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

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#871

Post by nautilius » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #855

nautilius wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not arguing one way or another, but what is the evidence?

Most nations spend a notable portion of their defense budget, on disrupting opponents via whisper campaigns, and dividing an opponent from within. This has been going on through all of recorded history. Disrupting belief in any important part of your opponent's society, is key. The goal is to cause societal disfunction, an inability to work cooperatively. Why fight a war, if your opponent destructs from within? Or, a…

Oh I completely see the why, I am curious about evidence of the whether.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#872

Post by tqi » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

c-cube wrote: post #523

colechristensen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not bad to prioritize healthcare workers, there are plenty of levers the CDC and governments have to do so. It is bad to prioritize healthcare workers by sculpting messages i.e. manipulating the population. A message for Feb 2020: "Masks will likely help curb infection for you and transmission for others, masks are most important for healthcare workers and the medically vulnerable, wearing them when you're aroun…

I agree on principle. But in practice it'd have led to a massive shortage and more dead nurses / doctors. Panic buying is a terrible thing.

They essentially decided to borrow against future trust in order to achieve a desired near term outcome. That may have been the option which led to the fewest deaths, or maybe vaccination rates would be ?% higher if they hadn't undermined their own credibility. It was (and still is) impossible to know, but I don't think thats the kind of call we want scientists to be making.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#873

Post by jpeloquin » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

mdiesel wrote: post #720

codeulike wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a well known paper from 2005 - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" John P. A. Ioannidis https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 Assuming that that paper is not false, it highlights lots of areas/reasons why things can go wrong. Nonetheless, flawed as it is, the 'scientific method' is the best we've got. "How do you get people to discover reliable knowledge without getting sidetracked by bias…

The difference versus acedemia of old is that science used to be the hobby of rich gentlemen who were under no financial pressures to pay their mortgage and feed their families. Nowadays, I have no doubt everyone is in their field because they love it and want to further it, but if you have to choose between unemployment or taking on projects that you didn't choose most can live with the latter. So the solution is to…

> Give universities a blank cheque to employ scientists to work on whatever for sciences sake, not for business.

Personally, I favor the opposite—stop awarding universities the "indirect costs" part of grant awards unless they agree to cap the hiring of grant-seeking investigators. The number of grant applicants needs to be balanced with the supply of public funds, and I don't think the public is willing to pay much more than they already are. And I say this as someone who is currently grant-funded.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#874

Post by chr1 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

lovecg wrote: post #299

chr1 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how "don't believe, always question everything" have transformed back into "believe in science". Believing in science is a very old thing, Maya have believed in their eclipse prediction science so much that were even making human sacrifice to save the sun from being eaten. We should teach the public not to "believe in science", but the main skill of any scientist: to try to find errors in the theory you think i…

I think we got there by mixing up science and policy. In an emergency (like a pandemic) you can’t have an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty in decision making - someone have to make the tough calls and stand by them. Unfortunately we don’t have clear delineation between “science” (what and how we know, and how certain we are) and “policy” (what should we do based on this information) in the public discourse - the s…

Why can’t you have an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty in decision making? Doubt is always better than false certainty. Public figures lying during pandemic have only prompted more people to be distrustful of science and the official policy decisions.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#875

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #819

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…

You would have had a higher vaccine compliance if the dialogue would never have been about mandates. Just give a health recommendation. You wouldn't have reached everyone, but the science also said that you do not need to. In some countries we will see mandates without any perspective. For the third dosage? The fourth? The opposition is correct when it says you only get your freedom back if you boot out those respons…

I think that many people have a low opinion of the general public, but I think they are more intelligent than people give them credit for.

If you want to someone to take an action, tell them specifically what they have to gain, dont just provide some general platitude that it is good for you.

If you want someone to get boosted, say you have X% reduced chance of death and Y% hospitalization. Make an honest calculation and keep it up to date.

If the data doesn't exist, we have much bigger problems.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#876

Post by alexashka » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

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…

It's simpler than that. It's accountability.

Whether you communicate, or do without communicating, there needs to be accountability.

When there's no accountability, it boils down to power games, which is what we've always had, because as soon as you start playing accountability, you have to justify why you have power and I don't, and that makes people in power extremely nervous, because most of them are really not that bright and any requirement to use rationality exposes it all too clearly.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#877

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

JamisonM wrote: post #426

tstrimple wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see the root cause of all this debate as a failure in scientific communication. How can you have scientific communication without nuance? We know nuanced discussions can't happen at scale. Is this even solvable? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128061

I would dispute the idea that nuanced /messaging/ can't happen at scale (discussions are a different thing altogether). While I understand that everyone is up in arms about COVID-19 communications these days there are lots of instances around the world of effective communication that in the end had to be fairly nuanced.. most populations understand that vaccines are useful and effective but not perfect, most populati…

>I guess we can quibble about the definition of "nuance" but the idea that vaccine science and hospital capacity management is very direct doesn't hold much water with me, maybe others disagree, IDK?

This is what I am getting at. If we claim these decisions are science based, communicate the science! e.g. if X% more people are vaccinated, we will have Y more hospital beds, and Z more elected procedures. make an honest calculation, show the work, and stand behind it.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#878

Post by kutenai » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

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.

You miss the point. "Scientists" literally lied about the nutritional issues, as well as the smoking. They were "bought off" by companies. Now, I'm sure you have 100% confidence that the "current administration" is 100% by the book and honest in all of their dealings. While, you might have had less than 100% confidence that the previous administration was. My point? You trust one group, but not another. I might trust the other, not your group. These "groups" (I mean political, business, whatever is controlling the narrative) will lie, cheat and steal to get "their" agenda across.

That last point is 100% undeniable!!! History has absolute clarity that political forces will force the narrative to their desired viewpoint, and say what you will, deny that to your own peril and ignorance.

So, do I "trust the science?". I have an MSEE (not a scientist, but educated). I trust the science, I just don't trust who controls the narrative, and historically this has a larger affect on what "science" concludes, than, uh, the actual science.

So, be as ignorant to the forces that control the narrative as you like. I'll remain skeptical, and look at both sides.

Oh, and, when the "forces that control the narrative" decide they must censure "one side", I'm hella suspicious of that.

Major Kudos to the Brits for recognizing this. Most sane thing I've heard out of anyone in a while.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#879

Post by disambiguation » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

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…

"Failure of communication" is a generous way to put it.

The leaked Collins and Fauci emails show there was a deliberate decision to trade truth for control of the narrative. [0]

This isn't incompetence or messaging being too simple. This is a failure of philosophy: that of "noble lies".

Much of our leaders behaviors can be explained through this lens.

Masking, natural immunity, lab leak, etc.

At every turn, the facts were skewed and skeptics were penalized in order to railroad everyone into vaccination.

The failure is that the people in charge don't see this line of action as a failure, but rather a necessary evil. A means to an end.

[0] https://news.yahoo.com/reps-comer-jordan-expose-fauci-160210...

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#880

Post by vasuki » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

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 is misinformation because it is outright wrong. Follow Malone for a couple of weeks and you will see he has nothing else to share but: Vaccines are bad, Vaccines are killing people.

- https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-ma...

- https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252...

> As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

> "Are we headed for the situation where the ~30% unvaxxed will be devoting their lives to operating whatever is left of the economic infrastructure and serving as caretakers for the vaxxed?"

This is what got him banned from twitter.

Why don't you try to investigate a bit yourself? People with credentials can have no other motive to spread misinformation and all the motive to "save the humanity" ? Sad to see this on HN.