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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#441

Post by tehnub » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:55 AM UTC

raziel2p wrote: post #177

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…

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.

>If Twitter/Facebook/TikTok weren't there, other alternatives would've been there to fill the void.

The particular platform that has these characteristics is arbitrary and beside the point. No one is arguing that Tik Toks particular implementation of a short form engagement optimizing feed is dangerous.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#442

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

tstrimple wrote: post #382

s1artibartfast wrote: post #161

I see the root cause of all this debate as a failure in scientific communication. When it comes to complex scientific decisions with significant impacts on the public, nuanced and detailed justifications are required. Instead, we often get simple declarations written by PR departments at juvenile reading level. This spawns chaotic and poorly conducted debate in all walks of life. What is required is a robust and tran…

> I see the root cause of all this debate as a failure in scientific communication. How can you have scientific communication without nuance? We know nuanced discussions can't happen at scale. Is this even solvable? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128061

You can't, discuss a nuanced topic without detail, but It is solvable with parallel mediums. Not every debate fits in a tweet so you issue long form communication in parallel. This is common practice for many topics. You wouldn't expect a nuclear power plant or rocket company to conduct all their internal business in self contained tweets. You expand the medium used to provide the bandwidth nessicary. You might have a power point with a single slide summary, several dozen supporting slides, and then a pdf going deeper.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#443

Post by CyberDildonics » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

fr33d0m_ wrote: post #317

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…

So how do you think this gets solved? What do you think some of the root causes are? Semi-related, I was reading about the history of some of the "US greatest universities"; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. were actually Christian Universities? Wasn't even Cambridge founded in the 1200's have similar history? https://www.quora.com/When-did-Harvard-College-stop-being-a-... I'm not sure of the complete validity, but it's…

This is an incoherent reply that has practically nothing to do with this thread.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#444

Post by zjpiazza » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:56 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…

Wow man...totally nailed it on the head. And anytime you bring up questions around experimental design or anything, 99 percent of people are already yawning and not interested in anything you're saying at that point. Everything happening right now regarding the vaccines and COVID is alienating so many people and guaranteeing they will never listen to the government or any other "trusted" institution ever again.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#445

Post by throwiuadfasta » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:57 AM UTC

dragonsky wrote: post #417

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…

> Educated" people can say what they want about how important it is to believe in the science and have faith in our researchers and the institutions they work for. This comment shows the problem in the argument. Science does not require belief or faith. In fact the idea of faith is the antithesis of science. Science is about the hypothesis supported by evidence and remains current knowledge until a hypothesis that is…

Yes, I'm sure everyone has a home lab that they go to to verify when they read the newspaper. I'm not being snarky - these illustrates a core problem in epistemology, trust and social systems (in case the NIH/Fauci/Wuhan debacle already hasn't).

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#446

Post by emilsedgh » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:58 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #415

porcoda wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm biased - I'm a researcher at a big research institution and finished my PhD 15+ years ago. Seeing how the sausage is made shouldn't cause one to become less "pro-science". It should give people perspective that the scientific process is a process performed by humans, with all their flaws (ego, ambition, competition, etc). Furthermore, science is all about making hypotheses and seeing how they work out - with the…

GP here - I honestly think we're honestly mostly in agreement! It's obviously not a completely worthless institution - there have clearly been some impressive discoveries despite all of the bullshit. I think the main source of distrust comes from the jarring disconnect between the way that the institution is presented to the public vs. the way it actually functions in real life. "Messy" is a beautiful way to describe…

Your comment makes it sound like there's an agenda in some entity consciously misrepresenting how acamedia works. But academia is really accessible to public nowadays.

The problem, in my opinion, is how external entities treat science. Some examples:

* Media reporting low grade papers as "Science" which constantly contradict each other. "Scientists found out $something causes cancer", then a year after that "Scientists found out $thatsamething cures cancer

* Pseudo scientific drugs being sold for a health-and-beauty-obsessed general public with little to no effect

* Political think tanks funding flawed research to push their own agenda and heavily echoing those researches in their echelons for political gain

It seems that academia has become a foundation for other entities to cling on for profit, and now the it's the acamedia's reputation that has been shattered.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#447

Post by subsection1h » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:58 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…

> Most research is flawed or useless [...] 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.

If this were true, then you could easily provide numerous examples of discredited papers published in journals like those of the AAAS and National Academy of Science, and yet you didn't. Your comment is worthless.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#448

Post by bikingbismuth » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:59 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…

I have been adjacent to industrial and academic partnerships where both the university and company wanted to maintain the IP of the work and in their minds that extended to the software. Paper was published and the source code was closely guarded. I wondered how people could replicate the findings without the fairly complex system the researchers used.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#449

Post by beerandt » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:00 AM UTC

porcoda wrote: post #304

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…

I'm biased - I'm a researcher at a big research institution and finished my PhD 15+ years ago. Seeing how the sausage is made shouldn't cause one to become less "pro-science". It should give people perspective that the scientific process is a process performed by humans, with all their flaws (ego, ambition, competition, etc). Furthermore, science is all about making hypotheses and seeing how they work out - with the…

>aren't bullshit as much as they ultimately contribute no new knowledge or understanding

How else do you define bullshit?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#450

Post by xdennis » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:01 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #114

urthor wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly protest the concept that the recent introduction of politics is making things worse than they used to be. If you ask anyone who was senior working in these institutions in the 1970s, things were far more dodgy back then. Corruption and bigotry were rampant. But it was far easier to cover up back in the day. Politicization is mostly driven by transparency . Politicization is not a new thing, it's a fact tha…

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…

> 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.

Why say "in the past"? Do you think it's not now?