone become quite good at the craft of engineering without actually doing much science at all.

Engineering is based on science. They aren't scientists but what they do is based on science.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#76

Post by lordnacho »

zamfi wrote: post #25
lordnacho wrote: post #19

Actually the problem is not just that people don't know about science, they know so little that they don't know who to ask, either. Look at your local antivaxx FB group, they think Wakefield is authoritative. I blame the education system. There's way too much specific knowledge that you will be tested on, and barely any theory of knowledge or scientific method fundamentals. And in the end, you will forget the silly q…

> I blame the education system This is a popular venue for blame, but perhaps you haven’t yet met the highly respected scientists claiming that masks don’t work against covid, that AIDS wasn’t real, or that vitamin C cures everything —- these are all highly educated people who, in their fields, have a deep understanding of “theory of knowledge” and “scientific method fundamentals”. But, they are also human, and suffe…

I have actually met medical doctors who believed in homeopathy. My point isn't that they wouldn't exist if things were taught properly.

For a start, schools could teach people about how we actually unravel truths from statistics. It's a bit unfortunate that one of the most famous books in the area is called "How to Lie with Statistics". But all those things you mention, did you learn them in school? No, you tend to learn the conclusions but not the reasoning behind.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#77

Post by emilecantin »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #41
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #17

As an addendum. Many people (quite frankly) worship "Science" like it is a benevolent deity. You just have to "listen" to it, and good results will come out, bettering society. But terrible things happen when you try to apply science to a field that it should not apply to. Science can tell you how to do something effectively. It will not tell you whether or not it is good or beneficial to do a certain thing. There wa…

> The mother runs through a battery of tests to determine if her baby has a genetic abnormality -- and if so, can choose an abortion. Providing expectant parents with better information and more choice? Sign me up. > Unequivocally, this is genocide! Genocide! If it's unequivocal, why do opposing opinions exist?

From "gene" (as in DNA, genetic screening) and "-cide" (killing), litterally "killing a gene", in the most literal sense of the word.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#78

Post by dang »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #17

As an addendum. Many people (quite frankly) worship "Science" like it is a benevolent deity. You just have to "listen" to it, and good results will come out, bettering society. But terrible things happen when you try to apply science to a field that it should not apply to. Science can tell you how to do something effectively. It will not tell you whether or not it is good or beneficial to do a certain thing. There wa…

What you've done in this subthread breaks the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to them, no matter how right you are or feel you are about a topic? Note these:

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

There's always a bit of wiggle room but the line from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25198407 (a fine HN comment) to "abortion is genocide" definitely intersects the outer boundary of the rules.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25198407.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#79

Post by thu2111 »

ChefboyOG wrote: post #26
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #11

Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much…

I understand what you're saying, but I think there's some "both sides"-ism at play here. Yes, there is a level of scientific ignorance displayed when people hand wave and claim "the science" is on their side without actually understanding the science. However, there is a huge qualitative difference here, illustrated even by your example of quarantine recommendations. If we approximate an answer to "What is the optima…

Conversely, outright ignoring recommendations about COVID or climate or something similar, simply because "science isn't always right" or because you "aren't a scientist" is a different thing altogether.

Isn't that a strawman though? How many people actually give an answer like "science isn't always right" when choosing to ignore recommendations about COVID? Perhaps it's the circles I move in, but most people who think COVID recommendations are junk (which doesn't mean they don't follow them) can give far more reasoned and deep explanations for their views than the people they disagree with. Absolutely standard to get an answer like "because I trust the experts" (i.e. "I have no idea") from people who are the most passionately in favour of masks, lockdowns etc. You don't see that in reverse, because people disagreeing with authority by definition can't make an appeal to authority.

Re: Why Is Scientific Illiteracy So Acceptable?

#80

Post by thu2111 »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #28
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #11

Some of the most scientifically illiterate people I've encountered are the people who say things like, "We listen to the science when it comes to COVID-19". Let us be perfectly real. When it comes to political decisions based on forecasts, you are not "listening to science". Science can answer many questions. I can ask it, "How long do I need to fire the engines to achieve this particular orbit", or perhaps "How much…

> "How much material do I need in this region of the bridge to sustain the load of traffic going across it?" To nitpick a bit: anyone who answers that question for a living will be practicing engineering, not science. Just as an excellent physician can espouse wildly unscientific beliefs, so too can someone become quite good at the craft of engineering without actually doing much science at all. > I can't come to sci…

Science is the modeling of reality by formulating and testing hypotheses through observation and/or experiment. Does epidemiology not fall squarely within this definition?

This is really the heart of the issue, in 2020 at least (I hope people will go back to arguing about climatology soon!). In theory epidemiology does fall squarely within that definition. In practice if you read their papers you'll quickly discover most of them are entirely pseudo-scientific. I've read a lot of them this year. Here are some things that are absolutely standard in computational epidemiology (modelling) papers:

• Making predictions without writing a follow-up paper to study how closely observed data matched. Epidemiology routinely makes predictions that are wildly different to reality. This has no impact on the field at all. Science is meant to involve adjusting hypotheses if predictions don't match collected observational data, but in epidemiology step 1 is make a prediction with a model. Step 2, goto step 1.

• Making unfalsifiable predictions.

• Ignoring data that falsifies predictions.

• Altering predictions post-publication via public statements.

• Truncating graphs to hide data that would invalidate an argument.

• Using long since obsolete data, or data that aren't the best available when the paper is written. Invariably this makes the predicted epidemic worse, I've not yet seen anyone do this where it leads to better outcomes.

• Giving confidence intervals so wide they are equivalent to saying "we don't know what will happen" whilst not making that obvious.

• Incorporating model parameters that are simply made up, not based on any observational data.

• Engaging in circular reasoning.

• Ignoring basic biology. One of the most surprising things about epidemiological models is that they basically don't utilise any biology at all and epidemiologists will happily violate basic biological or historical common sense if it helps them achieve their goals. For example they calculate R0 using case curves. R0 is meant to be an intrinsic property of a virus representing how infectious it is, but one model I saw calculated a totally different value for COVID for each outbreak/country it was applied to. Clearly their values for R0 couldn't be correct, as it's the same virus everywhere so the values should be at least a little bit consistent. They were orders of magnitude different! This didn't bother anyone in the modelling team or anyone who peer reviewed their work at all. Another paper assumed Rt (case curve rate of change) could only change if government interventions forced it to, which flatly contradicts tens of thousands of years of experience in which epidemics rise and fall naturally, without lockdowns or masks of any kind. No peer reviewer quibbled with this, one even said it was a reasonable assumption.

I could go on all day. Maybe one day I'll write this up somewhere outside HN. But seriously, epidemiology is by far the most problematic field of "science" I've ever seen, and I read plenty of research papers from other fields. I don't consider what they're doing to be even slightly scientific: way too many papers are flat out intellectually fraudulent.

Post reply on HN