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

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#131

Post by sillysaurusx »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

I think you aren’t leaving any room for scientists to be mistaken, which is an essential part of the process. In fact, it’s impossible to prove you’re correct in science, only to falsify a statement.

Your claims have merit, but they’re stretched slightly too far. The best work is done among the chaos. And doing stellar work is often a lot more chaotic than it appears in camera-ready papers.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#132

Post by wyager »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

> The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities

Yeah, because there's no rational basis to continue to afford them that trust. You're describing the symptom, not the disease.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#133

Post by lettergram »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #124
lettergram wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premi…

> Along the way, everyone knew and when people tried to bring up concerns higher ups in the institution suppressed the knowledge. As you are doing here. I don't see a name or any specifics anywhere in your comment. Of course not including any names or specifics also means you could be making it up for a good story. We have no way of knowing.

Much of this was told to me in confidence (via their lab-mates, etc) I’m not going to betray their trust.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#134

Post by chithanh »

blablabla123 wrote: post #115
AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

This highly depends on the field. In Physics the barriers are very high. I mean not necessarily for things to end up on arxiv.org but to be published in a peer reviewed magazine. Although probably that's not for every field and perhaps not even feasible because the data is just not there. Thinking about Medicine, every single data point there is probably a lot of work (and speaking of human trials 4 digit expensive).

I think it is quite telling that Planck's principle was formulated by a physicist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle

Though probably Planck was at the time still under the impression of the C.G. Barkla affair.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#135

Post by 1270018080 »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #99
1270018080 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean "Do their own research" like make up conspiracy theories out of thin air and parrot nonsense deep state rhetoric? Completely divorcing yourself from reality? You want more of that?

You have it backwards. Discussing controversial issues in the clear minimizes conspiracy theories (no, it doesn't completely eliminate them). The volume of conspiracy theories was driven up precisely because our epistemological institutions (e.g., media, academy, etc) abandoned the pursuits of objectivity and neutrality. To get back to a semi-rational state of affairs, we need to get the ideology out of our instituti…

Do you think there would be less moon landing deniers if the media talked about it earnestly? If legitimate scientific journals published "research"? Honest question.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#136

Post by sillysaurusx »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #124
lettergram wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premi…

> Along the way, everyone knew and when people tried to bring up concerns higher ups in the institution suppressed the knowledge. As you are doing here. I don't see a name or any specifics anywhere in your comment. Of course not including any names or specifics also means you could be making it up for a good story. We have no way of knowing.

Well yes. It’s not cool to out someone in front of millions of people.

Feel free to dismiss the claim if you wish.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#137

Post by urthor »

skissane wrote: post #114
urthor wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly protest the concept that the recent introduction of politics is making things worse than they used to be. If you ask anyone who was senior working in these institutions in the 1970s, things were far more dodgy back then. Corruption and bigotry were rampant. But it was far easier to cover up back in the day. Politicization is mostly driven by transparency . Politicization is not a new thing, it's a fact tha…

Most people accept that science in past generations was, to a certain degree, corrupted by the prevailing prejudices and societal/cultural/political/ideological beliefs of the time. But, if we acknowledge that was true then – why shouldn't we expect the same to be true now? The prevailing prejudices and ideologies may have changed, but has anything changed about the actual practice of science to make it more immune t…

I think the vast rate at which things are improving every decade is really dramatic.

Compare now to ten years ago, before me too. Things are hugely different.

I fully expect that if you give it a long time, things will be markedly better. In a hundred years for example.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#138

Post by donw »

yesenadam wrote: post #107
AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

> if one were to assume that every single scientific discovery of the last 25 years was complete bullshit, they'd be right more often than they were wrong. Has that maybe been true since the beginning of 'natural philosophy'? Perhaps things seem (much) worse now because we have survivorship bias, the same way classical music seems higher quality than pop, because the 90% crud[0] has been long forgotten. [0] https://e…

> Has that maybe been true since the beginning of 'natural philosophy'?

Unlikely. In its infancy, science -- aka "Natural Philosophy" as it was called at the time -- had to establish its credibility. It did so by delivering results.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#139

Post by cdot2 »

toolz wrote: post #90
alar44 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how to respond to the overcrowded hospitals. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-... Hospitals have been jam packed the entire time. There is data everywhere to support this. Tons of procedures are not being done due to beds and ICUs being full. Ask anyone who works in a hospital. Call one if you'd like.

ICUs are at max capacity all the time pre-pandemic. In fact a study done in 2013 IIRC showed that you could pick any random date and any random hospital in the U.S. and there was a 16% chance it was at max capacity. So again, my question is this - if hospital capacity is truly a crisis, why have staffed beds been in decline since the beginning of the pandemic? Half a million healthcare workers have left their jobs si…

"So either this is a terrible problem with no solution, or the problem is exaggerated and it's not really a crisis."

Either of these means this isnt something to worry about

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#140

Post by fragmede »

Lammy wrote: post #24
throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

> because we don’t have time This part is a huge society-wide problem that can theoretically be fixed so people can become more informed and active participants in the framework of their daily lives. Don’t ask me how, though, because I just got off work and am too exhausted to do anything except let the news tell me what to be afraid of today, then probably binge The Office and slam a few brewskis until I fall asleep…

We, as a society, bought a dog, and it took at literary shit in our communnal kitchen. No one wants to clean it up, and frankly, I can't blame you/me/any one individual for it. It's exhausting but a society-wide problem. It sucks that the only response from platforms has been to ban the discussion, rather than pay for a writers corp to come up with easy to parse FAQs why some of the garbage misinformation is a pile of lies, and to write systemic takedowns of odious dreck. But here we are.
Post reply on HN