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

To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#111

Post by smsm42 »

timr wrote: post #24

What a weird article. I agree with nearly every individual fact within it, but after reading it, I still don't know the point of the piece. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given that this piece is mostly criticism of science the part of me that associates "conservatives" with "anti-intellectual reactionaries" suspects a hidden agenda to undermine science or give climate change "skeptics" something to point a…

When you're trying to protect science by finding nefarious motives among those who criticize it and start not with if the criticism is fair and to the point but if it can be used by your ideological enemies - you're doing it wrong. I.e. if you're in the political meeting, you're doing it exactly right, if facts are on your side, pound the facts, if not, pound the table. But if you're concerned about science as a way to expand our objective knowledge and not as a way to provide a dressing for your political ideas, whatever they could be - it is wrong.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#112

Post by andrewflnr »

guelo wrote: post #62
capnrefsmmat wrote: post #45

I am sometimes amused to read failed replication studies which do not calculate their own statistical power -- so they do not know whether, assuming the original study was correct, they will have the sample size to reliably detect an effect. A failed replication then says nothing about the original conclusions. Statistical error is a hobby of mine. The Economist mentions a few pervasive errors, but there are many mor…

Nice article, but copying an xkcd image without copying the image's tooltip text is criminal.

Um, you mean in the sarcastic sense?

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#113

Post by PakG1 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #112
guelo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice article, but copying an xkcd image without copying the image's tooltip text is criminal.

Um, you mean in the sarcastic sense?

The tooltip text is half the joke a lot of the time.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#114

Post by [deleted] »

smsm42 wrote: post #111
timr wrote: post #24

What a weird article. I agree with nearly every individual fact within it, but after reading it, I still don't know the point of the piece. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given that this piece is mostly criticism of science the part of me that associates "conservatives" with "anti-intellectual reactionaries" suspects a hidden agenda to undermine science or give climate change "skeptics" something to point a…

When you're trying to protect science by finding nefarious motives among those who criticize it and start not with if the criticism is fair and to the point but if it can be used by your ideological enemies - you're doing it wrong. I.e. if you're in the political meeting, you're doing it exactly right, if facts are on your side, pound the facts, if not, pound the table. But if you're concerned about science as a way…

[deleted]

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#115

Post by tracker1 »

TillE wrote: post #43
saraid216 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sort of amuses me that there are HN climate change denialists, but there aren't really any HN creationists.

It makes sense, though. AGW denialism is very much a part of "pro-business" ideology, because it's uncomfortable to accept things that don't align with your worldview, even when there's a mountain of evidence behind it. HN has no particular attraction for fundamentalist Christians.

I don't have a problem with climate change as a science, or even something we should be concerned about. My larger issues are regarding the hysteria, and anti-corporatism that tends to go along with it.

For the record, I'm pretty anti-corporation, but for different reasons. I feel that given the problems people face in their individual lives, communities, and even in broader society, and the earth as a whole it comes down to, what can we change easily today, what can we change with a minimal impact tomorrow, and what directions can we take to accomplish a given set of goals farther into the future.

First, what are the negative impacts of global warming? Can these be addressed in a more localized level? If they need to be addressed globally, how can that be prioritized and accomplished?

Second, have the issues and solutions been prioritized by impact:cost analysis?

Third, given impact:cost analysis and prioritization, are there smaller steps that could have a larger impact:cost ration that can improve a problem in the near term that could have a higher priority?

It may seem really insensitive to take a step back and look at things objectively.. but the "OMG, my grandkids won't ever see real trees!!!" approach is just as polarizing and ineffective as a whole as the religious nutters.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#116

Post by timr »

sien wrote: post #109
timr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prove your claim. Cite something other than a picture you found on a blog.

This is from another blog, but the figures are from draft versions of the latest IPCC report: http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/ The figure that was removed shows that measured temperatures are falling outside a 95% confidence interval from the multi-model mean. This does not mean the climate will not warm, that C02 is not the major factor (or at least a major factor), but it does mean the models…

Ok, so you're citing three pictures on a blog. I guess I'm supposed to be 300% more convinced?

But seriously: you're cherry picking one set of mean global temperature data, to dispute one graph in one IPCC report, for one line of evidence (of many). And your argument isn't rigorous or statistical -- some guy hand-drew some lines over the graphs, and asserts that it doesn't fit the data, even though the observed data lands pretty cleanly in the range of the models. And even if the models are off here, it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of AGW. You can't win, even if you make a good argument here.

The reason nobody but climate denialists read these arguments is because they're pedantic and facile, not because there's a vast scientific conspiracy against you.

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#118

Post by ballard »

haberman wrote: post #63

The fundamental problem as I see it: science can either produce a high rate of unreliable results or a low rate of reliable results, but the market demands a high rate of reliable results. The market produces the current situation because the rate of results is much easier to observe than their reliability. No one wants to fund a study only to get no result out of it. So they end up getting an unreliable result inste…

Interesting. Does this seem like an opportunity to measure reputation from influence, results and funding utilization? Is any site (lexis, etc) already trying this?

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#119

Post by kzrdude »

vacri wrote: post #81
pdonis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the usual HN climate-change critics are in this thread, pointing at and yelling about how science is "broken". I don't think the current situation in climate science shows that "science is broken". I think it shows that climate scientists have been too quick to claim the credibility of Science when their work does not measure up to that standard. (Climate science is certainly not the only field that does this: much o…

Did you bother reading the article? Because it specifically says that not only are the usual soft targets like psychology a problem, but so are hard STEM targets like cancer research. Also, what's with the capitalising of Science like it's some kind of club or organisation? "Science" is not a proper noun - making it one is facilitating dogma.

There is a book about the "bubble" of string theory research written by a physicist, but the title and author slip my mind right now.

It discusses the very phenomenon that research grants go to increasingly bigger groups that can be trusted to deliver. And also string theory research itself which did get a ton of grant money during the 1990's even though the results never had impact outside the bubble itself.

Edit, some searching helped me find it: Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics

Re: To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting

#120

Post by thisisnotatest »

How about a karma/bittorrent system for researchers to encourage replication? In such a system, the "application fee" for submitting your experiment to a journal would be that you must also replicate someone else's experiment that was also submitted to the journal. This system could scale arbitrarily.
Post reply on HN