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

A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 98 posts

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#11

Post by andi999 »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

It is more nuanced. A lot of science is settled and e. g. moved over to technology. All semiconductor devices rely on what was groundbreaking science (as well as simple electricity on even earlier groundbreaking science). The latest when it became technology that part is settled (because it is then reproduced million of times).

Problem is some fields which do not systematically reproduce findings, or that it is even discouraged to reproduce results are not in a good shape and encourage (not deliberately) p value hacking at the one end and fraud at the other.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#14

Post by kibwen »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

> people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the science”

These two are not of the same level of severity.

The first statement should usually raise eyebrows, as science is almost never "settled". The first and second laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid. For most other things we can entertain some skepticism.

But the second statement raises the question: trust relative to what? If your options are to trust something that appears to follow the scientific method vs. something that does not appear to follow the scientific method, then it's completely fair to favor the first. Sometimes you'll be wrong, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that science is inherently undeserving of trust.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#15

Post by Revenant-15 »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

I'm more concerned about people who doubt science as a default point of view more than the people who trust the science. If you don't trust science as a process, then you're just putting your faith in random crap that gets through your arbitrary filters. That's how we get stupid stuff like Qanon and Pizzagate.

We're always putting our trust in one thing or another. Personally, I'd prefer if we put our trust in a method that, over the long-term, strives towards some sense of "real" truth as opposed to some contrarian anti-science, anti-intellectual bull. Yes, be critical. No, don't reject science just because it suits you or because it might be uncomfortable.

The best thing about science? It's falsifiable. If climate change suddenly turns out to be wrong tomorrow, I don't have to cling to "oh, but yesterday the consensus was that it was real". It's "oh, these smart people are discovering new things that are giving us a new/deeper understanding of something we didn't quite understand correctly, time to update my understanding of the world".

If your point of view is dependent on your not understanding something, then it doesn't matter. You'll cling to your beliefs, which become a part of your identity, no matter what evidence is presented.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#17

Post by jahnu »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

While I agree abuse occurs I think this view is overly strict in the other direction. The phrase "the science is settled" is perfectly valid to use in many contexts and is useful shorthand for something like "if you want to deny this scientific consensus you would need to have amazing evidence, therefore it's more productive and expedient to move on and discuss something else". This can be different depending on context but the point is the same.

As an example; the science is settled, human activities are responsible for the most of what we observe as climate change.

This does not forbid anyone from coming along and proving the settled science wrong but it does prove useful for indicating our very high confidence.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#18

Post by simonw »

krolchat wrote: post #16

>buzzfeed news What a quality source, I will absolutely believe in it's honesty

Weirdly, Buzzfeed news have been a trustworthy source of high quality investigative reporting for quite a few years at this point.

I think that's partly because they took advantage of the shrinking market for traditional print newspapers and snapped up some seriously high quality talent that had been laid off from other news organizations.

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#19

Post by portpecos »

andi999 wrote: post #11
efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

It is more nuanced. A lot of science is settled and e. g. moved over to technology. All semiconductor devices rely on what was groundbreaking science (as well as simple electricity on even earlier groundbreaking science). The latest when it became technology that part is settled (because it is then reproduced million of times). Problem is some fields which do not systematically reproduce findings, or that it is even…

"A major cause of low reproducibility is the publication bias and the selection bias..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Causes

Re: A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data

#20

Post by vegetablepotpie »

efitz wrote: post #7

Science is a process, a way to find truth. It is not in itself truth. It is subject to all the same human flaws and venality as any other human endeavor. Just because something is published in a paper doesn’t make it true. Just because the paper was peer reviewed doesn’t make it true. Just because there is a “consensus” doesn’t make it true. I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the s…

> I’m sick and tired of people saying “the science is settled” or “trust the science”.

You’re right, but also, there’s more to it.

There is a difference between what people say and what people mean and context is important. When I’ve heard people say “trust the science” it is always directed to people who have demonstrated that they do not understand the scientific method and the meaning of the word “healthy skepticism”. In that case what you are doing is an appeal to authority, which is completely unscientific, and necessary for building consensus.

So when we hear “trust the science”, it’s really a political statement more than anything, and it intends to replace a person in a robe, or a person in a uniform with a person in a lab coat.

Certainly it would be better to have an informed and well educated citizenry. But for people who live in the real world and do not want to have their society steered by people who have incompatible views with a modern society, saying “trust the science” is a shorthand for “we don’t think you have what it takes to contribute to a conversation in a meaningful way.”

Post reply on HN