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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#621

Post by indigochill » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 9:59 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…

Much more abstractly, even if everyone had perfect motivations, it's science's role to be progressively less wrong over time by invalidating faulty hypotheses/theories but almost never to be conclusively correct. Any claim that we understand how or why something works should be taken with a mountain of salt. Claims that a certain observation were made are usually much closer to actual science than any claims of a conclusion.

For example, Aristotle (generally a very influential and intelligent man) believed scallops emerged spontaneously from sand because of the limits of what he could observe back then. The observation itself wasn't wrong as far as the absence or presence of visible scallops, but what he didn't realize was that there was an entire system that he couldn't observe with the tools at his disposal, and this ignorance lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Even Isaac Newton, who forever changed the world with his work on physics and calculus, was an alchemist as well and had some weird ideas about how to treat the plague of 1665-1666 (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/02/isaac-newton-p...). These were also born out of observation and Newton just doing the best he could with the tools he had at the time.

Overall, I believe it's both important to believe in science and scientists (even in the face of those cynically exploiting the system), but also to realize that even at its best, scientific information is ultimately about observations, not the ultimate truth of systems, even if that's the unattainable goal of science.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#622

Post by kuhewa » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 9:59 AM UTC

nsainsbury wrote: post #126

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…

Yes, absolutely this. I don't think many people outside of academia truly understand how much scientific research has degraded over the years. There are an extremely small number of fields in which the overall quality is still quite high (mathematics, etc.) but overwhelmingly the social sciences, medical science, etc. are wastelands of p-hacked, low-N, biased, poorly designed studies that can't be replicated (not to…

This comment would have been more apt a decade ago, but we've already seen a substantial correction and changes to the 'rules' in response to the replication crisis. There's an explosion in the amount of shite published in garbage tier predatory journals but most of that is noise that isn't making it into any decisionmaking

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#623

Post by albertTJames » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:01 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…

Those are unsubstanciated statements about domains you know very little about.

These days science is so specialised and lacking narrative that you can reach PhD level without any notion of what's really going on in your field, and even less into others.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#624

Post by huffmsa » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:02 AM UTC

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…

The only advice he gives is to stop being a fatty McFatty and try to be more healthy, which is exactly the right suggestion.

Also routinely says not to listen to him, they're his opinions and probably wrong.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#625

Post by kuhewa » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:02 AM UTC

crmd wrote: post #168

blablabla123 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This highly depends on the field. In Physics the barriers are very high. I mean not necessarily for things to end up on arxiv.org but to be published in a peer reviewed magazine. Although probably that's not for every field and perhaps not even feasible because the data is just not there. Thinking about Medicine, every single data point there is probably a lot of work (and speaking of human trials 4 digit expensive).

Across the academy, there is a movement away from the mission of seeking truth to the mission of seeking justice. The exact sciences are about a decade behind the social sciences in this transition.

Nah. Just because societies and journals in STEMier fields are moving towards being more inclusive in broader practices does not equate to a fundamental difference in what counts as science

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#626

Post by AussieWog93 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:02 AM UTC

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…

>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".

I would prefer that the general public take advice from scientific researchers with a grain of salt, with an understanding that the system is far from perfect and much of what is published either contains methodological flaws that lead to false conclusions or cannot be reproduced at all.

I also think a little bit of common sense would go a long way.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#627

Post by helsinkiandrew » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:03 AM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #613

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> 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].

If everybody else takes a vaccine it is almost always far safer for you not to take it. Vaccines help society by stopping illnesses spreading, they just need enough people to collectively accept the personal risk for the good of everyone else - the same was true for Polio, TB, measles.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#628

Post by FeepingCreature » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:04 AM UTC

c-cube wrote: post #523

colechristensen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not bad to prioritize healthcare workers, there are plenty of levers the CDC and governments have to do so. It is bad to prioritize healthcare workers by sculpting messages i.e. manipulating the population. A message for Feb 2020: "Masks will likely help curb infection for you and transmission for others, masks are most important for healthcare workers and the medically vulnerable, wearing them when you're aroun…

I agree on principle. But in practice it'd have led to a massive shortage and more dead nurses / doctors. Panic buying is a terrible thing.

If you agree only in principle but not in practice, then you don't agree in principle. Principles are for practicing.

Either we take lying off the table or we don't. Fiat justitia etc.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#629

Post by lentil_soup » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:06 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #181

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…

All of this may be true, but it leads to the question: if not science, what do you recommend instead? Not being a virologist or epidemiologist, I have to listen to somebody . Are you saying I'd actually be better off listening to Art Bell and Joe Rogan than official sources like Fauci? If so, that's an extraordinary claim if there ever was one.

Agree 100%. And the same is true for a lot of other things, they're just not as contentious.

Every time I get on a plane I have to trust the science and engineering behind it, I have zero clue why it works but I can't become an expert in aerodynamics just to go on holiday. When I drink milk I have to trust the science behind pasteurization, I trust the physics calculations when going up a high rise and the same for when I take medicine.

I have to trust someone for 95% of my day to day actions, and while a system like "science" is flawed it's the best we've got so far. All up for improvements, but let's not throw the baby with the bathwater.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#630

Post by consp » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:09 AM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #613

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

You should also take all the benefits and complications into account when looking at vaccines. The complication rate of infection for those under 40 is far from zero and assumed to be significantly higher than the complication rate of the vaccines. Discussion is good but your argument sounds less like a discussion and more like a statement.