Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online • Hacker News Board

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#211

Post by rgrieselhuber » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:45 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #155

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. My point is that we should always be aware of the financiers behind any piece of research, prescribed solution, etc. and teach people to think critically about this.

But someone with an invested interest in research funding that research doesn't inherently mean the conclusion is wrong. If anything your suggestion would lead to more conspiracy theories and not less as people are now more focused on the motives for the research rather than the body of that research.

It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#212

Post by Graffur » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:45 AM UTC

omosubi wrote: post #184

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

Do we know what they ate in detail?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#213

Post by ozfive » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:46 AM UTC

sharken wrote: post #182

ozfive wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No and this is where I disagree. The people that disagreed with my opinion believed that I was trying to censor theirs with my own. I posted my opinion and a lot of people made assumptions about it without asking questions and made their own response. I have an extreme opinion according to some people. I'm also not the best authority on all of this but the people that pile on are assuming my opinion is an affront to their safety/security. Do I care that these people may have a chance of a high hospital bill if they catch this thing when they could just as easily get something for free to protect them against this disease that right now has high cost of care once that care is codified. Hell yeah! Keep arguing against one thing when it can ultimately keep you safe from catching a cold that is lucrative for the healthcare business at the moment due to political division. My opinion isn't based in propaganda and is based more in a concern for the long term financial ramifications for most. Watch how many people have to claim bankruptcy, furthering their descent into wage slavery after catching something that can be postponed until it becomes endemic.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#214

Post by thwarted » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:46 AM UTC

jimkleiber wrote: post #108

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…

I actually think we may learn a lot by studying whom someone distrusts and the underlying causes. I imagine we would find that most of the times, the distrust is projected distrust—in other words, I distrust X person in my life because they did A thing and person Y is like X therefore I distrust person Y as well. For example, I think many distrust Fauci less because of Fauci himself and his behaviors and more because…

And yet few people want to hear "your family is not fine". Many people don't want honesty, they want comfort, and they (wrongly, IMO) look to experts for comfort. This puts doctors in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont situation. It's easy to translate "doctor was honest" to "bad bedside manner".

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#215

Post by data_acquired » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:46 AM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #122

overgard wrote: post #86

I think the US has caught this cancerous idea that the average person can't be trusted to think for themselves. The amount of condescension in that thought process is disgraceful. They think, someone has to tell the average person how to think. And the baffling thing is that supposed liberals think that thoughts should be policed by corporations, government, and self styled intellectuals (which seems so much against…

No, it’s that the average person cannot make decisions about complex subjects . This is not a new development: the boundaries of scientific knowledge - across all fields - have required a large amount of specialization for a while now. The barrier to entry is a PhD, and even then you’re only an expert in a small part of your field. If you suddenly decide to jump in without context and make judgements about topics you…

Medical experts have had a worse-off time than, say, physicists or chemists though? And strains of economics experts are understandably not trusted depending on one's income class, but putting economics on par with physics, chemistry and biology is complicated in itself.

The most troublesome parts of expert mistrust was one scientific group going after anothe, as with scientists of one specialty turning into epidemiologists overnight and claiming that vaccines have contributed to thousands of deaths. As a statistician, I had to deal with junk statistics and regressions in just such a pre-print that caused a lot of panic in my little research community here.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#216

Post by ummonk » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:46 AM UTC

kingTug wrote: post #160

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…

Incredible that you cite Brett and Eric Weinstein as credible sources of information. Those guys are charlatans through and through.

Yes, it’s incredibly ironic to be recommending Brett and Eric Weinstein in a comment about fraudulent researchers.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#217

Post by Graffur » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:46 AM UTC

jimmydoreornot wrote: post #172

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 wa…

That is really interesting. Do you know if it's been used anywhere else? Even non-governmental type votes?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#218

Post by bordercases » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:47 AM UTC

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 would go further and say to not frame the culture problem as economic at all.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#219

Post by concinds » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:47 AM UTC

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…

I'm skeptical that education is a solution to collapsing societal trust.

First, the primary organs that would be capable of this education are the media, who have a profit motive to stoke any and all fears (immigration, radiological warfare, world war, coffee being carcinogenic).

Second, I think this distrust goes beyond "the CDC said something wrong once, I don't trust them as much anymore." That could be solved with education. But we're seeing a more fundamental rise in broad-based distrust of any authority figure, and it's a much more instinctive response.

In a world where authority is more powerful and centralized than ever, some are bound to feel powerless. Someone's actions on the other side of the world have more impact on your life than they ever could (pick depending on your priors: a Wuhan wet market customer's appetite, or a Wuhan Institute of Virology employee's carelessness). With such an interconnected world, how could conspiratorial thinking not be appealing to some people?

Power inherently fosters distrust and cynicism. You can have as much pedagogy and education as you want: rational discourse just can't combat a fundamental instinctive reaction, a growing sense of claustrophobia and powerlessness that some people are bound to feel. And the response to this distrust? More control over discourse, over communication mechanisms[0], and ultimately, over citizens. Governments and corporations are more powerful than they ever were. Surveillance, and enforcement of rules, are easier and more automated than ever. How could our primitive, Dunbar-number brain wiring not react with distrust, or even hostility towards (some) authority figures?

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/politician-says-germany...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#220

Post by throwaway22032 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 12:49 AM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #175

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 evid…

> It's difficult to understand why someone would trust someone with a popular podcast so much more than licensed professionals.

I'm less convinced that this is a matter of trust, I think it's more about value systems and priorities.

I trust my dentist to recommend me the best filling or crown material for my teeth, even in the face of financial incentives.

But his advice does not tell me, in an absolute sense, whether it'd be worth me paying $1K for a crown if that means I miss the rent next month. It's not a tractable problem.

I can't speak to the US situation, but in the UK in my peer groups most coronavirus-related argumentation doesn't revolves around whether e.g. wearing a mask reduces the spread of coronavirus, but around whether wearing a mask is a net positive for the society and/or the wearer. The former is a matter for epidemiology, the latter is nowhere near clear cut.