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

831–840 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#831

Post by raxxorrax »

alignItems wrote: post #814
finite_jest wrote: post #68

Based. Nullius in verba [1]. The whitewashing of censorship is accelerating the erosion of trust in the institutions, and it's refreshing to see a long-standing institution take a bold stance. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

The problem is that we sometimes have to rely on other people. We can’t all be experts in everything. We can’t all reproduce or witness every experiment. What we can do is delegate the process. There’s a difference between saying “whatever X says is true, because X said it”, and “I trust what Y says because Y has explained the process and methods of how it was derived, and I don’t have reasonable doubt to assume Y li…

Of course you have to rely on experts, that is not the criticism. The criticism is that people with opposing views were silenced and declared as spreaders of misinformation. It is not hard to craft a counter argument if you have evidence for it. Just stating that you believe that X is wrong is enough. Having X removed hints that you do not have contradicting evidence. If said evidence is not politically communicable, you still should not ban people and remain on your position.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#832

Post by api »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

> The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities.

This misses a lot of the cause. People aren't listening on the vaccine because there were no WMDs in Iraq. All the "experts" said that too.

The fact that huge frauds have been perpetuated at scale against our entire society and nobody has been held to account is a major reason for collapsing trust. It would be very helpful if the parties responsible had at least been censured even if the political class couldn't muster the will to truly apply penalties, but few in the political class have even admitted that anything bad happened.

When trusted authorities perpetuate frauds or display extreme incompetence and then just paper it over (often at others' expense), they are destroying the fundamental trust basis of society. Opportunistic politicians are destroyers of civilization.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#833

Post by blackbear_ »

ironyholder wrote: post #685
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…

Several things that really truck me with this comment: > consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice [...] being questioned This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long. > a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and form…

> This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long.

How else do you think scientists reached consensus, exactly? Maybe the problem lies with the unqualified amateurs, who are, well unqualified to do that?

Scientific consensus is reached gradually over the course of decades, after a theory stood the test of many many challenges. No scientific theory is absolute and final and challenges are welcome, but they should be scientific, i.e. based on real data and statistically gounded analysis. Yes, it's hard to change consensus, not only in science but in any kind of community. This does not mean everybody in that community is corrupt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If changing a consensus was easy, it would not be a real consensus.

>> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" > >This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to.

No it's not. Getting all background knowledge and staying up to date with all pubblications in a given scientific field is very difficult and time-consuming. Expertise does exist, and takes year to build. Somebody who tells dirty jokes on netflix likely does not have the time or energy do to that. Maybe, but quite unlikely.

> To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it.

What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices?

> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good.

You really need to elaborate here.

Please, please, please. Do not confuse science (the process of discovery) with scientific institutions (the groups of humans with all their defects).

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#834

Post by zionic »

hammock wrote: post #39
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?

That question is the type of thing that a backdoored voting machine or corrupt election board could solve. Luckily, so far there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

I think a more relevant question is:

If there were widespread voter fraud, how would you hear about it? Knowledge mechanisms have become so centralized I’m not certain the general public could be informed anymore.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#835

Post by raxxorrax »

urthor wrote: post #137
skissane wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people accept that science in past generations was, to a certain degree, corrupted by the prevailing prejudices and societal/cultural/political/ideological beliefs of the time. But, if we acknowledge that was true then – why shouldn't we expect the same to be true now? The prevailing prejudices and ideologies may have changed, but has anything changed about the actual practice of science to make it more immune t…

I think the vast rate at which things are improving every decade is really dramatic. Compare now to ten years ago, before me too. Things are hugely different. I fully expect that if you give it a long time, things will be markedly better. In a hundred years for example.

Economic prospects are certainly worse for the younger generations than some generations before, especially in regards to affordability of living. They have more tech gadgets and more access to information though...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#836

Post by [deleted] »

immibis wrote: post #764
bmc7505 wrote: post #59

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Regardless of where you stand on specific issues like censorship, public health and misinformation, I think it’s really dangerous how counter-consensus opinions cannot be expressed in the open without individuals facing intense public scrutiny. There needs to be some kind of correction mechanism in case the consensus opinion is misinformed. Maybe it would help to put in term…

It depends on the specific opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with people not being allowed to express the opinion that minority groups should be systematically exterminated.

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#837

Post by fsflover »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #830
Nitrolo wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm out of the loop here apparently, is margarine bad now? What's consequences does long term use have?

- Accepted fact 1: eating saturated fat causes more coronary heart disease thank unsaturated fat (very high correlation, and accepted as causal) - Accepted fact 2: eating trans fat is bad. A diet high in trans fats can contribute to obesity, high blood pressure, and higher risk for heart disease, because intake of dietary trans fat disrupts the body's ability to metabolize essential fatty acids. Trans fat is also imp…

> Accepted fact 1: eating saturated fat causes more coronary heart disease thank unsaturated fat

Several studies suggest that eating diets high in saturated fat do not raise the risk of heart disease, with one report analyzing the findings of 21 studies that followed 350,000 people for up to 23 years.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#838

Post by dekhn »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #161

I see the root cause of all this debate as a failure in scientific communication. When it comes to complex scientific decisions with significant impacts on the public, nuanced and detailed justifications are required. Instead, we often get simple declarations written by PR departments at juvenile reading level. This spawns chaotic and poorly conducted debate in all walks of life. What is required is a robust and tran…

I am pretty skeptical that complex science can be explained to normal people. I just tried to explain to my school that since my child tested PCR positive then negative for COVID, he shouldn't take a PCR test for 90 days (highly prone to reporting positive even when he is non-infectious), but instead (like the doctor's note says) should take an antigen test, and if he tests negative on that (and has no symptoms) he can return to school.

I explained this fairly simply but the message didn't get through (to a reasonably intelligent person) and they thought I was saying the complete opposite of what I was saying. Instead, they are insisting on continued PCR tests (for "more data" even though I have a doctor's note saying to use antigen tests.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#839

Post by raxxorrax »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #110
wcerfgba wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your comment. I broadly agree with your points and find them insightful. In particular I appreciate that you model authority as an analogue for trust, and trust as an analogue for independent verification. I think trust is a prerequisite for successful convincing, because it is hard for human brains to overcome the emotional and relational elements of discourse, and we need to be in a receptive frame of mi…

Thank you. I've posted elsewhere in the thread about my own opinion that I believe the main issue we have is not with trust in the scientific sense (e.g. I think that most people generally _do_ believe that epidemiologists know what they're doing and that the outliers are exceptions), but with trust in the plan of action e.g. the entire chain of process. Examples, all primarily via trust (I'm not a biologist): I beli…

An interior minister that is dutiful will most likely always opt for more surveillance. Safety of every citizen is his responsibility and he would not leave anything to chance. If if the minister is no friend of authoritarianism, his position will most likely encourage certain policies in a predictable way.

But that safety has to be balanced at some point. Same is true for any ministry of health.

Dying sober might not be the preference of everyone and optimizing on a trivial metric might do a lot of wrong. In fact I believe most people would be horrified to lead a completely rational and reasonable life.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#840

Post by newby »

elondaits wrote: post #698
iqanq wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BIG conflict of interest… if someone goes on his show stating something like “brushing actually destroys your teeth, you should take X supplement which I developed and read my book” he gets money and viewers interested in this “no brushing” thing. If the conclusion is that you should brush and use toothpaste he doesn’t have a podcast. He’s in the industry of going against “mainstream [ie scientific] knowledge”… which…

> BIG conflict of interest… if someone goes on his show stating something like “brushing actually destroys your teeth, you should take X supplement which I developed and read my book” he gets money and viewers interested in this “no brushing” thing. If the conclusion is that you should brush and use toothpaste he doesn’t have a podcast.

This seems to be equally valid for basically any media (using brush and toothpaste is not news). Would you say that all media is in BIG conflict of interest? Or how is Joe Rogan fundamentally different?

Post reply on HN