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

181–190 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#181

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

All of this may be true, but it leads to the question: if not science, what do you recommend instead?

Not being a virologist or epidemiologist, I have to listen to somebody. Are you saying I'd actually be better off listening to Art Bell and Joe Rogan than official sources like Fauci? If so, that's an extraordinary claim if there ever was one.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#182

Post by sharken »

ozfive wrote: post #170
sbmassey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bias of this mathematician and the rest of the Royal Society working group regarding vaccination is irrelevant to the subject of these papers, which analyse how and why misinformation is spread, and how correct information can retain credibility. Reflexively trying to discredit them while being too lazy to read beyond the headline is a great way of making your own position look highly dubious though.

Dubious assumes that my agenda is based on laziness which is in itself lazy. I read the article and my opinion is in alignment with the question everything that you don't understand camp which is the majority of anti-vax arguments regardless of the efficacy of the thing you are arguing against. No one ever claimed that these "vaccines" where a permanent solution. Everyone intelligent and capable of following along kn…

As long as vaccination comes with no strings attached, i have no problem with recommending it.

Each individual should be allowed to make an informed decision about taking the vaccine and the booster shots.

Just the same way as we have done with seasonal influenza all these years.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#183

Post by throwaway894345 »

1270018080 wrote: post #135
throwaway894345 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, because there's some margin of people who won't be convinced no matter what. If you've failed to persuade that 2% (or whatever the floor might be) then there's no need to discuss further--those 2% are inconsequential. But if you're at double-digit percentages you can be sure that you're not near the floor.

Moreover, it's not just about the media's coverage of COVID or the moon landing, but about their overall credibility during the prior decade. For example, the media has reliably and brazenly lied and mislead on racial justice protests from ~2014 through 2020, which almost certainly affects its credibility on other issues (e.g., covid). Of course, the same applies to the academy and other institutions.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#184

Post by omosubi »

WalterBright wrote: post #75

I remember when the government and scientific consensus informed me that margarine was good for me. For decades. Who knows what damage that has done to my internals.

The best diet is the one eaten for 1000s of years by your ancestors

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#185

Post by CamperBob2 »

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.

I'm not in a position to do any of that, sorry. What do you recommend I do right now to obtain the best available public health information for myself and my family?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#186

Post by donw »

andrecarini wrote: post #147
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…

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

Science and academia have pushed with all their might over the past few years to convince anybody with a functioning brain that random YouTube videos are, in fact, better sources for truthful information.

Censorship is a short-term game.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#187

Post by resource0x »

nsainsbury wrote: post #126
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…

Yes, absolutely this. I don't think many people outside of academia truly understand how much scientific research has degraded over the years. There are an extremely small number of fields in which the overall quality is still quite high (mathematics, etc.) but overwhelmingly the social sciences, medical science, etc. are wastelands of p-hacked, low-N, biased, poorly designed studies that can't be replicated (not to…

> There are an extremely small number of fields in which the overall quality is still quite high (mathematics, etc.)

What do you mean by "etc."? Do you have another example?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#188

Post by skissane »

urthor wrote: post #137
skissane wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are things "improving every decade" at a "vast rate"? What exactly is improving? Doesn't that depend on one's values as to what counts as "better"? Do you mean technological progress, economic progress, social progress?

Perceptions of progress seem to depend a lot on (a) where in the world you are, (b) what things you value, (c) whether you choose to optimistically focus on the positive developments (from the viewpoint of your own values) or pessimistically focus on the negative.

Even if we agree that certain forms of progress are occurring, do those various forms of progress necessarily entail scientific progress? I think, the only form of progress which necessarily entails scientific progress is technological progress – but even for that, some scientific fields have much greater technological relevance than others, continuing technological progress requires continuing scientific progress in technologically-relevant fields, yet is compatible with going backwards in areas of science which lack direct technological application.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#189

Post by spion »

megaman821 wrote: post #146
spion wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It really is just people. Look at all the information about HIV in the 80's, long before social media. People believed some truly crazy, racist, and misinformed things about HIV and its spread.

People are multifaceted beings. Social media AI automatically exploits any and all of our failings in the name of engagement. Traditional media used to do that before to some extent but the current situation is unprecedented in its reach and efficiency - custom tailored to individuals.

Technology is supposed to compensate for our failings, not exaggerate them to the extreme.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#190

Post by robbintt »

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.

I think most of the science back then was really bad, we just don't talk about it, which is exactly the parent post's point.
Post reply on HN