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

861–870 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#861

Post by Jansen312 »

jazzyk wrote: post #846
alignItems wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I trust Malone way more. Fauzi has vested interest in continuing COVID measures. Check out his pay (higher than western leaders in the world). Check also his stock holdings. Still Fauzi has way more credibility than the entire WHO which has been a laughing stock for the past 2 years.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#862

Post by spion »

Nemrod67 wrote: post #677
ozfive wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand what is for the benefit of society then. In the case of western societies it's clear that they only ones benefiting from the anti-vax opinion is the healthcare industry. What do you gain from rejecting something that can elongate your immunity and also elongate against the schance that some for profit industry (western healthcare) will take advantage of you when you don't have the ability to obje…

"the outcome of objection is death." 99% of the population recovers, maybe you are engaging in hyperbole?

Do you also count people who have lingering symptoms for over a year (in the UK half a million, or ~ 1% of the entire population so far) or continue to be unable to do their day to day activities (quarter of a million in the UK, or 0.5% of the entire population so far) as recovered? [1]

[1]: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#864

Post by pomdapi »

simiones wrote: post #740
pomdapi wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a reason the West is incredibly wealthy and it isn't because our best and brightest are faking it. The reasons for that can be myriad. Actual or false scientific success of the last 30 years is not necessarily it. Also, don't you feel the ship has kind of been slowly going down during the last 10 years, wealth-wise ?

> Also, don't you feel the ship has kind of been slowly going down during the last 10 years, wealth-wise ? Not for the rich, so the reasons are not that much to do with value-creation (it's value distribution that's rotten).

Very true.

IMHO, there is also a tremendous amount of value dilution going on, and not just due to the action of the US FED or Treasury, or other central banks.

The problems are systemic and global, and conjoined with the problem of value distribution.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#866

Post by aeternum »

tablespoon wrote: post #848
jerry1979 wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 action…

Uncertainty and especially admitting when something is not yet known is perhaps the most important part of science. The point is to do experiments and actually test things to get closer to the truth. One must admit epistemological uncertainty until the actual experimentation.

The CDC still has not performed or directed any large-scale experiments of any kind. They are a political institution, not practitioners of science.

Saying something definitive like 'Masks are NOT effective in preventing #Coronavirus' before the evidence is in is quite anti-scientific.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#867

Post by s1artibartfast »

dekhn wrote: post #838
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 c…

This is a symptom of no centralized framework. You don't need to people to memorize or understand the entire message, but a comprehensive reference source. We ship manuals with cars, we don't expect people to memorize it at the dealer.

In your case, wouldn't it be helpful to have a a recognized stand reference you could just point them to and let them read, instead of having to explain it and point to some random web page faq that they may not trust?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#868

Post by ithkuil »

Chris2048 wrote: post #860
ithkuil wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Replace weak with "shifty" and "unclear". In any case a public communication that doesn't reassure will quickly be replaced by one that does, by escalating the issue to the nearest political figure who takes on the job of providing such assurance.

I would think lying would make someone seem more shifty than making the facts known. > that doesn't reassure will quickly be replaced by one that does sure, just doesn't need to be the EPA that does it. pre-empting politicians and doing their manipulation for them is not justified - politicians are not a source of truth.

don't get me wrong; I don't think anything of that is justified. I just think there is a selective pressure for this behaviour to emerge. High-profile public officials are politicians for all intents and purposes. They shouldn't be, but they are.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#869

Post by skybrian »

jazzyk wrote: post #846
alignItems wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, looking at funding is a terrible shortcut. If you can't study the papers yourself, maybe see what other scientists think of their work? For COVID there is plenty of discussion.

If you can't figure it out, hedging your bets is better than choosing a side.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#870

Post by azth »

stillbourne wrote: post #865
kutenai wrote: post #863

Remember when the "science" claimed that low-fat, high carb diets were healthy? Doctors once said that smoking was 'safe'. Science is 'right' up until it's wrong.

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm not a Christian, but how life emerged is not something that experimental science will ever be able to answer. It's literally outside the domain of science.
Post reply on HN