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

The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#51

Post by sn41 »

soperj wrote: post #15
kjrose wrote: post #14

From my time working within an academic environment, I can attest this is absolutely true. Especially since the gatekeepers (older professors, etc) have a general interest to see these older articles cited more and referenced. It's not malicious, it's just a fact of how these things work. It's also why the general public's knowledge of how science works needs to be adjusted. Science is not a "100% correct" or "100% n…

>It's not malicious, it's just a fact of how these things work While I agree it's not malicious, I'd say the reason it works this way is that there is a financial incentive to have it work this way.

It is not finance. There are a lot of motivations which are based on ego or prestige. Scholarship is unfortunately often based on competition - but the standards of winning are different from that of oil tycoons. Boiling everything down to finance will not lead to accurate understanding of how academia works.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#52

Post by nraynaud »

ncmncm wrote: post #32
ravenstine wrote: post #10

This reminds me of a talk I watched about research into human pheromones. The speaker talked about how literature and studies on pheromones all lead back to 1 or 2 old studies that were basically considered bunk, but researchers kept citing it, and other researchers would also cite the other studies that linked back to the original low-quality studies. His point was that the whole field of research into human pheromo…

It would surprise me if there were any areas of science that were not heavily citing falsified papers. We are perhaps fortunate that most cited papers are not read.

Mathematics and the non ml part of computer science should be ok, I guess.

Everything that doesn’t involve data, maybe ? I’m making this on the fly.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#53

Post by porb121 »

philipkglass wrote: post #3

The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used…

moreover, plenty of scenario work predicts plenty of bad climate effects for rcps and ssps tighter than rcp8.5. by any estimation, the results of rcp8.5 would be disastrous.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#55

Post by momirlan »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #47

Isn’t it better to act as if those edge cases are going to happen, so we can prevent the worst from happening. Yes, scientific integrity is important, but if the message gets out to the general public, that those climate change models are based on outdated research, wouldn’t that make us procrastinate and not get off the fossil fuel based economy sooner? Our biosphere degradation isn’t just about Ghg emissions, but p…

Pst, the "general public" are listening !

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#56

Post by momirlan »

marshmallow_12 wrote: post #5

It's been a long time since i've read anything so well written that was so devoid of any pertinent points. I'm only reading that page, but the only thing i've come away with is that breast cancer research is flawed, somehow, by what seems to be the most egregious lack of anything that approaches professional standards on the part of researchers. Oh, and a graph with different lines drawn on it with a large space betw…

go to bed before you burn too many neurons

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#58

Post by stijlist »

The text says one thing, but the graph they display to support their argument does not say what I thought it said.

The purple line is supposed to be our "real" emissions, and the impression you get from the image and text is that our real emissions are much lower than the projected emissions.

But if you actually look at the values of the purple line vs the other lines now, in 2020/2021, the values are almost exactly the same.

I don't understand how to reconcile that with the text.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#59

Post by marshmallow_12 »

momirlan wrote: post #56
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #5

It's been a long time since i've read anything so well written that was so devoid of any pertinent points. I'm only reading that page, but the only thing i've come away with is that breast cancer research is flawed, somehow, by what seems to be the most egregious lack of anything that approaches professional standards on the part of researchers. Oh, and a graph with different lines drawn on it with a large space betw…

go to bed before you burn too many neurons

how do you burn neurons and why should i care about them?

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#60

Post by ylem »

kjrose wrote: post #14

From my time working within an academic environment, I can attest this is absolutely true. Especially since the gatekeepers (older professors, etc) have a general interest to see these older articles cited more and referenced. It's not malicious, it's just a fact of how these things work. It's also why the general public's knowledge of how science works needs to be adjusted. Science is not a "100% correct" or "100% n…

Is this true though? Wouldn't it be rather boring if the standard model continues work? In the end, Josephson won. Even the example that the author here mentions with breast cancer-vs-skin cancer was eventually discovered to be wrong. The main question is the time scale.
Post reply on HN