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

Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#21

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

adolph wrote: post #16
praptak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

From the interview: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe. It sounds like he is advocating a trust…

I agree that that sentence could give that impression but I think it's a little out of context. If you read Simon Singh's stuff (particularly Trick or Treatment, the book which lead to the article which lead to the libel case) it's really not what he advocates - he advocates having a robust evidence base for what you're saying.

I think what he was trying to say in the sentence you quote is "I believe the overwhelming majority of the people who have looked at this subject, have a history of backing up their claims with robust, tested, reviewed evidence and are doing so in this instance".

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#22

Post by robryan »

adolph wrote: post #16
praptak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

From the interview: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe. It sounds like he is advocating a trust…

It's a good way to filter out the crazy crackpot opinions, not to say these aren't of any value but when you don't have time to be an expert in a field you are much better off trusting those that have had their viewpoints put through rigorous peer review over those who haven't.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#23

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

smackfu wrote: post #7
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #5

I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing about science, not libel.

Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had spent five years writing new books.

Three? Which are you missing?

The Code Book, Fermat's Last Theorem, Big Bang or Trick or Treatment (with Edzard Ernst)?

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#24

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

PhilipM wrote: post #19
pradocchia wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cuts both ways. In the States, many people have lost their trust in the integrity of scientific research and the integrity of regulatory bodies. So the CDC might recommend something, or the FDA might approve some drug, and to people that trust these organizations, that's the golden stamp of approval. For others, any such recommendations are inherently suspect. This goes deeper than education, intelligence, etc,…

Absolutely, and all these bodies that the public no longer trusts should be defunded 200%. Why throw good money after bad? Defund congress, the presidency, economist liars, education bureaucrats, and especially the thieves that make up academia with its 50k a year tuitions and grad student slave labor. But getting back to Singh, he's pretty clearly an idiot on a lot of things. Cars are not the issue, global warming i…

I think your tinfoil hat is on a little tight...

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#25

Post by ugh »

josefresco wrote: post #10

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do…

Authority can be useful. I know, it’s usually scoffed at because there is a fallacy named after it. Yet there is no conceivable way in which you can be an expert in all the big fields and little niches of science. You have to use the authority shortcut. You have to find people who you can trust and let them figure it out for you. That’s just a reality of the human condition.

All Singh says is that you should trust people who deal with the topic at hand every day of their life and who use the scientific method. I’m not really sure who else you should trust when you want answers to your questions. The scientific method is certainly not perfect but do you know of any better alternative? I don’t.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#26

Post by nanairo »

smackfu wrote: post #7
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #5

I was chatting with Simon about this a few weeks ago. He's definitely in this for the long haul, but is really looking forward to getting back to writing about science, not libel.

Nice to hear. I own all three of his science books and they are excellent. I wish someone else had spent five years fighting libel charges, and he had spent five years writing new books.

This is what scares me. It is in the nature of science that tests take a lot of time and effort. On the other hand, if you do _not_ follow science you can come up with a new theory every day. And to make it all the worst the scientist can be sued.

Basically this way the anti-science groups can grind to a halt all of science. I don't want to think all the time good scientist can lose defending themselves from non-scientist instead of doing what they were trying to do: science.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#27

Post by latortuga »

nanairo wrote: post #17
josefresco wrote: post #10

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do…

I find it's this kind of answers that make scientific explanations so hard. "Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." First of all: if they have an advanced degree in a subject such as medicine than I think they deserve that you drop your hidden i…

I liked your post but I just wanted to mention a (minor) correction that we have a common ancestor with apes, we did not evolve "from" monkeys.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#28

Post by cstuder »

alexandros wrote: post #9

I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will get harder and harder to follow. The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they cannot b…

If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world.

Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest... well... preach. Science turns into religion.

It's always something I think about, when I see another survey whether you 'believe' in evolution or climate change.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#29

Post by nanairo »

I think this is one of the most important points:

"That said, they can also find support for their ideas in the mainstream media—because when the mainstream media gives a so-called balanced view, it’s often misleading. The media thinks that because one side says climate change is real and dangerous, the other view is that it’s not real and not dangerous. That doesn’t reflect the fact that something like 98 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous. And this happens with everything from genetically modified foods to evolution."

It is not just in science. It is in everything, including politics. The (modern) concept of the unbiased view has turned into a "ask both sides of the argument". Which can work when (say) you are in an election campaign. But take a scientist and a charismatic charlatan: the scientist tries to give the right view (with all the ifs and buts) and the charlatan gives a appealing and simple to understand story... though completely wrong. I don't blame the reader/viewer for not being persuaded by the scientist.

The idea that, for example, a group of us could join forces and argue that the oil spill is really a good thing for the biology of the mexican gulf, and we would be given equal time with the guy who's done 10 years of study in it... that does not help the viewer.

The journalist seem to have forgotten their role of gatekeepers, and fact checking. They seem to be just there repeating verbatim what he or she says: sure, it makes their job easier, but it really doesn't help their readership.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#30

Post by josefresco »

alexandros wrote: post #12
josefresco wrote: post #10

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do…

Hindsight is great. However the real question, is what could you have done in that time to attain a better epistemic position than the scientific consensus, and if you apply that algorithm today, what will it give you as responses. In other words, if trusting scientists is a historically unreliable method, what's your less unreliable alternative?

Oh I don't know ...questioning their conclusions? Participating in a healthy debate? The impression (which may be wrong) was that Simon was advocating trust just because a scientist may hold a degree or may have joined with other scientists in agreement.
Post reply on HN