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

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#201

Post by [deleted] »

1270018080 wrote: post #135
throwaway894345 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. Discussing controversial issues in the clear minimizes conspiracy theories (no, it doesn't completely eliminate them). The volume of conspiracy theories was driven up precisely because our epistemological institutions (e.g., media, academy, etc) abandoned the pursuits of objectivity and neutrality. To get back to a semi-rational state of affairs, we need to get the ideology out of our instituti…

Do you think there would be less moon landing deniers if the media talked about it earnestly? If legitimate scientific journals published "research"? Honest question.

[deleted]

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#202

Post by LasEspuelas »

bluedays wrote: post #159
AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

As someone who also works in Academia it is astonishing how many people come into this thread who have no background in the field cast doubt on you. There is a serious degree of conservatism there is among liberals who think that science and academics should not dare be questioned.

Not sure what you are saying, but I do believe that we scientist need an extra big dose of humility and we need to learn how to better accept when we are wrong.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#203

Post by chr1 »

bluedays wrote: post #159
AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

As someone who also works in Academia it is astonishing how many people come into this thread who have no background in the field cast doubt on you. There is a serious degree of conservatism there is among liberals who think that science and academics should not dare be questioned.

Funny how "don't believe, always question everything" have transformed back into "believe in science".

Believing in science is a very old thing, Maya have believed in their eclipse prediction science so much that were even making human sacrifice to save the sun from being eaten.

We should teach the public not to "believe in science", but the main skill of any scientist: to try to find errors in the theory you think is right with more ardour than in the theory you think is wrong.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#204

Post by ASinclair »

toolz wrote: post #20
tempnow987 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti mask, anti N95 masks with exhalation valve stuff has been the worst here I think. If you would let folks wear N95 with exhalation valves (highly comfortable) it just makes it easier for folks to protect themselves (and indirectly others). And for those who don't care, let's distinguish slightly between making sure those who want to protect themselves as much as possible can, and the need to force people down…

This is a bit of a tangent, but I don't understand generalized masking. At best they flatten the curve, which I think at this point I believe flattening the curve is dangerous. We have pretty well defined risk demographics and if we could have covid seasons come and go quickly I think it gives the high risk demographics the best chance of applying multi-layered defenses against a shorter season of risk. There is of c…

> if it were a real problem why has hospital capacity been in decline this entire pandemic

We filled hospitals over capacity and burned out healthcare workers. They decided to quit rather than work in such conditions. Don't overwork healthcare workers and maybe they won't burnout so quickly.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#205

Post by marcosdumay »

limecat wrote: post #6
ozfive wrote: post #2

[flagged]

You're taking an experimental prophylactic against a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. Probably higher if you're under 50. And we still don't really know how safe it is, because the 'gold standard' data (double blind testing) is absent, save for 2 months' of Pfizer data. Your benefit has apparently outweighed your cost. Fine. Mine hasn't. I like to read any and all opinions, regardless of 'bias'. We all have biases…

> 99.9% survival rate

There are plenty of countries where it already killed more than 0.2% of the population.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#206

Post by ensan »

lettergram wrote: post #113
AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so. For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premi…

Of course, there are frauds in any industry/profession.

But in my experience (math, science, & engineering), it is actually far less prevalent than in other places.

Forget the overzealous #sciencetwitter people. I have found that academia is one of the rare places where people the absolute top of their field who are often actually modest & aware of their ignorance about most things.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#207

Post by jhallenworld »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #87

Just throwing my 2c into the well, as someone who used to be highly "pro-science" but lost confidence in much of academia and the validity of scientific research in general after starting a PhD and seeing how the sausage is made. The biggest problem science is facing is not an external threat from a rabble of ignorant science deniers, but the complete degradation of quality within the scientific institutions themselv…

>Most research is flawed or useless,

Also the research could be downright fraudulent. A very interesting case is the Schön scandal, involving organic semiconductors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

There is an engrossing set of videos about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#208

Post by gilleain »

Alex3917 wrote: post #64
strictfp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't social media that eroded the trust in research and science, it was the introduction of politics. We need to separate research from politics. It needs to be a separate pillar of the state. You don't want reseachers chasing funds continously and doing short-term research for local sponsors. You want sizeable investments in long-term research projects, high autonomy and following of the scientific method. This…

> I wasn't social media that eroded the trust in research and science, it was the introduction of politics. It's not like the medical system was a highly trusted and respected institution that politicians somehow undermined in the last few months. The lost of trust in the medical system has been literally over 150 years in the making. If you read some books on the history of the rise of homeopathy in the United State…

I'm curious - what is the story of homeopathy in the United States? I know it is oddly popular in Germany.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#209

Post by s1artibartfast »

iamben wrote: post #69
throwaway22032 wrote: post #9

The issue that plagues us is a lack of trust in long-standing societal authorities. We can't follow the entire scientific proof chain for every piece of information we encounter, because we don't have time. So we rely on authority to some extent, whether that be peer review, government, independent bodies, etc. We need to be able to trust that these bodies are telling us the truth and aren't seeking to mislead us. Be…

I don't disagree, and it's probably the right option - but most people are lazy thinkers. You want the simplest answer that explains the problem in a way you understand. If someone is trying to take advantage of a situation that's inherently complicated or unpleasant - it's easy to do so with a simple message that makes it digestible, even if it's wrong or harmful. We've seen this time and time again over the last fe…

I see that as a failing of the policy setters and communicators. You can communicate a simple message, but you have to show your work too. Pretending counter-points don't exist only leads to "gotchas" and distrust down the road. This has been the the theme of last few years for me. If you want more than a public policy soundbite, you should be able to get a public position paper describing the assumptions, arguments, and counter-arguments.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#210

Post by Dylan16807 »

tempnow987 wrote: post #103
toolz wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICUs are at max capacity all the time pre-pandemic. In fact a study done in 2013 IIRC showed that you could pick any random date and any random hospital in the U.S. and there was a 16% chance it was at max capacity. So again, my question is this - if hospital capacity is truly a crisis, why have staffed beds been in decline since the beginning of the pandemic? Half a million healthcare workers have left their jobs si…

I like how the public health folks don't connect the dots. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are tired of the stuff they are hearing. I know some folks who had covid, and just don't want to trigger their bodies systems again with a series of shots. For some reason, if you have other diseases your immune system likely provides some protection against re-infection, but we are being told covid is different. This just seems so likel…

> For some reason, if you have other diseases your immune system likely provides some protection against re-infection, but we are being told covid is different. This just seems so likely to be a lie its mind boggling.

I don't know what you're talking about. There is some protecction, it's not enough to make things safe, what's the lie?

If you're talking about those people still having to get a vaccine, that's a whole mess of tradeoffs but also not based on lying.

Post reply on HN