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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#241

Post by ransom1538 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:10 AM UTC

maximus-decimus wrote: post #154

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…

> I just throw out papers that don’t publish datasets and code There was an interesting research paper that claimed you could up your IQ with a computer game called dual n back and a lot of paper tried to replicate it, but my mind was blown when I realized none of them used the same code. None of them actually shared the code they used for their research and then they all claimed they were testing the same thing when…

"To me, refusing to share the source code to a program that could be used to replicate your research seems like a big middle finger to science itself."

It is done on purpose.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#242

Post by GeekyBear » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:11 AM UTC

pharrington wrote: post #169

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…

In your opinion, when was most scientific research not flawed or "useless"? Remember, the Einsteins, Clarks, etc of the world were wildly exceptional outliers. Do you really think that if you were to look at most research done between 1897 and 1922, the overall quality would be higher? And that there would be less social factors competing with the integrity of work?

> In your opinion, when was most scientific research not flawed or "useless"?

How long has it been since replicating someone else's study to validate the results was routinely part of the scientific process?

>The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially of substantial parts of scientific knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#243

Post by ggm » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:11 AM UTC

Tenure track changed papers from vehicles to express ideas subject to a strong test, into a burden to jump, for your lifes work security.

Arguably thesis by body of work is less corrosive, but the production of 3-4 papers from the PhD is basically now a signal to the university you can be that performing seal.

That, and IPR. "a new drug which xxx (in mice)" paper is worth significantly more to the company behind it during share price discussions. (Obviously this is shorthand because IPR has risks in premature publication as well)

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#244

Post by sockpuppet_12 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:11 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #223

CPLX wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. At least here in the United States there’s a full on collapse of trust in institutions and supposed expertise and for extremely good reasons. Over and over again those with authority have squandered it. An opioid epidemic devastated so many communities after doctors, health care executives, and McKinsey and Company said the new class of drugs were non-addicting. Our manufacturing sector evaporated after e…

There has also been a huge emphasis on institutional misdeeds, driven by the outrage economy. Nobody takes note of the hundreds of life improving drugs developed in the same time period as opioid epidemic. Nobody takes note when cops arrest the right guy and saved the day. Nobody takes note when a country doesn't militarily threaten or invade the US.

Is the life of one innocent person an acceptable price for success?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#245

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:12 AM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #113

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…

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#246

Post by andrecarini » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #185

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.

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?

Not the person you're replying to but

> What do you recommend I do right now [...] ?

(1) Obtain a solid understanding of statistics, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) collect multiple viewpoints, data and arguments related to that hypothesis, (4) sift through the collected data and judge their quality based on reproducibility and history of the author, (5) be prepared to not reach any solid conclusion

Making a decision for your and your family's health is orthogonal to all of that.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#247

Post by rgrieselhuber » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:13 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #234

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. But do you not see how this will result in conspiracy theories? You are no longer engaging with the merits of a study and are instead questioning the motivations and source behind that study. You are shifting from a more objective argument to a more subjective one allow more room for conspiracy theo…

Ok, let's look at a scenario. If a board member of a powerful pharmaceutical company was also a chief executive at a news organization responsible for "fact-checking" claims about that company's medicines, would it be inappropriate to wonder about financial incentives?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#248

Post by jhallenworld » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:14 AM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #220

jhallenworld wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, whethe…

Well I agree that there are actual valid arguments about priority, by which I mean the math works out- the costs are significant either way. Excess deaths vs. broader economic impact or even questioning how much economic benefit from allaying fear by an otherwise dubious activity (cloth masks..).

But in the US, we have this extreme irrational vaccine skepticism where the math just does not work out. People believe the vaccine is much worse than its benefit. It's hard to argue with since prominent people are supporting this idea.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#249

Post by goodluckchuck » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:15 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…

By distrust, do you mean “blindly believe SMEs to be wrong just because they’re an SME” or “fail to blindly believe what SMEs say?”

If people don’t understand a complex subject, then I think they should neither endorse nor reject SMEs’ opinions on the matter. People don’t have to have a belief about everything. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re not. Blind trust is dangerous.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#250

Post by pabs3 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 1:15 AM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

Gravityloss wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For long term scientific correctness, what the hacker news crowd could help with tremendously is reproducibility and that means versioning and continuous integration with data, for research software. In context of a paper or doing research, you have to write software anyway. The other one that pops to mind is probably statistical calculation helping services. Maybe there are lots of other things as well - I haven't b…

The main thing I think is lacking is representing data in helpful and actionable ways. A theoretical climate change example might be: Car A emits 10% less CO2 than car B. Driving is 30% of your annual emissions (i.e. it's significant and one of the low hanging fruit). That 30% of your annual emissions if multiplied by 7 billion people is likely to cause X. If everyone drives car B instead of car A, Y will happen inst…

I think you missed a step in the chain; if you increase the quality of life for humans, what are the consequences for human population growth and the consequences for the rest of the biosphere as a result?