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

771–780 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#771

Post by bee_rider »

vba616 wrote: post #435
coliveira wrote: post #371

Earlier 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?

It could be a nice quick sanity check, in the sense that if they've completely lied or you've completely misunderstood how to use the program, you won't get the same results. So it could tell you that you shouldn't even bother trying to replicate their claims. But there's a risk that people might mistake re-running the code for reproducing the findings of the paper.

The paper is entered into the scientific record, not the code, which will inevitably become obsolete (old language, old frameworks, implementation details tied to old hardware or operating systems, maybe some source code will be lost, github will go out of business). If the code is necessary, then crucial details have been left out of the paper, so it is not reproducible (although there are some journals that let you submit code as an artifact).

Pseudocode is better, IMO.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#772

Post by immibis »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #401

When any kind of censorship, including self-censorship, total or partial, goes into a publication or its silencing, it will transform a piece of knowledge in ammunition of technical-propaganda instead of science. PS: same happens with true art.

Ah yes. So you cannot censor me saying the keyword to declare a read-only variable in C++ is `final`

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#773

Post by atrettel »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #578
maximus-decimus wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Re running the authors code with their data will likely just repeat any methodological issues they had (either accidentally or fraudulently). In medical studies, one level is to reevaluate the data from the same set of patients to see if any bias or errors wasn't included, perhaps with a different or newer statistical idealogy. The best is for the study to be repeated with a fresh set of patient data to see if the un…

Reading this, I am reminded of a quote by Edsger W. Dijkstra from 1975 [1]:

> In the good old days physicists repeated each other's experiments, just to be sure. Today they stick to FORTRAN, so that they can share each other's programs, bugs included.

[1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/E...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#774

Post by nostrebored »

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…

The lies people tell to the distrustful and cynical don’t matter much. When you take the time to evaluate things from first principles, someone saying something misleading around you just isn’t that impactful.

Institutions being wrong and misleading is something that is immensely harmful because of trust.

Most of the CDC guidance has been verifiably insane from the start of COVID — often from the CDCs own advice before the pandemic.

We need to stop excusing their behavior.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#775

Post by immibis »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #191

Joe Rogan and Dr. Robert Malone podcast. is it misinformation? Dr. Malone certainly have the credentials that none of us have and yet he is censored. is science only one voice? whoever express different opinions should be censored even if that person have the credentials to speak on the matter?

It's misinformation because it is wrong, and deliberately so. We know that because it is contrary to all the actual data. You are aware that for every 1 Robert Malone, there are 99 people who think he's full of bullshit?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#776

Post by immibis »

pcmaffey wrote: post #293

I wonder what Claude Shannon would say about misinformation? Is it noise? Can its impact be modeled?

> The Shannon–Hartley misinformation theorem states: the rate at which misinformation can be transmitted over an analog channel is inversely proportional to the average IQ of the channel participants.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#777

Post by immibis »

overgard wrote: post #86

I think the US has caught this cancerous idea that the average person can't be trusted to think for themselves. The amount of condescension in that thought process is disgraceful. They think, someone has to tell the average person how to think. And the baffling thing is that supposed liberals think that thoughts should be policed by corporations, government, and self styled intellectuals (which seems so much against…

The US has caught this idea that the average person can't be trusted to think for themselves because the average person can't be trusted to think for themselves. That's the problem.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#778

Post by immibis »

maskil wrote: post #5
ozfive wrote: post #2

[flagged]

"excuse to argue against it" is a very slippery slope. There should be no excuses required to exercise free speech and free inquiry. All you've attempted to do here is impugn the motives of those holding a position contrary to your own without addressing their arguments.

When the free speech and free inquiry is causing more harm to society than it's preventing, that is a good reason to prevent it.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#779

Post by immibis »

flavius29663 wrote: post #375
c-cube wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your bias shows heavily. Where's the double blind trial for covid effects and death rate (which seems to be more around 1%), not to ignore the very present long term effects that affect more people? Why put such a high level of doubt on the vaccine which billions of people took, but not on the disease that prompted its creation?

that's the thing. You can freely talk about covid death rates and long term effects, but you can't do it about the vaccine.

You can, as long as you're not doing it one-sidedly, or making shit up.

Why? Simple: because doing those things is currently destroying human civilization.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#780

Post by immibis »

enchiridion wrote: post #7
prox wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I like to add there is a difference between censorship of information and stopping propaganda. Some groups make a claim (say against vaccination) which is fine by itself, but when people run with it, amplify it to influence others, then it goes into propaganda territory. Healthy debates need a good context and a platform that allows for that. I don’t know of many platforms except here in HN and perhaps t…

There is no difference. Just label anything you want to censor as propaganda.

This is what someone with a high stake in propaganda would say. Fact is, there is a difference.
Post reply on HN