Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever • Hacker News Board

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#191

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 05, 2020, 11:53 PM UTC

scottlocklin wrote: post #180

baddox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, as a scientist, I am comforted that there are enough others out there who doubt the entire notion of a scientific establishment that the population should "trust" to make decisions without oversight. I'm not sure what you're actually proposing, but it sounds dangerously close to "pilots have been in control of airplanes for decades, and they've caused so many crashes, so maybe it's time to try people wh…

I realize HN sperdos have a hard time with this concept sometimes, but MUH SCIENCE isn't how we make decisions as a society, anywhere, ever. Leadership is decision under uncertainty. The best thing most scientists can do for leadership is tell them the best guess and estimates of how big the uncertainties are. Recent events have shown how unbelievably shitty these guesses were, and, frankly, continue to be; and as fa…

[deleted]

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#192

Post by pandaman » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

cuspy wrote: post #55

Given the track record of institutional science and the ever-growing list of regulatory failures, moral failures and outright abuses pushed in the guise of scientific expertise, why do so many people seem to think that simply doubling down and bullying the general population into compliance with expert consensus will ever work? What if institutional science in the US has a legitimacy crisis because it has failed to p…

I think the problem is in the stakes. Consider the USSR - it had pretty fucked up science scene around 1930s-1960s: a lot of areas had been politicized and guided by the Party Line instead of reality. For example Genetics had been considered anti-Marxist for whatever reason and Genetic research had been forbidden (other than research to expose Genetic as a pseudo-science). But the science needed to make weapons had been pretty good. Nobody wanted to make a theory of Marxist-Leninist Physics and spend the rest of life in prison for screwing up rocket or nuke development.

Then the late 60s came around and the Party found they don't grow nearly as much food as the Rotting West. The Marxist-Leninist Biology missed the Green Revolution for inexplicable reason. Even though not as important as weapons it was a big deal - the state could have been spending much less resources on growing food and buying food from abroad and use them to make ICBMs or something else speeding up the Global Revolution's approach! So Marxist-Leninist Biology got a book thrown at it. And, not being dumb, the Party restrained the politics in many other areas, just to be safe. So by 70s-80s science in the USSR had been much less politicized than now in the US in my opinion.

I hope the current crisis will be a wake up call to the US. Hopefully people realize that playing politics around medical research is not just giving you cushy jobs and government grants - it can also fuck up the whole economy and if people cannot stop doing it by themselves then somebody have to throw a book or a whole library at them. And, maybe, just like the CPSU, they might do it in other areas, just to be safe.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#193

Post by timr » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

keenmaster wrote: post #189

timr wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Downplayed the role of masks as a public measure to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 early on (often out of a duplicitous desire to preserve PPE for the medical community, without considering that homemade cotton masks would not reduce PPE supply for medical workers)" Or maybe you're being deceived now? Honestly, the evidence for universal masking hasn't changed (recent papers on this have largely been terrible and/o…

Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. The evidence for the efficacy of universal, compliant mask-wearing is extremely strong, but there will always be specious studies with contra-claims. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more those studies are amplified, the more confused people are, the less they wear masks, the less their politicians mandate that they wear masks, the more it becomes a political issue, e…

"Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. The evidence for the efficacy of universal, compliant mask-wearing is extremely strong,"

Indeed, thank you for providing a wonderful example of "scientism": a blind belief in the conclusions of "science", even when you're presented with ample scientific evidence that disproves your belief.

If your secret evidence is so strong, you should cite it, instead of merely asserting that it exists. I just gave you two incredibly well-sourced articles showing that the opposite is true, and your response is to insult me and claim I'm wrong (without proof).

Michael Osterholm (CIDRAP) and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based medicine are not crackpot organizations, and the cited articles are reviews of all literature, not "specious studies". In all likelihood, these articles have already discussed the evidence that you believe is compelling.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#194

Post by keenmaster » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #193

keenmaster wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. The evidence for the efficacy of universal, compliant mask-wearing is extremely strong, but there will always be specious studies with contra-claims. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more those studies are amplified, the more confused people are, the less they wear masks, the less their politicians mandate that they wear masks, the more it becomes a political issue, e…

"Thank you for inadvertently proving my point. The evidence for the efficacy of universal, compliant mask-wearing is extremely strong," Indeed, thank you for providing a wonderful example of "scientism": a blind belief in the conclusions of "science", even when you're presented with ample scientific evidence that disproves your belief. If your secret evidence is so strong, you should cite it , instead of merely asser…

Here is an excellent study with both theoretical and empirical results showing the efficacy and importance of universal mask wearing, even when cotton masks are used (PDF download is in the upper right corner): https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.13553

Institutions involved: University of Cambridge, University College London, Ecole de Guerre Economique, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

As for Michael Osterholm, I don't have much patience for people like him so I won't cite this but you can easily look it up: he clarified his comments and said that people should universally wear masks. Of course, he followed up with strawman arguments, implying that many people have the illusion that COVID would be suddenly be "driven to the ground" if everyone wore masks. He also said that other measures are important. Of course they are.

As for Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine: simply put, they are like a hammer in search of a massive double blind nail. When it becomes more and more clear how tragically incorrect and misguided such organizations are during a pandemic, the "evidence" in their title will suddenly have a sardonic ring to it. Their example will demonstrate that sometimes expertise of a certain kind, if not properly adapted to a new situation, can become an impairment in the new context. Read the discussion at the following link: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

That being said, the University of Oxford in general is a top rate institution. The Oxford Vaccine Group might be first to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine. They're also home to professor and NIH senior investigator Dr. Trisha Greenhalgh, who sharply discussed the limitations of evidence-based medicine during this pandemic at the above link :) Of course, that's evidence-based medicine as a specific category, not the general idea of medicine backed by proof.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#195

Post by achillesheels » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 3:43 AM UTC

danielam wrote: post #175

achillesheels wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the reason science has always been an aristocratic pursuit. Georg Feuerbach demonstrates this point with the thought-provoking claim that only a polytheistic tradition (such as Athens) can breed a love of natural beauty which obligates a love of knowing its ways. But it is principally a love of Nature (and it’s universals) and not a love of wealth which moves the civilization higher. Galileo, Descartes, Newton…

Don't follow the part about polytheism. I would say, if anything, polytheism is a hindrance to the development of science. For one, the capriciousness of the gods makes nature arbitrary and unpredictable. FWIW, Stanley Jaki argues something quite different to what you've written in "Science and Creation" and "The Road of Science and the Ways of God". P.S. A quick search doesn't bring up any noteworthy Georg Feuerbach…

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/e...

George, my mistake. (Polytheism brings up the relevant passage starting with Jews)

The philosophers did not follow the gods, they believed in the divinity of reason. If anything, and consistent with the Scientific Revolution, the confidence in the self-certainty of reason permitted the imagination to expand “beyond” the natural, to examine it, to know it, to necessarily effect it for our reasonable ends.

Where I think the pagans fall short is in their worship of visible objects, where they have no concept of an invisibly present permanence in nature, ie electromagnetic radiation.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#196

Post by LordFast » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 4:15 AM UTC

JadeNB wrote: post #118

jfengel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda has always been a problem, and it's hard to quantify if it's actually worse now or merely different. Even if it's merely different, though, it feels like it's the kind of problem that should be solvable. In so many cases people aren't merely misinformed but actively hostile to science in a way that should bite them in the butt sooner rather than later. Surely, one thinks, that should make it possible to re…

> Propaganda has always been a problem, and it's hard to quantify if it's actually worse now or merely different. I think that part of what makes it both different and worse now is the way that, thanks to automatic personalisation of content, what feels like honest intellectual inquiry will be met with automated replies that drive us deeper in the direction of our beliefs (inadvertently; they optimise for engagement,…

Is there any way to realistically and gradually reduce the prevalence and thickness of these filter bubbles, so that people can be encouraged to practice critical thinking in a sustainable way? Will this have to necessarily be a governmental effort, or can there be business value in such practices? Will there ever be sufficient incentives for any government to work on this?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just thinking out loud.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#197

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 4:34 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #188

renewiltord wrote: post #86

There's science and then there's the theatre of science and the fans of the theatre of science will attempt to browbeat you into ignoring the science because they are concerned with the continued operation of the theatre. So, for instance, when the CDC recommended no mask usage and all the conformist fans of the theatre of science started pulling their shit, the ones who follow the science ignored them. Government sc…

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...

Interesting. Semi-convincing. Adjusting priors on the mask thing downward slightly.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#198

Post by baddox » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

keenmaster wrote: post #186

baddox wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble with your example of healthcare is that Americans for whatever reason overwhelmingly approve of the American system of private health insurance plans, and even if they didn’t, I don’t think many would make an association between expensive health care and fundamental problems with the scientific community.

I'm highly skeptical of the "overwhelmingly approve" part. Do Americans overwhelmingly approve of the deprivation of their disposable income and health due to the broken status quo? Of course not. It's just that many don't connect the dots because the debate isn't even happening. Democrats and Republicans are captured. The media doesn't seem interested. The system is too complex for people to even understand and know…

I don’t really want to get into arguments of the form “they think they want X but they actually want Y,” because if you’re willing to use that mode of argument then it’s completely irrelevant to you what people think or say they want, and you might as well just argue for what they “actually” want without any regard for their input.

But the fact of the matter is that common proposals to overhaul the American health insurance system are extremely unpopular, and people overwhelmingly report being very happy with their private insurance plans.

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#199

Post by keenmaster » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 6:08 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #198

keenmaster wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm highly skeptical of the "overwhelmingly approve" part. Do Americans overwhelmingly approve of the deprivation of their disposable income and health due to the broken status quo? Of course not. It's just that many don't connect the dots because the debate isn't even happening. Democrats and Republicans are captured. The media doesn't seem interested. The system is too complex for people to even understand and know…

I don’t really want to get into arguments of the form “they think they want X but they actually want Y,” because if you’re willing to use that mode of argument then it’s completely irrelevant to you what people think or say they want, and you might as well just argue for what they “actually” want without any regard for their input. But the fact of the matter is that common proposals to overhaul the American health in…

How about this: 58% of Americans favored Medicare for All according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll. This was back in 2015, when people were in a less medically and economically precarious position, and despite all the aforementioned misunderstandings regarding universal healthcare. I'm sure the medical industry will play up the "but mah haylth insurance" trope as the prospect of universal healthcare becomes more real. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tra...

Re: Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever

#200

Post by Jetrel » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 10:56 AM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #44

sandworm101 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> well-informed public has always been the foundation of our democracy I'd say maybe a well-informed electorate . Until very recently, the majority of "the public" wasn't allowed to vote and so had very limited input into "our democracy".

Can you elaborate? The two major extensions of our electorate were (former) slaves and then women. Do you believe that these groups are more easily manipulated? Or are you talking about some other group that I forgot about?

So - AFAIK, originally most white men weren't allowed to vote, in the US; I can't remember when this got changed, but in the very earliest formulation, there was a strong limitation where only certain kinds of landed property owners were allowed to vote.

I believe this had several intents behind it; one of them was of course just plain-old elitism/cronyism, but I think there were also some elements of using it as a proxy for education, shared-culture, and (presumed) fiscal responsibility.

There also was probably a surprisingly pragmatic problem of logistics; a small register of settled-down property owners was probably far easier to collect votes from that a wild array of migrant laborers, whalers, fur-trappers, and frontiersmen.

(Yeah, I just checked up on this, and it looks like this was gradually abolished, over the course of the century before the civil war, on a state-by-state basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St... )