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

“You're not allowed science any more”

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#111

Post by spott »

kstenerud wrote: post #46
falcolas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arrogance, which I'd call exasperance in this case, in the face of repeated ignorance of reality, is justified. You can only deal with willingly ignorant people for so long before giving up on the human race. And the doctor in the tale did try and educate the mother before she was cut off. She just didn't want to listen.

It's fine to feel exasperated. It's not fine to treat people in such a condescending manner. People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault. The doctor did not try to educate the mother. He tried to lecture her. He offered her a bad user experience, which she naturally rejected. People are not machines. Y…

>People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault.

No. They really aren't[1], and they really don't[2].

Changing your mind is very hard, and most people don't do it. Even if you have been trained to change your mind, the longer that you hold onto an idea, the harder it is to believe the idea to be false. There is a reason Neils Bohr stated "science progresses one death at a time."

You are likely reading this and coming up with a bunch of reasons that you are right, and I'm wrong. Likely: "You missed the point, You didn't talk about UX", or "The doctor was still condescending," or more likely there is some flaw in my argument that you immediately see[3]. These thoughts alone should give you a good idea that it is difficult to change your mind.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expande... [2] http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want... [3] It is also entirely possible that you don't think any of these things. It depends on how strongly you hold to the belief that you shared.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#112

Post by tokenadult »

There are a lot of comments here about the issue of how to communicate risk of different personal medical choices to patients who do not themselves have medical training. It is a tough problem. Professional stage magicians, and avid skeptics, Penn and Teller had an episode of their cable television series Bullshit report on the issue of risks and benefits of vaccination. Maybe a clip from their TV show (with language that many families would find inappropriate for viewing with their children) will help communicate the risk and benefit ratio of vaccination more clearly than documents written in a more clinical tone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

(short clip above, long clip below)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLcOz4EKrxg

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#113

Post by danielweber »

mpweiher wrote: post #83
ddalex wrote: post #35

This is beyond stupid. You can't explain something, so you ban the person from having a say so. I'm terrible afraid of people thinking that this is the way to go. As a doctor, which I am not, I would've said: the danger of your children dying or being crippled by a preventable disease is about 1000 times the risk of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Furthermore, I can guarantee that the vaccine will not caus…

You didn't get the point at all. "You can't explain something," That's exactly not it. The doctor wanted to explain the facts, with the leaflet. Sacha wanted a simplistic assurance that wasn't possible, and refused point blank to have it explained to her.

Those were the words she used, which could be entirely different from her actual reasoning that she didn't feel like talking about. And if this were any kind of world where doctors overrule you because "your argument is invalid" then she will of course not be forthcoming with her doctor ever. She will instead learn the magic words "oh, Johnny had a bad reaction to a vaccine at his previous doctor in Canada."

The doctor's office is not a courtroom or an arrest where everything you say can and should be used against you.

I'm reminded of people who think it would be awesome to bug lawyer's offices or doctor's offices or confessionals to ferret out crime. It will work the first time, but after that you have totally destroyed trust so you haven't gained yourself anything and the public has lost a place to sensitive discuss issues with people they trust.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#114

Post by kordless »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #109
kordless wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called a parable. The universe allows them, and evidently so does Nature. Why would you be ashamed of publishing a paper you worked hard on anywhere? Are you implying you believe others would be judgemental of you because the magazine ran a parable that taught a lesson about dismissal of a concept without consideration?

It makes Nature look overzealous, while failing to teach the lesson. You can find less heavy handed parables in the bible. The dystopia isn't that exciting either.

I agree the dystopia isn't exciting, but I don't think I can speak for whether Nature was overzealous or not. Only they could do that.

The decision to not inform yourself and your family about factual information that is related to the well being of the family has historically been frowned upon. We have taken action on matters like this by passing laws that state parents must afford their children a basic right to information as it is presented by society. Schools.

Given the Internet is causing a huge surge in the amount of information available for consumption (ignoring the opinionated bits), one would assume there wouldn't need to be laws in place to force parents to this decision. It simply takes care of itself because the child has nearly unfettered access to the information. Granted it could be curated better, but whatever.

The real issue then becomes ensuring this information is readily available to anyone that desires it. This desired outcome is only be affected by something along the lines of government (or terrorist) sponsored censorship and the current spat of anti-net neutrality arguments presented by big business. Fuck you Verizon. The logical conclusion this is why they are so horribly insidious to society as a whole. The net effect of anti net-neutrality arguments only serves to limit the spread of information .

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#115

Post by Terr_ »

vonklaus wrote: post #29

If only there was a way to outsource all decision making to an over-arching centralized authority to make all decisions for us. That entity would have all our best interests at heart and make the tough decisions for us. It would be auch a weight off my shoulders of I didn't have to think anymore. I would even be willing to pay 20-30 percent of my paycheck to it, just so it could help me stay safe. What would we call…

Cue Deus Ex quotes:

"The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning. God was a dream of good government."

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#116

Post by Taek »

api wrote: post #63
micro_cam wrote: post #50

Things like this makes me ashamed to have my name on papers in Nature. First, lets set aside the hypocrisy of a non open access journal publishing this[1]. (What happens if Sacha wants to inform her self by reading a few old nature papers?) I am pro vaccine but far too many doctors have this fantasy that they should have unlimited control and articles like this just serve to validate that view point. Medicine is an i…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Contamination_co... I'm not at all anti-vaccination, but I am anti-authoritarian and anti-closed-science. People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. The SV40 contamination turned out to not be that serious, but it was a close call. Had SV40 been potently carcinogenic, we would have had a medieval plague of cancer. In the end it reduces to the problem…

I'm not sure why you've been downvoted because I believe you have made a non-harmful contribution to the discussion. Freedom is important, because once we've given up the right to refuse vaccination, we're a step closer to giving up other rights as well. Further down this path we could see criminals without the right to refuse sterilization or mood treatment.

This article of course is not about vaccinations specifically. It's about a woman with a black and white view of protecting her children. She ends up choosing the less safe option out of ignorance and stubbornness but she's ultimately trying to do what is best for her children.

This article assumes that her ignorance on the vaccination issue indicates ignorance about all things scientific, which is a fallacy. Likely, she only needs the right person (someone she trusts) to approach her with a proper explanation.

Yes, the vaccination issue is absurd but we will not resolve it by removing parents from the freedom to do what they think is healthiest for their child. That will not make them more open to logical discussion and more likely to trust the decisions of their doctors.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#117

Post by danielweber »

bane wrote: post #58
DanBC wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love it if schools and nurseries started to disallow children who were not vaccinated. Unfortunately there are enough parents to make "no vaccinated children allowed" (you are not allowed in if you've been vaccinated) schools viable. See "Measles parties" and the sending of items infected with chicken pox through the post for examples.

I generally agree, but some people really are allergic to some vaccinations. They present the same exposure risk as somebody who chooses not to be vaccinated for stupid reasons. Should they also not be allowed in?

As a population, the people who legitimately cannot be vaccinated -- or who get vaccinated but a certain vaccination just doesn't take -- are small enough that the rest of us protect them. When people start voluntarily adding themselves to that group without medical reason things start to break.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#118

Post by mynewwork »

I'm confused by the awkward grammar in the title. Is it intentional for humor (like xkcd's 'going to try science') or is that wording acceptable use in British dialects?

I'm parsing it as "You're not allowed science" or "You're not allowed science", but it's right on the line of believable that I could see that sentence being used genuinely in another dialect.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#120

Post by danielweber »

kstenerud wrote: post #91
falcolas wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“As I said, there is always a small risk, but if you look, you will see that this is less than the probability of...” Sacha held up her hand. “Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.” --- Education attempt, and rejection of such education, in three sentences. After previous education attempt (plus a pamphlet) and rejection of such education. What more should the doctor have done?

Doctor attempts to educate in a format of his own choosing. Patient rejects. Doctor then rejects patient. Normally when something doesn't work, you look for reasons why it doesn't work. You then take some educated guesses at what might be blocking success, and try altering your approach. After some trial and error, you eventually discover how to make it work. This doctor-patient situation is the same kind of thing, e…

Doctor then rejects patient

No, it's worse, the doctor overrules the patient forever because patient can't science.

There are good arguments for compulsory vaccination (excepting legitimate medical issues). On the other hand, this essay is horrible. It's a doctor's fantasy of magically shutting up All The Stupid People That Don't Listen To Him. If Sheldon did this on Big Bang Theory it would be played for laughs because of how outlandish it is.

Post reply on HN