Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#611

Post by klabb3 »

seventytwo wrote: post #273

There’s a major distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Disseminating DISinformation should be considered fraud, provided it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the purveyors knew the information was false. Otherwise, any provably-false thing is misinformation.

It's noisy as hell in most sciences. It takes a loooong time for true consensus to be established, and much longer to challenge an existing consensus. So "provably false", while admirable, is not applicable to any of the topics that the authorities are upset over, like vaccine efficacy/safety, climate change and so on. Much less the appropriate reaction - like vaccine mandates or what energy sources we should invest in. Anyone who claims consensus is either lying or I'll informed.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#612

Post by archhn »

Trust the [government] scien[tists]ce. As if "science" is a pure endeavor beyond the reach of human corruption. How do I know who is acting in my best interest? Are we paying their salary, or are corporations and government agencies paying them? Who are they beholden to? Are our interests the same?

We all aren't in the same boat. Certain decisions are harmful to certain groups and beneficial to others. Lockdowns, for example, decimated small businesses and crushed the working class. Amazon and many corporations, on the other hand, welcomed the lockdowns as a boon to their businesses.

We are not one nation. We are not one world. These centralized authorities are sanctifying the plundering of certain groups on behalf of others--or so it seems.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#613

Post by dannyw »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #605
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…

When you say you are no longer highly 'pro science' would you say that you would rather people take advice from scientists or from people who have a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter". Because that's the level we're at at the moment. The current climate we're in means that consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice…

We're also living in the world where certain governments are mandating vaccines that pose 50% higher excess risk of myocarditis compared to an infection[1] for those aged under 40, according to a peer-reviewed, UK population-level study.

Or shutdowns of discussion that some health authorities, like Sweden, have (IMO correctly) judged that there is no clear benefit to vaccinating kids under 12 against COVID [2].

The issue I see is less on the fringe 'microchips' but more around the complete shutdown of discussion of complex topics are not binary.

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0/figures/2

[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#614

Post by kuhewa »

nradov wrote: post #509
agonz253 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's fraudulent about them is not their papers (there are none of any relevance to speak of) but their character. They are both self proclaimed misunderstood geniuses who have been denied Nobel prizes in spite of their revolutionary discoveries (in 3 different fields, Physics, Economics and Evolutionary Biology). In actuality they are narcissistic master charlatans with delusions of grandeur. For an expert's take o…

Then the comment by ummonk above is off topic because there is no credible claim of scientific fraud. Lots of people are blowhards with odd opinions. So what?

> Lots of people are blowhards with odd opinions.

And the ones that are masquerading as having Nobel worthy research chops to get the audience to believe their gripes about the scientific establishment is on topic enough.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#616

Post by alignItems »

Graffur wrote: post #217
jimmydoreornot wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Jury duty.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#617

Post by BongoMcCat »

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…

The problem here is that your initial post, critical of how academia is presented, reads as very black and white to me.

I get the feeling that you claim that it is all fraud and lies, and that those who disagree can see no wrong with it at all.

Then someone responds with a nuanced reply, something that I, as someone who lives in a university town in Sweden, have the impression that almost everyone in academia actually agrees with.

And then it turns out that you also mostly agree. So, now I'm asking myself (and you): Why did I read that first post of yours as so hostile? As someone who was actively trying to create mistrust?

Is it just because how the debate climate is on the internet, or should you perhaps consider trying to be a bit more nuanced when communicating on the internet?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#618

Post by kuhewa »

beerandt wrote: post #511
im3w1l wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet scientific cancer treatments are miles and miles better than quackery.

Arguably it's scientific cancer treatments so frequently failing that lead the vast number of cancer quacks to quackery in the first place.

even if more cancer treatments didn't have horrible side effects and treatment increased survival rates for all cancers by a significant margin,

I think COVID has demonstrated that a substantial fraction of people would still be opting for quackery instead of conventional treatment.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#619

Post by mmsimanga »

autoexec wrote: post #595
mmsimanga wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governm…

> How do you think government policy should have changed in relation to natural immunity?

This is my own opinion based on my observations in South Africa. Yes it is unfortunate we could not get access to the vaccine at the quantities and time we would have liked to but the lesson is we need to improve our ability to manufacture vaccines. There are some promising initiatives in this regard. I digress though. South Africa keeps an eye on weekly deaths[1] and can then work out excess deaths. The excess deaths during the recent Omicron wave which peaked at the end of December were significantly lower than the deaths during previous waves. Government continues to encourage vaccination but the restrictions to reduce spread Covid are at the lowest we have had. Even during the peak of the Omicron variant over New Years restrictions were being lifted [2]. So without coming out and saying it, it looks to me that SA government acknowledges that natural immunity seems to be helping keep hospitalisations and deaths low. This is because most of the research in SA anyway tends to place less emphasis on natural immunity but focuses on the vaccine. So all communication from government continues to stress need to vaccinate yet restrictions continue to fall. It could be that I have not read enough but government's attitude has been welcomed.

[1]https://www.samrc.ac.za/reports/report-weekly-deaths-south-a... [2]https://www.capetalk.co.za/articles/435601/government-lifts-...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#620

Post by dddnzzz334 »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #591

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)?

People knowledgeable enough to make something like this function would likely not be willing to do something this niche for free.
Post reply on HN