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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#661

Post by ColinHayhurst » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:51 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #626

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…

>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 per…

I too have worked in academia, and in partnership with them over 3 deacdes, so seen how the sausage is made. So I understand and recognise some of your points. Still we can and should be pro-science; but recognise that science in academia is extremely political, and increasingly bending to marketing pressures and industry influence.

A big problem, as I see it, is the unwillngness of academia to engage in debate with the public. Whilst academics nowadays are supported and encouraged to engage in "outreach"; the nature of that is almost always in broadcast mode.

In the age of social media, science needs to learn how to communicate, and engage with non-tenured people asking good, evidence based, questions. Sure they get bombarded with abuse and crackpots, but that should not mean ignoring absolutely everybody that approaches them with reason and civility; as so often happens.

Trust is breaking down in society. Is there any wonder, when trust grows from interaction?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#662

Post by elcritch » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:54 AM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #358

concinds wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical that education is a solution to collapsing societal trust. First, the primary organs that would be capable of this education are the media, who have a profit motive to stoke any and all fears (immigration, radiological warfare, world war, coffee being carcinogenic). Second, I think this distrust goes beyond "the CDC said something wrong once, I don't trust them as much anymore." That could be solved wit…

It's not just that the CDC and other institutions of scientific authority 'said something wrong once.' I think most people understand and accept that science is not perfect. Instead, those institutions have shown that they are willing to publish nobel lies . Specifically, they are willing to bend the truth and publish false information if they believe it is in the best interest of society / greater good. Given an ent…

I believe that people at large are better at sniffing out bullshit than the elitists running these institutions realize. Unfortunately most aren't as good at separating out the actual parts being manipulated thereby leading to increased distrust of "science" and to crazy flat earth groups becoming a thing. sigh

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#663

Post by erik_seaberg » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:55 AM UTC

foxfluff wrote: post #651

zzyzz wrote: post #22

I always think about this. If you can't trust people with the ability to see or hear certain information, how can you even trust them to vote?

I don't trust myself to vote. I feel that being informed enough to make an informed vote is a full time job, and I don't have that "luxury". Otherwise you might as well roll a dice or vote the pretty face. Or just don't vote.

Elections are determined by people who don’t think about that. If you are probably more informed than the average voter, you can improve the signal:noise ratio.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#664

Post by short_sells_poo » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:55 AM UTC

iqanq wrote: post #642

mfer wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just this weekend I was reading that more than 60% of the research into cholesterol is funded by the egg industry. Research funded by industry overwhelmingly shows things in as positive light for industry whether it does or not. This kind of example is common. It tells me its worth questioning research and looking deeper at what ever is released. When someone questions research to look at the merits of what they say.

Exactly. The guy who is an "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" doesn't have a conflict of interest, which makes him less biased and more believable.

That's not fair to say. The guy who is "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" has a massive conflict of interest, namely between generating viewership and presenting factual information. Everything he presents is a choice on a gradient between those two.

These snake oil salesmen have quickly cottoned on to the fact that they can take disenfranchised and usually uneducated groups and regurgitate them their own opinions with the air of authority, thus gaining an almost fanatically loyal following.

It's the new age televangelists, but instead of preaching salvation for tithe, they preach actually dangerous drivel that gets people killed. It feels like a low point in human evolution, where our tools enable sociopaths to mislead clueless masses on an industrial scale.

And do you know what is the worst aspect of this? That we can't ban them in good faith, because banning information is a slippery slope one way street that we mustn't take a single step on. The only way out of this quagmire is education, but it's a long slog that will pay off in decades time and only if we make a great effort now. It's literally the tree we have to plant and yet our current generation won't get to enjoy it's shade.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#665

Post by gadders » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:58 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". Because that's the level we're at at the moment.

That's a strawman. He's interviewing doctors, scientists etc. He's not putting forward his own views, apart from when he recounts his own covid experience.

It's like saying the left gets all their news from John Oliver.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#666

Post by AussieWog93 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:59 AM UTC

ColinHayhurst wrote: post #661

AussieWog93 wrote: post #626

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". 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 per…

I too have worked in academia, and in partnership with them over 3 deacdes, so seen how the sausage is made. So I understand and recognise some of your points. Still we can and should be pro-science; but recognise that science in academia is extremely political, and increasingly bending to marketing pressures and industry influence. A big problem, as I see it, is the unwillngness of academia to engage in debate with…

Couldn't agree more, man.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#667

Post by pvaldes » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 11:00 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #338

megaman821 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is just people. Look at all the information about HIV in the 80's, long before social media. People believed some truly crazy, racist, and misinformed things about HIV and its spread.

It really was crazy. Back in 1985 Neil Young apparently thought that he could catch HIV if a homosexual clerk handled his groceries (obviously nonsense and highly offensive). https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/michelle-shock...

But Neil Young didn't died by HIV... Wise man.

"You were -too cautious- about that new disease that was killing everybody in 1985" feels more like a dark joke than a serious claim. Everybody was shocked when Rock Hudson died in 1985.

History repeats itself.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#668

Post by minusSeven » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 11:00 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…

Can you give some examples that expand into your answer, maybe some blogpost or youtube videos that explains this in detail.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#669

Post by elcritch » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 11:02 AM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #547

aeternum wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that the CDC and other institutions of scientific authority 'said something wrong once.' I think most people understand and accept that science is not perfect. Instead, those institutions have shown that they are willing to publish nobel lies . Specifically, they are willing to bend the truth and publish false information if they believe it is in the best interest of society / greater good. Given an ent…

> It's not just that the CDC and other institutions of scientific authority 'said something wrong once.' I think most people understand and accept that science is not perfect. I disagree. I think a big part of the problem is people having unreasonable standards of accuracy or consistency. On COVID, the CDC was never going have everything perfectly figured out in the beginning, and then consistently repeat the same me…

> I don't think distrust and cynicism is rational in that case. It would be if they "lied" [1] selfish reasons, but if you assess that their motives are pure, then descending into "distrust and cynicism" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps not purely rational, but predictable and consistent with emotional norms.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#670

Post by foxfluff » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 11:03 AM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #663

foxfluff wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust myself to vote. I feel that being informed enough to make an informed vote is a full time job, and I don't have that "luxury". Otherwise you might as well roll a dice or vote the pretty face. Or just don't vote.

Elections are determined by people who don’t think about that. If you are probably more informed than the average voter, you can improve the signal:noise ratio.

I'm probably less informed. I don't follow the news (or really any mainstream media) because signal to noise ratio is too bad and there's too much negativity. I have no clue what our politicians are up to.