Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

natesilver.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#31

Post by obscurette »

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

Although I'm not really sure it's a global issue, but at least here in Eastern Europe you just have no time to dig in deeper in any subject as journalist. I've seen local academic institutions trying to support journalists to specialize on science reporting more than 10 years now, but all have left saying that pressure to produce just more text is too intense. Old school investigative journalism just doesn't exist any more.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#32

Post by ke88y »

thrashh wrote: post #20
ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

You don’t judge a source by reading the source itself. Usually you do so by considering the context in which the source is made and then you might consult someone who can read the source (who also needs to be judged based on the context in which they are giving you advice).

> You don’t judge a source by reading the source itself.

Well then, I guess we at least agree on the following: today we have science "reporting" done by "journalists" who will write about findings reported in publications that they haven't read and self-admittedly can't read.

I suppose we can agree to disagree about the usefulness of that reporting and the potential harm of that reporting.

> Usually you do so by considering the context in which the source is made and then you might consult someone who can read the source (who also needs to be judged based on the context in which they are giving you advice).

You are missing the word ALSO. As in, you do so by reading and evaluating the source and then ALSO considering the surrounding context.

Palace intrigue isn't something that should be ignored, but it also shouldn't be the entire story.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#33

Post by oatmeal1 »

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

I'm not sure existing journalists could do it, but perhaps this can act as a call to action for a scientist to start a blog or YouTube channel that analyzes scientific discoveries, and/or fact checks existing journalists' interpretations of scientific literature.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#34

Post by zzbn00 »

Very much so, and especially since a scientific paper that was published (after peer review) means that it is of interest to other scientist, not that it is a fact.

But there is also another good point in the post: scientist need to be full and frank in their scientific writing. Selectively reporting results creates a huge problem in the literature.

But unfortunately this creates rather less hype which is what even research institutions increasingly need to survive it seems

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#35

Post by mikebenfield »

jgeada wrote: post #4

Skepticism by the unqualified is just denial of expertise. Whatever Mr Silver's qualification on statistics, it does not render him any sort of expert on contagious pathology nor on coronaviruses in general. Skepticism is warranted when one has an underlying knowledge basis to interpret new statements, put them into context of the existing models and detect something amiss. Without that foundation, what being called…

People have to make judgments about which experts in which fields to trust. Should I believe a Catholic priest (or a Muslim imam, or a Jewish rabbi) when it comes to questions about the nature of the universe? What about when it comes to questions of ethics? They are experts, after all.

What about psychology? I am by no means an expert in psychology, but I'm also well aware that there is a big crisis in that field, where apparently most results can't be replicated, and there seems to be a lot of both outright data manipulation and just sheer incompetence with statistics on the part of researchers. But should I just uncritically accept results in that field? Again, I'm not an expert, so apparently I'm not allowed to be skeptical.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#36

Post by wk_end »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #25
ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

[flagged]

Silver isn't arguing for-or-against the lab leak hypothesis here.

> To be clear, I’m not sure how COVID originated either. I’d “buy” the lab leak at a 50 percent likelihood [...] and sell it at 80 percent, which still leaves a lot of wiggle room for me to be persuaded one way or the other.

This post is his commentary on leaked communications demonstrating that the authors of the paper themselves didn't believe the contents of the paper. This has nothing to do with a medical background or what the CDC believes; media savviness is precisely the qualification required here.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#37

Post by robot_no_421 »

Everyone should be skeptical of all sources.

But out of the myriad of various opinions coming from politicians, CEOs, propagandists, flat out out idiots, and everything else in between, scientists are arguably the class of truth sayers you should be least skeptical of.

So while the title is technically true and I agree with the premise of the article, the article itself is wholly unnecessary at best and damaging at worst. Until we begin to be more skeptical in general and learn to distrust all the other mouthpieces vomiting lies every day, let's trust the scientists.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#39

Post by matt3210 »

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

The idea that the normies could do real science is pure projection

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#40

Post by legitster »

I respect this position on principal, but I also forget like we are equally glossing over the context in this specific case.

In 2020, the lab-leak theory was specifically being promoted by people who were advancing the idea that Covid was a) an engineered bio-weapon b) required a national security response in lieu of a medical one.

But if we really want to look back at 2020-2021, there were MUCH more egregious examples of "experts" wielding their credentials maliciously. School closures I think will be the most pertinent example for a while to come.

Post reply on HN