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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#841

Post by mrtedbear » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #671

mrtedbear wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The model generated totally different output every time you ran it, even with fixed seeds." - I remember seeing code takedowns of the model from anti-lockdown people who repeatedly cite this issue. But there is a valid reason for this to happen, and it doesn't mean bugs in the code. If the code is run in a distributed way (multiple threads, processes or machines), which it was, the order of execution is never guaran…

"There are ways to mitigate this, but since the model was collecting outcomes to create a statistical distribution, rather than a single deterministic number, it didn't need to." This is the justification the academics used - because we're modelling probability distributions, bugs don't matter. Sorry, but no, this is 100% wrong. Doing statistics is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for arbitrary levels of bugginess. Fi…

At the time, critics of the model were claiming the model was buggy because multiple runs would produce different results. My comment above explains why that is not evidence for the model being buggy.

Report 9 talks about parameters being modeled as probability distributions, i.e. its a stochastic model. I doubt they would draw conclusions from a single run, as the code is drawing a single sample from a probability distribution. And, if you look at the paper describing the original model (cited in report 9), they do test the model with multiple runs. On top of that they perform sensitivity analyses to check erroneous assumptions aren't driving the model.

I have spent time in academia, but I'm not an academic, and don't feel any obligation to fly the flag for academia.

Regarding the politics, contrast how the people who forensically examined Ferguson's papers were so ready to accept the competing (and clearly incorrect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI) results from Sunetra Gupta's group.

Fair point about academic code being messy. It's a big issue, but the incentives are not there at the moment to write quality code. I assume you're a programmer - if you wanted to be the change you want to see, you could join an academic group, reduce your salary by 3x-4x, and be in a place where what you do is not a priority.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#842

Post by tablespoon » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

hnfong wrote: post #737

tablespoon wrote: post #547

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. 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…

If an institution cannot give sufficiently accurate facts to me, why wouldn't it be rational for me to try to figure out the truth (to my satisfaction)? You may assume that "I" do not have sufficient education and training to interpret state-of-art publications, and/or assume that "I" would end up trusting dubious alternative theories, but you do not know. The "average" person may indeed be incapable of finding out t…

> You may assume that "I" do not have sufficient education and training to interpret state-of-art publications, and/or assume that "I" would end up trusting dubious alternative theories, but you do not know.

If you're that smart, you should be smart enough to 1) understand the pressures they're under, 2) be empathetic, and 3) seek out information that may not be adapted for mass communication.

> but I'm really sick of "science-y" people giving blanket statements on what others should believe without actually checking whether they deserve the condescending remark in the first place.

Check with who? The public? You personally? Throughout this whole pandemic, precisely zero "science-y" authorities have had conversations with me on this, so I'm speaking exclusively about mass communications.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#843

Post by ta988 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:36 PM UTC

murphyslab wrote: post #492

ta988 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now think about research on chemicals, everybody has a different source, different quality control (most academic labs do 0 qc on incoming chemicals). I have bought chemicals from major and minor vendors and I could tell you all kind of horror stories... Wrong molecule, inert powders added to increase weight, highly toxic impurities... Now you add that to assays and academics that have been optimized for years to scr…

This is absolute baloney. I've ordered numerous research grade chemicals from multiple suppliers and not once has any of them been the wrong one nor outside of stated purity grade — and I regularly checked, since it's standard practice. If a solid organic material is in a lower grade of purity it is typically recrystallized. Now, yes, impurities — even minor ones — can have significant effects. But that tends to be i…

This was my work to check for quality of chemicals entering the lab. NMR, MS, IR... And over 15 years I have seen dozens and dozens of cases. Now most labs call HPLC with UV sufficient for quality analysis. Lots of things looked "fine" that way that's for sure. Note that I was in the drug discovery world not in the inorganic chemistry world where things are ususally of much better quality.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#844

Post by tablespoon » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:38 PM UTC

elcritch wrote: post #669

tablespoon wrote: post #547

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. 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.

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

That makes no sense to me. On an emotional level, my assessment of someone's intentions is a far more important factor in determining how I feel about them than any statement or group of statements.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#845

Post by peteradio » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:39 PM UTC

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…

You can delegate whatever process you want. Please allow me to make that decision for myself, we have different capabilities and values.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#846

Post by jazzyk » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:40 PM UTC

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…

What to do when you have two very different opinions coming from experts:

- Anthony "I am The Science" Fauci

or

- Dr Malone (mRNA inventor)?

Who to believe?

Difficult to say, but these days, sadly, the first (and prudent) thing to do is to follow the money. While credentials matter, the first thing I check when I read a paper/publication is who funded the work.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#847

Post by nradov » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #374

jhallenworld wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the trust has to be earned by a history of proven visibly good outcomes. Never forget that there is a long history of cases where the established scientifically accepted ideas were actually harmfully wrong, particularly in the medical arena. In the USA in particular, medical practice is far from a benign charity, so people are right to question. One example: I had a tonsillectomy when I was a kid. No actual evid…

> t there is a long history of cases where the established scientifically accepted ideas were actually harmfully wrong, particularly in the medical arena. This isn't actually a problem so long as those past errors were caused by the limits of what we knew at the time and efforts are made to help prevent similar issues in the future when it's possible. It's inevitable that as our understating of science and medicine e…

This was a problem when past scientists stated that there was a consensus when in fact the underlying evidence was limited and allowed for multiple possible interpretations. If you dig into some of those past errors in medical guidelines you often find very shoddy, limited research which doctors uncritically accepted as fact.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#848

Post by tablespoon » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:58 PM UTC

jerry1979 wrote: post #817

tablespoon wrote: post #547

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. 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 think the noble lie the parent is talking about has to do with the CDC's lie about masks early on in the pandemic.

> I think the noble lie the parent is talking about has to do with the CDC's lie about masks early on in the pandemic.

Are you talking about the "don't buy masks" thing? Because when I dig up the actual early communications, they're not lies:

https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473

> CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness. #COVID19 https://bit.ly/37Ay6Cm

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-n95-fa...

> “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” the surgeon general, Jerome M. Adams, said in a tweet on Saturday morning. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

Both of those statements were made at a particular time under a particular set of unknowns, and the only way I could see them as "lies" is if I misinterpreted them by failing to consider that context.

The most egregious false statement is probably the thing about hand washing, but it's a not a lie because given how little was known at the time and the fact that the CDC isn't up in some ivory tower, so they had to say something and just recycled previous advice. In Feb. 2020, there wasn't much COVID period, so running around with an N95 to the grocery store would just waste it, especially if it's worn incorrectly (and I saw lots of that, especially using only one strap).

Also, both those statements are far more nuanced than I remember, which I think kind of proves my point about nuance. People claim they want it, but they still strip it away and remember some highly simplified version.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#849

Post by cletus » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

agentgumshoe wrote: post #673

cletus wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situations aren't comparable because in your case (the former Yugoslavia) you're talking about state censorship and control of information by threat of criminal prosecution. The US specifically has protections against this via the First Amendment. Instead we have private actors choosing not to be in the misinformation business. Various hate groups and such have been deplatformed by Twitter, Facebook, etc. Those f…

You're missing the point. Who gets to determine what is 'misinformation?' I think you'll find if you look back a year or so it was the government representatives and 'MSM' defining it, not leading scientists (some of which have since been 'discredited' because they supposedly suddenly turned to nuttiness). And little seems said, but I can't help notice the quite communist behaviour to demand the state mandate 'choice…

Oh I understand the point completely. A quick look at your comment history says everything (eg [1][2]). You have, for whatever reason, fallen down the of misinformation and propaganda that turns you into an anti-vaxxer and you've lost any objectivity or any ability to reason about the information you receive the supports or contradicts your view. If it supports your view, it's correct. If it doesn't, it isn't. The reasons for this can vary: they're hiding things, they're lying, they're misunderstanding, they've been bought by Big Pharma, they're trying to control you, whatever. I honestly don't care.

But what I do know (as evidenced by your history) that having reached that conclusion you now work backwards. You're against "censorship" of misinformation because that misinformation contradicts your anti-vaxxer beliefs and therefore it's bad. I'd bet money if we were talking about censoring information that showed vaccines are safe and work you'd have a completely different view.

Your right to promulgate propaganda isn't being violated here. Platforms just aren't required to distribute it and use their judgement about what they want on their platform.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30144341

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29612915

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#850

Post by ironyholder » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 4:02 PM UTC

blackbear_ wrote: post #833

ironyholder wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I'm afraid you're lacking imagination. Also, the irony of these being historical examples rather than made up seems to be lost on you. Humans are strange.

On a more serious note, if you were interested in what a modern society looks like that is no longer guided by science, you could study Russia. It seems a cynical blend of religion, nationalism, and imperialism is what it is. I'm not advocating for this, I'm describing what it looks like.

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

> You really need to elaborate here.

I specifically prefaced it with "as underwriter of political projects". Over that time, the #1 influence on policy has been economics, and besides covid all of the most pressing issues today are economic: Stagnation, deindustrialization, inequaliy, and inflation. People are asking, if policy over that period was built on such solid scientific foundation, how come we've ended up here?