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

How Much Science Is Fake?

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#21

Post by bloated5048 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

I agree. If we relied on anecdotal evidence more often we'd have resorts on Mars by now.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#22

Post by cynicalpeace »

davisoneee wrote: post #19
cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and…

Fake is a good word. "unjustified and sloppy" is fake to me. We have different definitions of fake and shouldn't get hung up on definitions. My last word on it is I should be antagonistic against people who are deciding what goes in my son's school lunch based off of "unjustified and sloppy" studies.

First principles + received wisdom are counter balancing, not contradicting. Everything in life is a balance.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#23

Post by mewpmewp2 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

> processed foods are bad

Are they? What kind of food is not processed that we should be eating?

I think I know what people mean usually when they use this term and like that in a sentence, but this term has always confused me even far into adulthood.

Still pointing it out, since I think it's such a bad or misleading term to use.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#24

Post by efitz »

davisoneee wrote: post #19
cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and…

The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of being a “science denier.”

Almost no one is interested in having an honest discussion about whether or not the original paper actually says what it’s characterized to have said, and whether it was a good study in the first place.

So nowadays, when public policy is concerned, largely I disregard any scientific study that is introduced to support any position on the policy, and just do my own cost – benefit trade-off to determine my policy position.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#25

Post by cynicalpeace »

bloated5048 wrote: post #21
cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

I agree. If we relied on anecdotal evidence more often we'd have resorts on Mars by now.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

Assuming you're being sarcastic. I never said anecdotal evidence. And indeed all 3 (first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation) are helping get to space, arguably more than research papers

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#27

Post by cynicalpeace »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #23
cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

> processed foods are bad Are they? What kind of food is not processed that we should be eating? I think I know what people mean usually when they use this term and like that in a sentence, but this term has always confused me even far into adulthood. Still pointing it out, since I think it's such a bad or misleading term to use.

"quite obvious but are hard to prove" ... "people love to poke holes in obvious truths, especially in well educated spaces like HN"

yes they're bad. It's not confusing, you're just overthinking it.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#28

Post by cynicalpeace »

efitz wrote: post #24
davisoneee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and…

The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of b…

Same here, and the more "the science" is used as a cudgel, the more people will resent it, whether or not they know a lot of it isn't even replicable.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#29

Post by cptaj »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

Be careful with this default position.

If we start from first principles: - Any one individual is not trained or experienced in the vast majority of scientific disciplines, regardless of his/her expertise in any one field - Even if half the studies published have flaws (where did you get that stat? was that study flawed?), their body of references is filtered by decades of replication and paper ranking of importance - The people doing the studies have decades of study in the particular field they're publishing about

Concluding from first principles: Its more likely that a random individual's opinion about a random niche of scientific study will be wrong than that of an individual trained on that niche

And then also starting from "received wisdom": Joe Schmuck on the street doesn't know more than scientists about their thing

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#30

Post by davisoneee »

efitz wrote: post #24
davisoneee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation. It could be... - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence) - unjustified and malicious (this i would consider 'fake') - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake') - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and…

The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of b…

You say you do a cost:benefit...but where do those costs come from? To me, that's just voluntarily doing your own ignorant, sloppy science I was mentioning above. If you only consider the blatantly obvious costs and benefits, you are completely ignorant of any 2nd or 3rd order...or even your own blind spots. You may radically under or overstate, or even calculate in the wrong direction.

I think a better position is that we should have a higher bar of what level of study or replication is required for a given situation...whether that be health, housing, infrastructure or whatever policy is coming in...what kind of monetary outlay and timeline of impact is expected. I don't think most people here would be happy with a 6-person study, unreplicated, deciding policy...so what IS the threshold?

Post reply on HN