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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#361

Post by acidburnNSA » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:25 AM UTC

Infernal wrote: post #333

slg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>Stopping people like this takes a lot of work and often some personal risk. I don't recall where I first heard it, but the principle that it takes 10x the amount of energy to refute bullshit as it does to generate it certainly seems to apply in this case.

Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bullshit%20a...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#362

Post by throwaway22032 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:28 AM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #357

throwaway22032 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think that a lot of vaccine scepticism comes from the perceived force involved. For example, via passports and mandates. I think once you get into the situation in which people think "I'm being forced to do X", you've created an impossible catch-22 and you've basically ensured that some % double down. It's hard for me to explain because it just seems intuitively obvious. I really enjoy a beer after work.…

Yeah, it's not nice but what should be done after the "natural" vaccination rate had been reached by rational argument alone?

I mean, the only reason for me to care if someone else is vaccinated is to the extent that I care for their wellbeing.

To me it's analogous to like, telling one of my overweight friends to go on a diet so that I can pay less for the NHS or something. They don't want the advice, it feels rude more than anything else (even explaining this feels a bit ick!)

If it was shown that we could eliminate sars-cov-2 via herd immunity I'd probably be a bit more keen to encourage it but I still don't think I'd support mandates unless we had some crazy ebola mutation and people started dying in massive numbers.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#363

Post by TrispusAttucks » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:28 AM UTC

tempnow987 wrote: post #37

toolz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand generalized masking. At best they flatten the curve, which I think at this point I believe flattening the curve is dangerous. We have pretty well defined risk demographics and if we could have covid seasons come and go quickly I think it gives the high risk demographics the best chance of applying multi-layered defenses against a shorter season of risk. There is of c…

The issue for me is I have elderly parents one of which does have a health condition (serious) that makes some breathing and other issues hard. They wanted to fly out to visit me. The absolute best way to avoid covid for yourself in my view is an N95 masks with a vent, because you can actually wear that thing for hours comfortably. I have friends who treated folks with covid wearing N95's and did not get covid. So I…

At this point it's not even "public health" it's "safety theater" [0].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#364

Post by overgrownzygote » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:29 AM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #242

pharrington wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 empirica…

Replication as part of scientific consensus-building dates back at least to the air-pump experiments of 17th century.

See e.g. “Leviathan and the Air-Pump”

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#365

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:31 AM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #265

bhk wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exponential growth of spending on research is the main factor working to dilute quality and to corrupt the process.

Not to mention the "publish or perish" ethos that has become such an integral part of promotion & retention policy (and grants) in so many academic institutions.

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#366

Post by t8y » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:32 AM UTC

I wonder if AI can help better vet science to see if there's flaws. I was looking at a paper recently[0] about how Swedish men cause more emissions than women. I feel like it has big issues that could be fairly easily checked with an AI system to check for logical fallacies and statistical errors. I think most research is BS and it takes too long to tell if it's real or fake. The most common outcome unfortunately is that research is fake.

My issues are that more men than women live in rural areas[1] so on average men will have to drive more and use more fuel. This data also seems to come mainly from a study in 1998 but they continuously say "men today", the data is from two decades ago. It also suggests that buying local food is better for the environment then importing, but they probably don't grow food in Stockholm so it would come from regional areas. Men also need more calories so even though women emit more from their food, men are actually doing much better considering they are generally recommended to eat 1.25x more calories than women[2]. I'm also very sceptical about the energy used for clothing and furnishing in the study.

This study was widely shared in places like NPR[3], The Guardian[4], CNN[5, CBS[6] and The Independent[7]. I feel like the issues I've pointed out are super obvious and if there's a reason they are not problems then they should talk about why those issues are not relevant, especially in the news articles.

I haven't read the whole paper, I actually just looked at the study to see how much clothing emits per person(after an article on fast fashion was posted on here). It's very concerning to me that that is published in "pro-science" news papers. Perhaps even worse is the original paper is not even really casting blame but the articles all do.

[0]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13176

[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074301672...

[2]https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/wha....

[3]https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1018796496/men-spending-carbo...

[4]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/21/men-caus...

[5]https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/europe/climate-carbon-gender-...

[6]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-footprint-men-more-women...

[7]https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/sustainable-liv...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#367

Post by gogoincar » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:33 AM UTC

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…

Many responses already commenting that science (the process) is intentionally capable of addressing these issues, but that timespan can be longer than we’d like.

One major point in this comment and in many others in support is the observation that the quality of research output is increasingly poor and degraded. It reads to me there is an implicit assumption that because of this the overall process is no longer valid.

It’s not at all clear this is the case, and jumping to that conclusion is taking a very emotional and unscientific stance. Many academics get a shock at some point early on when they look into how things actually work at a small scale, and often later in their careers come to see the effectiveness of consensus and reproduction (or don’t care and just try to get credit for them and theirs). Jumping to the conclusion that science is somehow falling apart requires taking about change over time, not point observations.

Now I’m not providing evidence either way, and definitely see reasons why it could be the case. But at the same time the volume of scientific output is larger than it has ever been, and many fields are developing at an unprecedented rate. And we’re seeing the result of this in rapid technological advancement in many fields, so it’s clearly not all complete horseshit. It’s possible, likely even, that due to comparatively rapid advancement in comparison getting to solid consensus appears to take longer.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#368

Post by dools » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:33 AM UTC

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…

"The fact remains that 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."

That doesn't sound like a fact to me ...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#369

Post by jjeaff » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:33 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?

For public health choices for your family, I say do what the majority of experts in the field are doing. And only listen to actual experts specifically in the field of study that pertains to the public health issue. I.e., don't listen to a non-practicing celebrity cardiologist (Dr Oz) about immunology and virology.

For example, you will be hard pressed to find a virologist, immunologist, or epidemiologist that isn't vaccinated and having their 5yrs and older kids vaccinated.

I also like to get my health information direct from doctor groups like the American association of pediatrics. Another good resource is directly on the website of groups like the mayo clinic, Cleveland clinic, or the editorial board of the New England journal of medicine. All of these groups are made up of many expert doctors and issue guidance based on input from a lot of experts.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#370

Post by Laforet » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 2:34 AM UTC

tempnow987 wrote: post #37

toolz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand generalized masking. At best they flatten the curve, which I think at this point I believe flattening the curve is dangerous. We have pretty well defined risk demographics and if we could have covid seasons come and go quickly I think it gives the high risk demographics the best chance of applying multi-layered defenses against a shorter season of risk. There is of c…

The issue for me is I have elderly parents one of which does have a health condition (serious) that makes some breathing and other issues hard. They wanted to fly out to visit me. The absolute best way to avoid covid for yourself in my view is an N95 masks with a vent, because you can actually wear that thing for hours comfortably. I have friends who treated folks with covid wearing N95's and did not get covid. So I…

The rule was not made to protect passengers, but to protect the crew who are stunk in a tin can with hundreds of different people every day. The risks will add up over time.

Also, male doctors and nurses are require to shave before donning their masks for a shift because even the slightest overnight stubble will ruin the seal. The chances of general public wearing an N95 correctly to get the most benefit out of it is close to nil.