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

641–650 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#641

Post by fnord77 »

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…

feels like this is part of a larger pattern of corruption up and down institutions in western civilization. everything is gamified, monetized and rigged.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#642

Post by iqanq »

mfer wrote: post #638
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say you are no longer highly 'pro science' would you say that you would rather people take advice from scientists or from people who have a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter". Because that's the level we're at at the moment. The current climate we're in means that consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice…

Just this weekend I was reading that more than 60% of the research into cholesterol is funded by the egg industry. Research funded by industry overwhelmingly shows things in as positive light for industry whether it does or not. This kind of example is common. It tells me its worth questioning research and looking deeper at what ever is released. When someone questions research to look at the merits of what they say.

Exactly. The guy who is an "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" doesn't have a conflict of interest, which makes him less biased and more believable.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#643

Post by jcims »

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…

I saw this first hand walking with my wife through two years of intensive cancer treatment. It seemed impossible to break through the ‘not standard of care’ wall to even incorporate low risk adjuvant therapies.

Overall it just felt like she was a hot potato and nobody wanted to put their name on *anything* outside of protocol. Even blood work. She was treated at the James Cancer Center in Ohio and we got second opinions from Cleveland Clinic and MD Anderson in New York. These are all fairly well regarded institutions in cancer treatment. I was expecting strong opinions and got hand waving and reluctance to interfere with any treatment selected by her primary oncologist. In the process of all of this i read hundreds of studies and research papers, spoke with numerous PIs, trial coordinators and industry reps. I couldn’t get any traction for anything and came away feeling a bit hopeless.

After it was all over i started making public offers of $25k as a starting point to just review her case from end to end to assess the quality of her care and determine if anything could be learned from it. The only takers I got for that were lawyers who were hoping to twist it into malpractice case, which I wasn’t interested in.

The experience left me extremely bitter about the current state of healthcare. After a while i was able to develop some empathy for the providers. They’re trapped in a system that mortgages their future with student loans and directly threatens their ability to cover with litigation and insurance. They have to stay on the rails or risk financial ruin.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#644

Post by throwawayacc2 »

tstrimple wrote: post #551
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They are wrong because their trans is certainly a take. It's not a good take, and it's bigoted and the definition of an ad-hominem, but I guess that's what hiding behind throw away accounts is for.

I do not think you understood my point. That or you don’t appear to know what an ad hominem is. Here, take this scenario. A group of people come to me holding a paper that is white and has black writing on it. These people show me the paper and say “Behold, this is a black paper with white writing on it“. I look at that paper, clearly see they are saying a lie, so I dismiss them and avoid them. I do not wish to associate with liars. The same people come to me after and they say “the vaccine is safe, effective and necessary”. Based on my previous experience with them, I am highly skeptical of this claim. Could they be saying the truth this time? Of course. Should I be inclined to believe them seeing as they lied previously? I suppose that is for each person to decide. I am personally not inclined to believe people who lied to me previously. This was my point. I find it very hard to trust people who lie to me. Here, let me give you an example of what an ad hominem looks like. “You have a throwaway account, therefore your argument is invalid “.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#645

Post by icare_1er »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #605
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…

When you say you are no longer highly 'pro science' would you say that you would rather people take advice from scientists or from people who have a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter". Because that's the level we're at at the moment. The current climate we're in means that consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice…

It's not JRE i'm listening too, it's his guests.

In that instance, a doctor who was part of the team who invented RNA-based vaccines. Any problem with that ?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#646

Post by qwerty456127 »

dddnzzz334 wrote: post #620
qwerty456127 wrote: post #591

Why not just create an open database which would contain important comments, critique and known cases of misinterpretation/misuse for every scientific paper (uniquely identified by a DOI)?

People knowledgeable enough to make something like this function would likely not be willing to do something this niche for free.

This is of obvious public interest, primarily targeting wide audience of non-experts (e.g. "reporters raped by scientists" and those reading the news) rather than scientists who already know what they are doing when reading the papers. So it has to be funded by a charity or a government.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#647

Post by icare_1er »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #634
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 mean you raise a valid concern, it's a form of corruption, "muddying the waters", or CV padding that should be combated. But doesn't low quality science impact the universities and papers that host these things? Wouldn't e.g. Elsevier want to keep charging money for high quality content? Are people and organizations not losing their reputations, jobs, and income over this? I don't think switching over to laypersons…

If that's the only way to hear the full panel of scientists (as opposed to only those who are in bed with Big Pharma), then i'll gladly listen to whatever podcast they are on. And I don't need liberal-lefties to tell me who I should listen to and how i should make my opinions, thanks.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#648

Post by cm2187 »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #605
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…

When you say you are no longer highly 'pro science' would you say that you would rather people take advice from scientists or from people who have a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter". Because that's the level we're at at the moment. The current climate we're in means that consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice…

So is the choice between “covid is a hoax and Bill Gate’s microships” and “follow the official guideline whatever it says”? What happens to opinions in the middle, “like vaccinates people at risk, not those who already had covid”? Or “covid may well have leaked from a lab”? In which of those categories do they fall?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#649

Post by SamReidHughes »

cgrealy wrote: post #275
omosubi wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best diet is the one eaten for 1000s of years by your ancestors

You mean the one for people whose life expectancy was less than half the modern day? Who lived completely different lives?

Powhatan lived to 70, Opechancanough lived to 92 (when he was murdered), Massasoit lived to 80, Canonicus was 82.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#650

Post by moonchrome »

ensan wrote: post #206
lettergram wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>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.

This view doesn't really align with designing public policy - while those people exist - they aren't the problem (or are insofar they aren't voicing their positions loud enough).

Coming from a place of modesty and acknowledging limitations is not the "believe science" movement.

Post reply on HN