Science’s Biggest Fail • Hacker News Board

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#201

Post by tsotha » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

loqi wrote: post #146

api wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about cases where prestigious scientific institutions have deeply held and advanced utterly wrong ideas for decades? Nutritional science is particularly bad in this regard. The recommendations that were advanced from (roughly) the 70s through the 90s lead to obesity and heart disease. One thing in particular comes to mind: margarine. I understand the nature of scientific theory, and that scientific theory is not…

Speaking of recommendations that lead to heart disease, three sarcastic cheers for massively understating the risks associated with abstinence from alcohol. Mostly I just hear "moderate consumption is associated with some health benefits", which isn't anywhere close to conveying the findings (questionable, as always!) that not drinking is almost as risky as "heavy" drinking. Especially considering that you practicall…

Adams has a good point relating to alcohol, though. They haven't been unable to untangle correlation and causation. I used to be a "moderate drinker" until I developed (unrelated) health problems that mean taking medication every day. When I take my meds I can't drink. These health problems are statistically likely to end me sooner than most people.

So I'm likely going to be in the "doesn't drink dies earlier than average" column, but it has nothing to do with alcohol.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#202

Post by pm » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

How much of a generation getting fat is attributable to institutionalised science versus people divesting responsibility for what and how much they eat and exercise?

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#203

Post by herge » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #167

mikeash wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can't properly fact-check what they report, then what good are they? Any monkey with a laptop can regurgitate press releases these days. I suppose this is why traditional media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

You know, I think that the job they do is pretty important, if also kind of far from the idealized view of the media as this almost omniscient gatekeeper institution. If someone wants to pour over tens of thousands of press releases, do some light fact-checking on them, discard the ones that are just obviously crazy or unimportant, and sort them by topic, maybe get a bit of context on them or flesh them out a little,…

> If someone wants to pour over tens of thousands of press releases, do some light fact-checking on them, discard the ones that are just obviously crazy or unimportant, and sort them by topic, maybe get a bit of context on them or flesh them out a little, then that strikes me as pretty useful.

That's what a wire service does.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#204

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:52 PM UTC

rybosome wrote: post #172

api wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about cases where prestigious scientific institutions have deeply held and advanced utterly wrong ideas for decades? Nutritional science is particularly bad in this regard. The recommendations that were advanced from (roughly) the 70s through the 90s lead to obesity and heart disease. One thing in particular comes to mind: margarine. I understand the nature of scientific theory, and that scientific theory is not…

"...they must accept higher energy costs and possibly a reduced standard of living in order to combat a threat they cannot directly perceive." That's a tough one. From the perspective of a person whose livelihood depends on CO2-producing resources, or for whom the additional cost would push them into poverty, I can't blame them for feeling resistant - particularly when there is still debate as to the veracity, credib…

And here is where the general population's mistrust in science makes us dig our own graves. You have all sorts of movements, from lobbies to NIMBYs to "environmentalist" organizations blocking transition to sustainable energy. And sadly, I just can't imagine a modern democracy really committing to an infrastructure project as big as rebuilding the power grid. We need more Elon Musks, who will push the right solutions in spite of the market, and in spite of what people say.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#205

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 9:57 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #108

mikeash wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's not the media's fault, because the media just blindly repeats whatever they're told. This is exactly why it's the media's fault! If a journalist doesn't have the skills to understand what they're reporting on, then they shouldn't be reporting on it. We wouldn't put up with a report on Afghanistan that says the place is full of Arabs because the reporter was told…

I'm sorry, but you're holding the media to an impossible standard. This isn't about "checking the CIA World Fact Book," it's "Read dozens of dense studies that assume PhD-level study in the relevant fields." The media does light fact-checking, and it's exactly that fact-checking that allows institutions to set an agenda. If a reporter sees a press release about a new study in, say, the field of cancer, and they try t…

They could at least stop making up bullshit claims in headlines and text. Research institution don't usually go saying they're 100% certain something is this-or-that and has huge implications for everything. It's the media outlets that add those things to the articles.

Surprisingly, I don't recall a relevant xkcd, but then there's the famous Science News Cycle: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174.

> What the hell else is the journalist going to do? They Just Can't read up all the relevant literature -- that's a full time job, and they already have jobs.

Well, you're telling us that Reddit and Hacker News can do what journalists can't, even though people posting there are definitely not employed to fact-check things.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#206

Post by TeMPOraL » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 10:02 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #167

mikeash wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can't properly fact-check what they report, then what good are they? Any monkey with a laptop can regurgitate press releases these days. I suppose this is why traditional media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

You know, I think that the job they do is pretty important, if also kind of far from the idealized view of the media as this almost omniscient gatekeeper institution. If someone wants to pour over tens of thousands of press releases, do some light fact-checking on them, discard the ones that are just obviously crazy or unimportant, and sort them by topic, maybe get a bit of context on them or flesh them out a little,…

> It'd be great if someone could just synthesize raw, objective truth out of all that data, but I don't believe that's possible. Given that it's not possible, I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What would be certainly possible though is for them to stop putting lies inside. Exaggerating claims and inventing linkbait nonsense actually requires work - work which shouldn't be done in the first place.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#207

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #175

WillPostForFood wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is full of the science that people no longer trust. There is plenty of evidence that fat doesn't cause weight gain or heart attacks, and that exercise doesn't lead to weight loss because it makes you hungry. I don't know the correct answer, but I know there is a lot of uncertainty now, and there seemed to be no uncertainty in the food pyramid days.

Exercise on its own doesn't lead to weight loss (in order to burn the necessary calories, you'd have to be exercising all day long ), but it is not uncommon for exercise to suppress appetite, thereby reducing the calories in component of the weight loss equation. Unless of course hunger signals are being ignored, as in the case of unconscious, binge, or comfort eating.

> Exercise on its own doesn't lead to weight loss (in order to burn the necessary calories, you'd have to be exercising all day long)

Assuming that you were in perfect calorie balance before, any additional exercise without additional calorie consumption will produce a calorie deficit. This may or may not produce weight loss depending on the exercise profile and a lot of other factors (including, IIRC, what and when you eat relative to when and how you exercise), since its possible to gain weight with a calorie deficit while if you are building muscle fat enough (since fat stores more energy per unit mass than muscle.)

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#208

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

shanusmagnus wrote: post #182

dragontamer wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with these "creationist idiots" you talk about. And let me tell you something... A creationist engineer codes just as well as a Darwinist engineer. Young Earth creationist nonetheless! He's one of the best students in my class that I've ever seen, extremely good at coding, great at running meetings and organizing people. The fact of the matter is, global warming, pollution, and even creationism / whatever does…

I wouldn't deny that there are lots of smart people who disagree with me on certain foundational issues. I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. And if smart people are acting in an idiotic manner, the fact that they have mental horsepower to do better is actually worse.

    I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do 
    are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe.

Of course, the typical person is dumb.

Similarly, the typical evolutionist and typical global-warming guy or pro-vaccines is also dumb. They just happen to be correct on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything #%$#. 90% of creationists are dumb, for the same reason that 90% of the population in general (including evolutionists) are dumb.

Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution.

Carbon Dating has a maximum effectivity of a few thousand years, not really long enough to be on the scale of evolutionary changes. Simple geological facts, for depth of fossils and such can also be contested, and the typical pro-evolution person out there will be lost in the argument.

Despite being on the correct side of the debate, pro-evolutionists typically can't argue their way out of a paper-bag. But this is true in general, very few people have decent debate skills.

And thats what makes "intelligent people with wrong worldviews" so dangerous. They win every argument in colloquial settings, because they're pretty smart and can win debates even when the facts are tilted against their favor.

The realization that I myself might be one such person is not lost upon me of course. I generally win debates online, in person and such. But after years of experience, I've learned that this isn't because I'm correct... its because I am a decent debater.

And everyone who posts in online discussions tends to be an above-average debater. We constantly debate each other and organize our own (and each other's) thoughts.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#209

Post by msandford » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

shanusmagnus wrote: post #187

msandford wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100% convinced that they sometimes get personal messages from angels. Their idiotic worldviews do not arise as a result of Bayesian discounting based on having received bad advice, but from intellectual laziness and an inability (or unwillingness) to look in the m…

First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense. But speaking of standards of evidence: >>>> For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 1…

I've heard phrases like "the science is settled" on global warming. If you can't write down a VERY detailed model on global warming, then it seems to me pretty arrogant to suggest that in fact "the science is settled." The fact that "Big Tobacco" hid behind that argument doesn't make it wrong! That kind of thinking isn't terribly sound, all kinds of folks use various argumentation strategies to advance various theories; not all of them are right. By your logic that should eliminate all argumentation strategies from all pursuits because all have been used in service of incorrect ideas. Since this is an obviously ridiculous conclusion I would instead assume that your maxim isn't valid.

Experts have been wrong in the past and will be again in the future. Economists -- whose sole job it is to understand the economy -- do no better than chance at predicting what will happen to GDP. You're making an appeal to authority and it's not terribly convincing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-...

The science is largely settled on gravity and we've got an equation that tells us how it works in excruciating detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_o...

When climate science reaches that level of predictive ability then it won't be terribly contentious to say that the science is settled. Until then, it may well be.

Re: Science’s Biggest Fail

#210

Post by muaddirac » Mon, Feb 02, 2015, 10:21 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #186

muaddirac wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has some odd ideas about science. The end of his book "The Dilbert Future" calls for "new ways of looking at existing things." And then claims that all of science is just "looking at things" which, he points out, is pretty unreliable, and that we need to improve our ability to perceive the universe in order to move forward in science. Of note is that he doesn't consider technologies which enhance our perception to…

And then claims that all of science is just "looking at things" Well, at least he got one thing correct. Mostly. Science is a system for generating a model of the world. It just also happens to be the best one we have, insofar as it has generated the most accurate model of the universe to date. Is it perfect? No. Should it be criticized? Yes, otherwise it won't improve. Should we throw it out altogether? Perhaps that…

I agree with you say but I just want to emphasize how much that is NOT what Adams says in his book.

In the book, he dismisses science because it's just looking at things and our eyes can deceive us (he uses the example of thinking the earth was flat).

At the same time, he calls for expanding our "perception" of the world. But the many, many ways in which science/technology have legitimately expanded our perception of the universe are dismissed by him, because it's all "just looking at things." A readout of a signal from a radio telescope is just looking at things with our fallible eyes. A measurement of the voltage of a battery is just looking at a readout of a voltmeter.

That is what is supremely frustrating with his view of science.