Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online • Hacker News Board

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#411

Post by im3w1l » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:12 AM UTC

nsainsbury wrote: post #157

sega_sai wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person working in science (long past PhD), I disagree. There are tons of problem in science: grant system, pressure to publish etc. Also everyone in science is still a person with standard people problems: ego, desire to be right, wanting recognition etc. Also some fields had more issues because of poor statistical methods etc. But the self-correcting nature of science is still its biggest redeeming feature. And…

Science does eventually self-correct, but unfortunately it takes far too long to do so. One area I've studied pretty extensively is the history of cancer treatment. In the long story of the history of cancer treatment, it is absolutely scandalous how often the scientific consensus was wrong and persisted for years in spite of the evidence. For example, the radical mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer continu…

And yet scientific cancer treatments are miles and miles better than quackery.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#412

Post by beerandt » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:12 AM UTC

kortex wrote: post #349

Retric wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharing code and data can be as harmful to science as it is beneficial. You don’t want to reuse the same instruments that conducted the last experiment to validate it. Independent replication is inherently expensive, but also critical to the field at large. Some sort of code vault that releases the code and data after a period could be a solid compromise.

Well yes, but no. You want to avoid any systematic bias, which if you reuse tooling/instruments/code, you run the risk of, but source code is also something which can be peer-reviewed. Reproducing the code base from scratch just isn't going to be tractable for large scientific pieces of software (e.g. CERN). Better to have the source code and dig through it carefully as part of the review and replication than insist…

If it doesn't replicate on the same equipment with the same code, then there's no reason to worry about the rest.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#413

Post by JetAlone » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:15 AM UTC

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…

I think you're hitting an important point here. The academy at its best is meant to be like a hospital for people's ignorance about their subjects and neglectful, intellectually lazy practices. What you're commenting on right now is the many forms of proverbial sicknesses that have gotten out of control. I personally think if the situation is going to be improved, it's a "physician heal thyself" situation, where some of the very people guilty of p-hacking and junk science are even now being called to come forward and change, taking on a risk of their careers as a sacrifice in exchange for a real possibility for us all to move forwards.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#414

Post by throwaway22032 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:15 AM UTC

concinds wrote: post #219

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'm skeptical that education is a solution to collapsing societal trust. First, the primary organs that would be capable of this education are the media, who have a profit motive to stoke any and all fears (immigration, radiological warfare, world war, coffee being carcinogenic). Second, I think this distrust goes beyond "the CDC said something wrong once, I don't trust them as much anymore." That could be solved wit…

I agree with you that this won't happen, simply because (via an evolutionary basis) the maintenance of social order comes before the dissemination of truth. The two might coincide, but where they don't, social order comes first.

This is ultimately what happened during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. It's what happens during fuel scares, it's what happened during 911 as a below poster explains, it's what happens within companies when layoff rumours circulate.

Even within the closest of romantic relationships each partner is not 100% truthful with the other because there are some things that are simply better not said.

Unless the idea is that we descend into some sort of authoritarian nightmare and the general population becomes irrelevant though, I'd argue that social order does require some semblance of trust in power even if only in the basics (e.g. if I don't cross the State, the State won't cross me).

Once that falls apart the whole thing is in ruins.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#415

Post by AussieWog93 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:17 AM UTC

porcoda wrote: post #304

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…

I'm biased - I'm a researcher at a big research institution and finished my PhD 15+ years ago. Seeing how the sausage is made shouldn't cause one to become less "pro-science". It should give people perspective that the scientific process is a process performed by humans, with all their flaws (ego, ambition, competition, etc). Furthermore, science is all about making hypotheses and seeing how they work out - with the…

GP here - I honestly think we're honestly mostly in agreement!

It's obviously not a completely worthless institution - there have clearly been some impressive discoveries despite all of the bullshit.

I think the main source of distrust comes from the jarring disconnect between the way that the institution is presented to the public vs. the way it actually functions in real life. "Messy" is a beautiful way to describe things from the inside.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#416

Post by RedBeetDeadpool » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:21 AM UTC

swayvil wrote: post #352

For 99.9% of us, science is theater. A guy on tv wearing the right costume, talking sciencey. And independent thought is inconceivable. So ya, the zombie apocalypse happened yesterday and nobody noticed.

I've never seen anything like mass formation psychosis until now. It truly is astonishing to see how many people can be so easily hypnotized with the right application of fear and hope.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#417

Post by dragonsky » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:22 AM UTC

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…

> Educated" people can say what they want about how important it is to believe in the science and have faith in our researchers and the institutions they work for.

This comment shows the problem in the argument. Science does not require belief or faith. In fact the idea of faith is the antithesis of science.

Science is about the hypothesis supported by evidence and remains current knowledge until a hypothesis that is better supported by the evidence.

Questioning is required, inquiry is required, not faith.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#418

Post by PixyMisa » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:31 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #313

pharrington wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your opinion, when was most scientific research not flawed or "useless"? Remember, the Einsteins, Clarks, etc of the world were wildly exceptional outliers. Do you really think that if you were to look at most research done between 1897 and 1922, the overall quality would be higher? And that there would be less social factors competing with the integrity of work?

> Do you really think that if you were to look at most research done between 1897 and 1922, the overall quality would be higher? I suspect yes, because the poor research was simply not be being done. Science was not a career, there was no pressure to publish, it was the pastime of an elite few.

N-rays (1903) would be a counter-example, but I can't speak as to the overall statistics of any scientific field that far back.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#419

Post by godelski » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:31 AM UTC

lstodd wrote: post #298

ransom1538 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To me, refusing to share the source code to a program that could be used to replicate your research seems like a big middle finger to science itself." It is done on purpose.

> It is done on purpose. The sad thing is that it isn't. It's just how the things are done. src: friends in HEP

I used to work (current PhD student) in HPC (switched specialties) and I was extremely surprised that not only did these people not share code (DOE actually encourages open souring code), but they would not even do so upon request. Several times I had to get my advisor to ask the author's advisor. Several times I found out why I couldn't replicate another person's code. It is amazing to me that anyone in CS does not share code. It is trivial to do and we're all using git in some form or another anyways.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#420

Post by wrycoder » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 3:32 AM UTC

hammock wrote: post #39

zzyzz wrote: post #22

I always think about this. If you can't trust people with the ability to see or hear certain information, how can you even trust them to vote?

That question is the type of thing that a backdoored voting machine or corrupt election board could solve. Luckily, so far there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

You forgot the sarc tag