Science’s Biggest Fail • Hacker News Board

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#161

Post by ebbv » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:31 PM UTC

pjkundert wrote: post #134

ebbv wrote: post #54

This is a pretty terrible post. Science didn't kick people in the balls for 20 years, the media did. The media pushed bogus results of bogus studies on people, and overstates the case that "X is because of Y" on real studies who do not make such strong claims themselves. The media is responsible for people's distrust of science, because not only do they push bogus claims, but they also push FUD as well. Particularly…

Actually, it would appear that scientists did, in fact, kick everyone in the balls for 20 years: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2014/6/the-s... Perhaps it was accidental in most cases. However, in the field of medical studies, the withholding of studies with negative outcomes (and their data) could be rightly described as "highly unscrupulous" researcher behavior. And this has apparently been de rige…

There's a big difference between being able to find instances of people doing this kind of thing, and widespread hacking of results. I think it's a given that it goes on sometimes, especially in cases where there is financial motive for doing so. But as far as it being a widespread issue? I have never seen evidence of that.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#162

Post by msandford » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:36 PM UTC

shanusmagnus wrote: post #158

I think Adams is very wrong here. I'm sympathetic to his reasoning, since I have followed nutrition closely for the last twenty years, and believe the scientific/media consensus to be much as he described, and even worse than that occasionally, where people who should know better (a PhD teaching a class on nutrition in a community college) claim things that are both factually and obviously wrong ("Low carb diets are…

>It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100% convinced that they sometimes get personal messages from angels. Their idiotic worldviews do not arise as a result of Bayesian discounting based on having received bad advice, but from intellectual laziness and an inability (or unwillingness) to look in the mirror and see a possible problem there.

Way to character assassinate man! Bravo! This "If you don't agree with me you must be an idiot" kind of mentality does little to address the reality of the world, and rather than advancing science, hinders it.

I'm a bit skeptical of global warming, anthropogenic climate change, etc not because I want to bury my head in the sand, but because from my point of view there's a HUGE echo chamber. I've read tons of papers which all basically confirm the theory but precious little which tries to look for alternative explanations. That feels awfully similar to the whole "fat is bad for you" advice from the medical community and thus, I think Adams isn't too far off base.

For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-hea...

That's a substantial part of the theory to be missing and yet still proclaim that the original theory was totally great and not problematic at all.

Like you said: Cynicism, in some cases, is warranted.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#163

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:37 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #112

WillPostForFood wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientific consensus was worse than "fat is bad for you", it was saturated fat is bad, so switch from butter to trans fat loaded margarine. It lead to things like McDonalds using hydrogenated vegetable oil instead of saturated fat laden beef tallow in their fryers. The scientific consensus was specifically wrong on the types of fat that were bad.

> The scientific consensus was worse than "fat is bad for you", it was saturated fat is bad, so switch from butter to trans fat loaded margarine. That recommendation was never "the scientific consensus" -- for most of the time after saturated fat was identified as a concern and before trans fats were identified as a specific concern, the scientific consensus was that the best change was to eliminate the saturated fat…

>the scientific consensus was that the best change was to eliminate the saturated fats and not replace them

What kind of useless recommendation is this. You can say the same thing about carbs, other fats, pretty much everything that supplies calories.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#164

Post by apl » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:39 PM UTC

loqi wrote: post #146

api wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about cases where prestigious scientific institutions have deeply held and advanced utterly wrong ideas for decades? Nutritional science is particularly bad in this regard. The recommendations that were advanced from (roughly) the 70s through the 90s lead to obesity and heart disease. One thing in particular comes to mind: margarine. I understand the nature of scientific theory, and that scientific theory is not…

Speaking of recommendations that lead to heart disease, three sarcastic cheers for massively understating the risks associated with abstinence from alcohol. Mostly I just hear "moderate consumption is associated with some health benefits", which isn't anywhere close to conveying the findings (questionable, as always!) that not drinking is almost as risky as "heavy" drinking. Especially considering that you practicall…

Do you have any decent sources on that one?

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#165

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:40 PM UTC

shanusmagnus wrote: post #158

I think Adams is very wrong here. I'm sympathetic to his reasoning, since I have followed nutrition closely for the last twenty years, and believe the scientific/media consensus to be much as he described, and even worse than that occasionally, where people who should know better (a PhD teaching a class on nutrition in a community college) claim things that are both factually and obviously wrong ("Low carb diets are…

I work with these "creationist idiots" you talk about. And let me tell you something...

A creationist engineer codes just as well as a Darwinist engineer. Young Earth creationist nonetheless! He's one of the best students in my class that I've ever seen, extremely good at coding, great at running meetings and organizing people.

The fact of the matter is, global warming, pollution, and even creationism / whatever does not affect the typical day-to-day life of many Americans.

Similarly, another one of my coworkers doesn't believe in Global Warming. But I wouldn't dare challenge his ability to code.

I've debated both of these individuals, and they're far more informed about the debate than the typical evolutionist / pro-global warming sheeple out there as well. They're just IMO, on the wrong side of the argument.

I used to think like you, that "these idiots who disagree with me" are dumb, ignorant or something. But if there's anything I learned in life, every viewpoint has their intelligent supporters.

I don't think it is right to judge someone else's intelligence based on political views that are well outside of their field of study. The creationist engineer, and the anti-global warming engineer are just two examples of how these issues honestly don't contribute to any of these people's daily lives.

They're not dumb. They're just... erm... wrong, or something. Adams takes the correct approach in trying to understand their viewpoint, and realizing that they're just as rational as us.

To the Creationists and anti-Global Warming people out there: hey, I still disagree with you. So yeah, I'm gonna call you wrong every time. But I'm not going to insult your intelligence or question your rationality. Hopefully, this disagreement won't prevent us from working together some time in the future.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#166

Post by npsimons » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #148

> science failed my parents generation with cigarettes My father said that cigarettes were popularly called "coffin nails" when he was a boy in the 1920s, and that doctors routinely advised their patients to quit smoking. I've never heard of science advising people to smoke. Any scientist who cut open a smoker and saw those black, puss-filled lungs knew it wasn't good for you.

This really, really pisses me off. It wasn't "science" that failed Adams' parents' generation, it was the media that was bought out by the same PR firms that are buying articles against global warming today[1][2]. There are issues with science to be sure, and one should always be free to criticize and call things out when one sees them, but this article is such garbage. You know where 95% of the bullshit in diet and fitness comes from? Greedy snake oil salespeople trying to make a quick buck off of desperate people looking for a quick fix. It has absolutely nothing to do with "science".

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

[2] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwynne/2014/06/26/the-publi...

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#167

Post by aetherson » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #132

aetherson wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but you're holding the media to an impossible standard. This isn't about "checking the CIA World Fact Book," it's "Read dozens of dense studies that assume PhD-level study in the relevant fields." The media does light fact-checking, and it's exactly that fact-checking that allows institutions to set an agenda. If a reporter sees a press release about a new study in, say, the field of cancer, and they try t…

If they can't properly fact-check what they report, then what good are they? Any monkey with a laptop can regurgitate press releases these days. I suppose this is why traditional media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

You know, I think that the job they do is pretty important, if also kind of far from the idealized view of the media as this almost omniscient gatekeeper institution.

If someone wants to pour over tens of thousands of press releases, do some light fact-checking on them, discard the ones that are just obviously crazy or unimportant, and sort them by topic, maybe get a bit of context on them or flesh them out a little, then that strikes me as pretty useful. Certainly I don't want to deal with a raw torrent of press releases. I want someone to filter them for me, if even lightly.

If the end result is not a one-stop shop for all the truth and accuracy in the world, well, that's unfortunate, but it also strikes me as life. It'd be great if someone could just synthesize raw, objective truth out of all that data, but I don't believe that's possible. Given that it's not possible, I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And since those institutions-with-agendas are pushing their agendas in other ways than just through the media, we should probably try to address that problem at the root instead of just blaming journalists.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#168

Post by bronson » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:50 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #132

aetherson wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but you're holding the media to an impossible standard. This isn't about "checking the CIA World Fact Book," it's "Read dozens of dense studies that assume PhD-level study in the relevant fields." The media does light fact-checking, and it's exactly that fact-checking that allows institutions to set an agenda. If a reporter sees a press release about a new study in, say, the field of cancer, and they try t…

If they can't properly fact-check what they report, then what good are they? Any monkey with a laptop can regurgitate press releases these days. I suppose this is why traditional media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Fellow scientists and peer reviewers don't even fact-check properly. Are you holding journalists to a higher standard?

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#169

Post by myth_buster » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

codyb wrote: post #144

myth_buster wrote: post #140

Jeez, I think Scott Adams is barking up a wrong tree here. The reason science has lost credibility is because of vested interest groups who put money into labs so as to get a result tailor made for them. Just as pattern recognition is one of our traits, fudging numbers and data is also up there. Add to it marketing which uses psychology to draw on our strings and play humans as puppets. I would be surprised if all th…

He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often. And if what you say is the case, you present a stronger reason for skepticism of scientific claim than mere pattern recognition. The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. Walking in other people's shoes seems to be something many in the world have trouble…

> He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often.

He does it in a hand-wavy fashion. Its not that science is in the wrong, its the system that is at fault. What is perhaps needed is to get influence of money out of research as in with politics. Also perhaps more rigorous peer reviewed papers and penalties for the media if they state rejected/falsified theories as accepted ones.

> The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints.

The alternate viewpoint is the inability of humans to grasp large scales of time, space and complexity. For example Global Warming had to be renamed as Climate Change because many people took the science as faulty at the first sign of plummeting temperatures at their location. Same can be said regarding the arguments about evolution.

Weather predictions is a science which is often mocked because in general people didn't understand the complexity of it. I was one of them. A prediction of 40% rain on the next weekend which didn't materialize doesn't put the science at fault, it just means the model requires a few more cycles of evolution.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#170

Post by Fomite » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 8:54 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #109

exelius wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually know shockingly little about a lot of topics relative to our bodies. One big reason for this is that, ethically, we can't just go experiment on live humans. But genetics and human biological systems may only play a part of how nutrition affects us. As an example, science is just now coming around to is that the bacteria in our intestines has a huge impact on how our body reacts to food - and that those ba…

> One big reason for this is that, ethically, we can't just go experiment on live humans The US has an enormous prison population. They get fed for $2.50 per day. Is it possible to recruit prisoners ethically to take part in diet research?

Recruiting prisoners is actually a huge pain - they're one of several protected categories (along with children and soldiers) based on the potential that their "consent" isn't really all that consenting. In my mind, this exists for good reason, but it does kill almost any study that doesn't absolutely need to be conducted on prisoners for their own benefit.