Fraud, so much fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#531

Post by momoschili » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 12:42 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #429

momoschili wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are "heavy handed covid response and censorship" a prime example of that?

Preventing people from working if they didn't get a covid vaccine was a bit heavy handed. And saying it was likely made in a lab in China is kind of censored to this day. I think partly because the science community doesn't want to take flack for doing risky stuff and killing millions.

From a philosophical perspective, I don't see how the vaccine mandates for public jobs is appreciably different than vaccine requirements for public school that already exist.

As far as the China lab goes, there were plenty of scientific papers that studied the China leak theory, though I personally don't know what they found.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#532

Post by binoct » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 12:45 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #515

binoct wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neural networks are not a model of the working of the human brain. They are based on an extremely simplified approximation of how neurons connect and function (which while conceptually similar is a terrible predictive model for biological neurons) and are connected together in ways that have absolutely zero resemblance to how complex nervous systems look in real animals. The burden of proof here is absolutely on show…

Neural networks are much closer to modeling a brain than other approaches to AI, ie symbolic reasoning. There will always be differences (it's machine, not meat), but it's fair to say the approach is at least "brain like". Your position sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Sorry if it came across as non-falsifiable, that was not the intent.

Neural networks do not directly encode high-level reasoning and logic, yes. But in the spectrum of “does this model the actual functioning of an animal/human brain”, they lack both a 1st order model of how biological neurons and neural chemistry behaves, but also lack anything like the multiple levels of structural specialization present in nervous systems. That’s the basis for my argument.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#533

Post by Maxatar » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 12:48 AM UTC

momoschili wrote: post #397

jvanderbot wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what's to say that other highly celebrated and highly referenced texts from that time were not based on bad science or were outright frauds? Your memory of them? Picking the winners as examples is not good sampling.

The originator explicitly said that 'any engineering book' would contain these references, thus it would seem that this was at least a widespread belief among physicists and engineers at the time. Do you have any example? Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted. I think that this assertion should be backed…

You have made so many mistakes in your reading that I would urge you next time to carefully re-read people's posts before responding to them. Also never quote someone without using their actual words. For example, it was not explicitly said that any engineering book would contain those references, it was a general statement not a categorical statement.

>Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted.

No, once again that's not what was said. The concept being communicated is that the scientific method works over long periods of time, not short ones. Over long periods of time, such as 200 years, the work that survives peer review and remains significant today are things like Maxwell's work on electromagnetism as opposed to Dr. Franz Mesmer's work on animal magnetism.

You are taking little bits and pieces of what people are saying, misconstruing them and reinterpreting them, and then forming an argument that is not a genuine representation of the original comment.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#534

Post by teddyh » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 12:55 AM UTC

ljsprague wrote: post #90

Where is Eliezer Masliah from?

“MASLIAH, 65, TRAINED in medicine and neuropathology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), earning his medical degree in 1982 and completing a residency in pathology in 1986. He married a U.S. resident who also studied medicine at UNAM. They relocated to San Diego after Masliah’s training.”

— https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-...>

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#535

Post by Aerroon » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:04 AM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #169

testfoobar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar - when I was younger, I would never have suspected that a scientist was committing fraud. As I've gotten older, I understand that Charlie Munger's observation "“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” is applicable everywhere - including science. Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their caree…

If humanity is to mature, we should be an open book when it comes to incentives and build a world purposefully with all incentives aligned to the outcomes we collectively agree upon. https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ Charlie Munger's Misjudgment #1: Incentive-caused Bias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-2yIO8cnvw https://fs.blog/bias-incentives-reinforcement/

I don't think that's really going to work. People won't list all their incentives, because some of them are implicit and others are embarrassing or "creepy". Others will absolutely judge you for what incentivizes your actions, therefore hiding them is the status quo.

If you say that your incentive for working out is to look good and be popular with the ladies then people will judge you for it, even if it's exactly the truth. If you say that you work out "for health" everyone will applaud you for what you're doing. And yet the outcome is going to be the same.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#536

Post by mcmoor » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:10 AM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #187

vasco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick up an old engineering book at some point, something from mid 1800's or early 1900's and you'll quickly realize that the trust people put on science isn't what it should be. The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have sp…

the best example is psychology. the entire field needs to be scrapped and started over, nothing you read on any of those papers can be trusted, it's just heaping piles of bad research dressed with a thin veil of statistical respectability.

I treat the field like medicine in 19th century. Nice motive, but unless someone drag me to operating room because I've just been shot, I won't have any surgery.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#537

Post by momoschili » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:11 AM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #529

momoschili wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The originator explicitly said that 'any engineering book' would contain these references, thus it would seem that this was at least a widespread belief among physicists and engineers at the time. Do you have any example? Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted. I think that this assertion should be backed…

We've gotten into the territory of just repeating ourselves, so I don't want to do that. I will say that > Again, you and the original poster seem to have this understanding that scientists and engineers from the mid 1800s to early 1900s are not to be trusted. Is not correct as far as I believe. Instead, we're saying that there's no reason to believe any study until it has stood the test of time. The longer it remain…

>Is not correct as far as I believe. Instead, we're saying that there's no reason to believe any study until it has stood the test of time. The longer it remains impactful the better.

Upon rereading I agree, I apologize to you and OP for my misunderstanding. However, ultimately in general I still have to disagree at least semantically with "standing the test of time". I am not really familiar with the processes in biological or social sciences, but from a physical science background, any result of interest will need to be built upon quite quickly. Either some kind of design will be reproduced to improve it or use it, or in the case of a theoretical result it will be awaiting some kind of experiment to validate it.

>> The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have spent a good amount of time reading their methodology yourself.

I don't necessarily disagree with this statement (besides the 'long period of time'). Though I would also say that simply mistrusting the result has the same issue, so the only correct way forward seems to me to be to act as if it does not exist until you gain the expertise.

>Saying that textbooks from Maxwell's era had misunderstandings and bad information is not saying they are inept, it's saying that that is how it works, it always has and always will be that way. That's it, really. The fact that good science came from it is to be expected, and the fact that bad science existed is also not to be suprising.

I'm not familiar with textbooks of that era as through personal curiosity I've only read a few. I would still like to see an example of such an occurrence to understand the context under which these treatments are discussed. If these fallacious techniques were widespread enough to be popular in textbooks there must be some kind of literature supporting them?

>I think you interpreted the statement about the 1900s textbooks being wrong as a slander against the entire era, which is not how I read it, and certainly not what I meant to imply by any of my comments.

I will admit to being a bit hotheaded in the initial response, which I apologize for.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#538

Post by dennis_jeeves2 » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:11 AM UTC

bashfulpup wrote: post #383

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

owenpalmer, as I stated in my side note I will not be explaining myself, my sincere apologies for this. You see there are some things that cannot be taught, or it cannot be easily taught more so for adults i.e healthy skepticism and questioning of statements/facts that come from authority figures ( example:science/religion etc). A person will have to make his or her own effort. External influences especially debates…

I love this, do tell the direction to be nudged in. I wish to experience this new level of understanding.

Nutrition is one place where you can start, because it is possible to do some practical experiments.

But, be warned, you will easily spend a decade investigating it.

I picked the subject, because I'm sure that in the end you will have achieved something of great value: your own relatively better health. (I said relatively, because diet is only one of the factors that influences health, although I say it's an important one)

Expanding on the sibling comment by 'mistercheph':

1) Start on a blank slate. have no notion about the subject. This is easier said than done . Un-learning is way more difficult than learning , even for the simplest of topics.

2) Read really old literature on the subject, the likes of Aristotle, the alternative is to listen to people on the internet who have read old literature. Initially do some cross checking to make sure that these people are indeed saying the truth by actually checking the sources they cite. Progressively read the literature to relatively modern times, say up until 100 years back. Many research papers that are over 100 years old are very readable compared to the current ones even for lay people.

3) Experiment on yourself. Come up with your own observations on what is good and bad.

4) now explore the conventional knowledge on the subject. For x amount of time spend on gleaning conventional knowledge, listen to the (1)heretic who takes the opposite stand for x amount of time who says otherwise.

5) do several iterations of steps 1 to 4.

6) Form your own opinion after a decade.

(1)= the older credentialed heretic is a good bet. By speaking against the guild that he/she is affiliated with he/she has got a lot to lose : his/her livelihood.

Good luck!

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#539

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:13 AM UTC

LtWorf wrote: post #467

drevil-v2 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In defence of the "less bright people" or deplorables as others have called them - they are deeply suspicious of Science(tm) used as a cudgel. They intuit that some parasitic entity or entities has latched on to Science and is co-opting it for it's own gain to achieve it's own purposes which run counter to the interests of the people. The heavy handed Covid response and censorship is a prime example of that. The whol…

I attended the opening talk of a local science festival. The speaker was a psychology researcher from UK who flew here for that, and the talk was about conspiracy theories. When they introduced her they stated that she wouldn't accept any questions from the audience. This was received with boos and shouts that it was not real science. She then proceeded to bundle all the conspiracy theories together. Going from "the…

I always struggled with ‘cospiracy theory’ being used as an attack.

Yes, that’s exactly what they are, upfront, allegations of a conspiracy. And some of them are correct,

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#540

Post by aetherspawn » Sat, Sep 28, 2024, 1:13 AM UTC

It’s time that someone starts a thing similar in appearance to GitHub, but for science (datasets, images, calculations, scripts) and then, if journals required it, it just might get traction and make fraud science easy to spot.

Edit: found this article which says everything I wanted to say but couldn’t put into words. https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/we-need-a-github-for-ac...

Add another aspect here that LaTeX is a bit outdated in 2024 (I know that’s controversial! Sorry) and that we can do a lot better for digesting and displaying information than A4 sheets of paper, for example responsiveness, audit/comment logs/references to individual paragraphs/revision logs, and the ability to click figures and see underlying data or high resolution copies. This would be great in a web-based editor medium. Also the ability to “fork” a paper would be fantastic. And to automatically track and generate references, then roll it up as back/forward reference analytics for the authors so they can see impact.