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

171–180 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#171

Post by chana_masala »

sega_sai wrote: post #111
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…

As a person working in science (long past PhD), I disagree. There are tons of problem in science: grant system, pressure to publish etc. Also everyone in science is still a person with standard people problems: ego, desire to be right, wanting recognition etc. Also some fields had more issues because of poor statistical methods etc. But the self-correcting nature of science is still its biggest redeeming feature. And…

You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

– Michael Crichton

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#172

Post by jimmydoreornot »

zzyzz wrote: post #22

I always think about this. If you can't trust people with the ability to see or hear certain information, how can you even trust them to vote?

I've always felt voting was a bad idea. It drives candidates to waste inordinate amounts of time and money on campaigning. For many posts, the ancient Athenians selected people at random (sortition) usually from a pool of willing candidates. A large enough random selection would be represenative. This would work well for the US House of Representatives.

Your comment implies that you don't want representatives, you want other people to vote for whatever it is you want. All I can say to that is: ask God for the serenity to accept those things you cannot change.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#173

Post by gilleain »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #110
wcerfgba wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your comment. I broadly agree with your points and find them insightful. In particular I appreciate that you model authority as an analogue for trust, and trust as an analogue for independent verification. I think trust is a prerequisite for successful convincing, because it is hard for human brains to overcome the emotional and relational elements of discourse, and we need to be in a receptive frame of mi…

Thank you. I've posted elsewhere in the thread about my own opinion that I believe the main issue we have is not with trust in the scientific sense (e.g. I think that most people generally _do_ believe that epidemiologists know what they're doing and that the outliers are exceptions), but with trust in the plan of action e.g. the entire chain of process. Examples, all primarily via trust (I'm not a biologist): I beli…

Agreed, it can be very difficult for anyone to make useful decisions outside of just trusting the existing consensus.

I mean there is no real way for me to know if a vaccine is safe. I assume it is, and prefer to gamble on it not harming me and potentially helping the current situation.

But there is really no way for me to know for sure.

To put it another way, when the Omicron variant emerged, there were newspaper articles that often showed pictures of the spike protein labelled with different mutations.

As it happens, I did research in protein structural bioinformatics, so I have a good idea what the detail in these images 'mean' in a certain sense. However they are of zero use in making a single meaningful decision about how to alter my behaviour (or not!).

Of course, the journalists add these images as decoration, but to me it symbolises the mass of irrelevant detail provided. Which is not the same as saying 'just believe science!' as that is also wrong and unhelpful.

I'm not sure what the answer is, really.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#174

Post by chr1 »

donw wrote: post #138
yesenadam wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Alchemy was part of natural philosophy as well though.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#175

Post by jhallenworld »

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…

Well the trust has to be earned by a history of proven visibly good outcomes. Never forget that there is a long history of cases where the established scientifically accepted ideas were actually harmfully wrong, particularly in the medical arena. In the USA in particular, medical practice is far from a benign charity, so people are right to question. One example: I had a tonsillectomy when I was a kid. No actual evidence that this is good medicine..

On the other hand, I don't disagree that the level of misinformation is ridiculous. It's difficult to understand why someone would trust someone with a popular podcast so much more than licensed professionals. Maybe there shouldn't be censorship, but where are the medical malpractice claims against these people? I think it's all tied in with the general acceptance of the "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" supplement industry. As long as your supplement does not do too much direct harm, we allow it.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#176

Post by slg »

lettergram wrote: post #133
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Your first comment was effectively "Everyone knows this person is a fraud and no one is willing to stand up and put a stop to it".

Your second comment was effectively "Well I don't know they are a fraud and I'm not going to be the one who upsets people by trying to put a stop to it".

I don't say this as a criticism of you. I say this a defense of the people you are criticizing. Stopping people like this takes a lot of work and often some personal risk. Most of us aren't willing to do it despite us pretending otherwise.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#177

Post by raziel2p »

spion wrote: post #67
strictfp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't social media that eroded the trust in research and science, it was the introduction of politics. We need to separate research from politics. It needs to be a separate pillar of the state. You don't want reseachers chasing funds continously and doing short-term research for local sponsors. You want sizeable investments in long-term research projects, high autonomy and following of the scientific method. This…

It really was social media. Tell an algorithm to optimize for engagement and it will promote the content causing the most engagement: novelty, conspiracy theory, outrage, surprising "revelations" and all sorts of clickbait. If we removed Twitter, Facebook and Tik Tok and reverted YouTube to the pre-algorithmic (subscription based) era, we'd still have free speech on the internet but probably a lot less bullshit. Note…

Social media (especially short-form ones like Twitter and TikTok) is just a natural evolution of media trends that were already present in society. TV replacing radio/text and tabloid newspapers are just two examples off the top of my head. If Twitter/Facebook/TikTok weren't there, other alternatives would've been there to fill the void.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#178

Post by betwixthewires »

andrecarini wrote: post #166
raziel2p wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change the economic incentives in academia and research. If right now universities and researches are rewarded for publishing studies/papers no matter the quality, change the rules so that you're rewarded for quality, not quantity.

How do we change those incentives? Who gets to determine the quality threshold?

Reproducibility.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#179

Post by labster »

raziel2p wrote: post #153
andrecarini wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative? While I agree with the general sentiment, science and academia is still better than random YouTube videos.

Change the economic incentives in academia and research. If right now universities and researches are rewarded for publishing studies/papers no matter the quality, change the rules so that you're rewarded for quality, not quantity.

They are rewarded for impact, which weighs quality over quantity, but only in a complex way that equally weights social dynamics mixed with profit motives. i.e. journals.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#180

Post by goodluckchuck »

> Misinformation is information that is incorrect.

No, misinformation is true information that is misleading (as to some other topic), morally wrong, etc.

If it is not true, then it is “not” information. It is “dis”-information.

(From Fluoride pdf)

Update: E.g. Consider the statement: “According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019.” That is information. It is knowledge which is conveyed / stored / etc. Some people use that fact to argue that AAs are inherently violent people. In the context of such an argument, the fact is potentially misleading / misinformation. The premise is true, but not the conclusion.

An example of disinformation would be to say: “According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 85.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019.” That’s not true. That’s “not” information.

Post reply on HN