Live data from Hacker News

“You're not allowed science any more”

nature.com

131–140 of 170 posts

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

#131
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a viable medical reason, and could probably be exempted with a doctor's note or some other documentation of a medical condition (at least it should be). That's not comparable to deliberately denying otherwise-healthy children the means to stay healthy and not die of horrible and easily preventable diseases.

Well yeah, but from a disease vector standpoint, they're exactly the same.

The number of people genuinely allergic to vaccinations is small. This means that herd immunity remains.

The number of people choosing not to immunise is larger, and herd immunity is at risk.

So, they're sort of the the same but the risks are different.

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

#132

This sat poorly with me. I thought "you're not allowed science any more" would mean that no one has to ever listen to her in any scientific debate. Instead, it meant that she got overruled about a medical decision. Congratulations, you've amazingly found a way to be even worse than the antivaxxers. I didn't think it was possible.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the article is advocating for forced vaccinations, but I do think that your reaction to the forced vaccination does hint at what the article really was suggesting.

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

#133
post #26
post #11

Pretty funny wish fulfillment where someone forces their own views on others. I fully support vaccination, but don't support this.

Don't support what? Mandatory vaccination?

I could see the case where I support vaccinating someone against their will. I couldn't see doing that because the person, once, made a bad argument in the doctor's office.

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

#134
post #54

I think we should be making a financial/societal incentive to do the right thing if the science is settled enough. The trouble with the view presented here is that sure the children get the vaccine due to this hypothetical rule. what happens when later the children get a severe cold (say) and the mom who remembers the previous visit thinks - bloody doctors I will just keep my kid home and pray for him to get better?…

Do you want people to read up on the science, or to accept what's "settled"? As a professional scientist, there are few things more anathema than the idea that a scientific theory is "settled". Experiments can only falsify theories; they can never be proven to be correct. The best a theory can hope for is to remain consistent with observation. Once upon a time, it was well-settled in large communities that the univer…

People who are inclined to actually study the issue, form an informed opinion, and be willing to change that opinion in the face new evidence, they absolutely should read up on science.

But everyone else, no, they should just accept the opinions of the experts if the issue is reasonably settled. They're not going to engage in the scientific process anyway, so their uninformed opinion really doesn't matter.

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

#135
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At school: "Sacha your kids are not vaccinated and we do not admit any students not vaccinated." I thought this would perpetuate social stratification. But my hypothesis, that poor families are less likely to vaccinate their children than rich families, was incorrect. The National Network for Immunisation Information finds that "compared to fully immunized children, unvaccinated children were more likely to be non-…

Alternate theory: "Poor families" are more likely to be aware (either directly or "institutionally") of the impact of the various preventable diseases or conditions. Reminds of of a Bujold quote. The character is referring to how over time people forget how hard things were: > "They like to play dress-up and pretend being [noble-class] ladies of old, rescued from menace by romantic [noble-class] youths. For some reas…

I think that may be fairly dead-on. My step-grandfather had polio as a child, and as a result, had his growth stunted, and severe nerve damage in his lower legs, requiring him to wear orthotics throughout his life. As a result, when the polio vaccine was announced, he made damn sure that my stepfather and his siblings all were properly vaccinated.

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

#136
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies." Right, and the doctor was trying to give her that knowledge, and she refused.

That does not sound like most doctors I have met.

Typical doctor's attitude is: "Look this white coat, that I happen to have and you don't? It means even if I tried to explain to you all the implications you are not smart enough to understand. So shut up and do as I say, I have more important things to do!"

Edit: I originally wrote "black coat" instead of "white coat". There must be some nasty stuff hidden in my brain's crawl spaces.

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

#137
post #55
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would be better off if nobody smoked, but let's not expand the war on drugs. I'm actually OK with a bit of this kind of totalitarianism, but not when it doesn't actually work.

Well, keeping the trains running on time did work. — The nice thing about mentioning Mussolini is that there's no Godwin Police to immediately point at you.

Except that it didn't.

http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

The trains where no more on time under fascists than anyone else. Fascist just have better marketing departments.

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

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's what I mean by UX. UX is about the intellectual AND emotional experience. We have the psychological knowledge. It's just a question of putting it into practice instead of taking these knee-jerk reactions of "they'll never come around. Better to just force it".

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. I was responding to your claim that people are rational. People are not, inherently, rational. Emotions hold far more sway over them, presenting them with evidence isn't sufficient because they don't want to be persuaded or because they can't rationally consume the evidence and draw conclusions from it.

Perhaps "rational" is not the right word to use here. People behave with much predictability and tend to behave consistently within the framework of their belief system. Within their own framework, they tend to behave rationally, even though it would appear irrational to one with an incompatible belief system.

Yes, emotional attachment to something will cause people to cling to it beyond its objective due, and that's why UX is so important. You're NOT going to persuade someone with information alone. You must make it accessible to them, which could involve all sorts of roundabout approaches, many of which may not even begin to offer any actual information until much later in the process (especially if you're trying to undo damage).

Ultimately my point is this:

- People do not react exactly the same as their neighbor. You can't make a one-size-fits-all solution and expect it to work.

- People tend act in a manner consistent with their belief system. There is a rationality to their thought process, even though emotions complicate things. But these complications are understood and have been studied extensively. The knowledge for how to deal with them exists.

- If you're going to reach someone, you must first understand what that belief system is, and figure out how to offer knowledge in a non-threatening way.

In fact, this thread makes for a good microcosm of the problem. Some people immediately understood what I was getting at. They upvoted, or gave positive response. Others either did not understand, or perhaps I touched a nerve (negative emotional response), causing them to downvote. One even responded with "It's good to know that, yet again the fault does not lie with the common man. It is always someone else's fault.", which is a pretty clear indication that my approach failed with him entirely. Pure information did not work, and in many ways my presentation of the information has been incomplete, as evidenced by yours and mine back-and-forth, culminating in "It's like you didn't read what I wrote." (a clear indication that I failed to communicate with you effectively).

In fact, my first entry into this thread was filled with attack words, which likely put most people into a defensive frame of mind (especially if they originally agreed with the article). I could definitely have done that better.

It's not easy to do, but I believe that tailoring the message is better than dismissal.

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

#139

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.

They're using science as a noun. Think of it like "You're not allowed oxygen any more."

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

#140

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…

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?

I said I was setting aside open access issues but I guess they do play into my reasoning. I want anyone with interest to have access to scientific results be they a garage biohacker, a stay-at-home mom trying to make sense of a 23 and me result or an MD PHD.

Nature already has an image problem [1] and the idea that they would use such a high profile venue to publish this seems silly even if it wasn't so alienating to people we need to be reaching out too. It just contributes to the distorted view of science and scientists that high profile journals are creating.

[1]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-...

Post reply on HN