Why not just create an open database which would contain important comments, critique and known cases of misinterpretation/misuse for every scientific paper (uniquely identified by a DOI)?
Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
591–600 of 970 posts
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bret and Eric Weinstein are ... to put it politely, utter narcissistic charlatans themselves.
I've got not dog in the fight, but I've listened to some podcasts by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, and compared to the absolute nonsense I see on TV today, it is a breath of fresh air. They're reading scientific articles, discussing implications in long form, and have been open and honest about their mistakes. I have not seen or heard of Eric Weinstein so I can't comment. I'm not sure what kind of bar you're usi…
When did you listen? They used to be OK but then went completely down the conspiracy rabbit hole.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only person who really understood how to do independent validation. Of course the code MUST be different.
Why is it not a good idea to first redo with the original code? Also doing an independent implementation doesn't mean you should start there - what if it doesn't replicate with the same code?
The risk here is that the original code contains a bug that is inadvertently reproduced by the replicating scientists after reading it. It can easily happen in some fields that some computation looks very plausible in code, but is actually incorrect.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#594Just 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…
Is there anything left in this world that hasn't been corrupted by greed and thirst for power?
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are studies on "natural immunity" and even how it compares with the vaccines. (here's an example: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... ) A lot of the antivax folks cling to the idea of natural immunity being better somehow, but who in their right mind would choose immunity from getting infected with a virus that can make you very very sick (or dead) and cause you to infect many others…
I am in South Africa. We initially struggled to get the vaccine and first phase was literally a clinical trial for health workers. We eventually did get stock but it seems by then a significant number of the population got Covid. Omicron variant doesn't seem to have affected us as much and surveys have shown that up to 80% South Africans have natural immunity from having had Covid. Yes there are some papers on the to…
It's certainly not good that so many people were forced to roll the dice initially because of lack of access to a vaccine that already exists. As new waves of variants get spread around data has been being collected so we can learn more about the immunity given by both vaccines and prior infection. Your comment mentioned a lack of research being done, but said nothing about government policy. How do you think government policy should have changed in relation to natural immunity?
From what I've seen a prior infection may give stronger protection than vaccines which is great for people who caught the virus and survived without long term health issues, but that's no comfort for the people who didn't. I hope that access to vaccines has improved in South Africa since whatever degree of protection we get from either an infection or a vaccine doesn't last very long. I'll be trying to get my 4th shot in a couple months.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#596Odd how there's no study on reducing the massive manipulation being done for the greater good. The pandemic has really shown how weak and sleazy all institutions are. Any while 'scientific misinformation' means there's at least a modicum of science in place, wait until you see what people are really sharing privately! The disaster that will come is well deserved to all governments and institutions. There used to be a…
Authorities don't seem to understand that their trust is earned. It's like they can't even conceive that it can be eroded. Lies and half truths are told so often and for so minor issues that it can't possibly make sense from a cost-benefit perspective, if behind the scenes it's indeed "noble lies" and "greater good", as some generous people seem to think. If you tell a noble lie every other day, nobody will trust you. Why should they?
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#597For 99.9% of us, science is theater. A guy on tv wearing the right costume, talking sciencey. And independent thought is inconceivable. So ya, the zombie apocalypse happened yesterday and nobody noticed.
I've never seen anything like mass formation psychosis until now. It truly is astonishing to see how many people can be so easily hypnotized with the right application of fear and hope.
Member the post 9/11 psychosis? I member.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#598Just 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…
Respectfully, I disagree with you, it's mainly because of social media. Academic degradation definitely contributes (it give conspiracy theorists ammo) but if you've been exposed to the echo chambers that drive anti-science conspiracies I think you'll realise how toxic the movement and social media. Mainstream social media is the gateway and it surfaces these influencers to the curious with less harmful theories like Invermectin then to antivax and homeopathy and mistrust in doctors and traditional drugs.
A lot of these influencers have been deplatformed and flocked to alternatives like centralised telegram groups, social media. Non-conspiracy people treat conspiracy people like outcasts, no one likes arguing with no conclusion when the answers is 'I don't believe your source' so they retreat to these echo chambers for social acceptance. I've seen this happen to people I know, they just doom scroll, share anti-tech, -media, -pharma, -government memes. They become rabid in their beliefs and there is no pulling them out. I've seen this firsthand infect people who are "smart" university educated, career success. It's a shame, part of decent people I know are gone. There is a simmering undercurrent of I'm smart and you're an idiot and its probably felt both ways. I'm not from the US, but I've read accounts of what Fox News does to people and it feels similar.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great choice of critic -- who has written many books about scientists commiting fraud because of their lust for grant money. Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. And of course he's a climate change denier.
>Too bad his criticism comes from fantasy, instead of facts. The quoted passage specifically says his area of expertise is show business. Do you know of misinformation that he endorses or spreads on that topic?
Not op, but I think that the post that you replied to has a valid point.
Sure, the quote in itself is great, but the post that you replied to is pointing out that the person who made that quote is himself doing the same thing as those journalists that he is criticizing.
Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online
#600Earlier quoted context omitted.
This website is pretty easy to post on anonymously. It takes five seconds to make a throwaway and another three to post a name. While I agree that there are frauds out there in academia and elsewhere, I have no reason to believe that you’re not yourself some sort of fraud. You’ve essentially posted “I have direct knowledge of [unspecified academic fraud in which somebody claimed to have direct knowledge of [unspecifi…
> This website is pretty easy to post on anonymously. Correct me if I am wrong, but this website, and the owners are in U.S. of A. If so, an appropriate court order would force the disclosure of logs, IP addresses, accounts, etc. There are plenty of examples where sites had to disclose sufficient details to track an 'anonymous' writer down. With multi-million (billion?) dollar endowments on the line, I would be worri…
VPNs exists and are trivial to use. As is the TOR browser. Yes it's probably compromised already, but the FBI is not going to show their hand chasing a random libel case.