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

How Much Science Is Fake?

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#71

Post by [deleted] »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #61
cynicalpeace wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you move on if I replace "not processed" with "minimally processed" and "processed" with "ultra processed"? You're not some harbinger of truth if we do that. In fact, it's pretty evil (idc if you're Harvard, UCLA, or a commenter on HN) to argue over whether or not you can distinguish between a cooked carrot or an Oreo. Which brings me back to my original point. That educated spaces need a study or even just a l…

> Would you move on if I replace "not processed" with "minimally processed" and "processed" with "ultra processed"? I think it would still be better to not mention "processing", because it's not about the "processing", it's about what is there in the end foods that can cause issues. So I would say that excessive consumption of foods loaded with unhealthy fats, sugars and artificial preservatives, flavor enhancers are…

[deleted]

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#72

Post by mewpmewp2 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #70
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you move on if I replace "not processed" with "minimally processed" and "processed" with "ultra processed"? I think it would still be better to not mention "processing", because it's not about the "processing", it's about what is there in the end foods that can cause issues. So I would say that excessive consumption of foods loaded with unhealthy fats, sugars and artificial preservatives, flavor enhancers are…

"not enough fruits, vegetables which contain ingredients that your body needs to properly function." Is orange juice a fruit? There, take some of your own medicine lol. In all seriousness, if you're not convinced ultra processed foods are bad for you as a rule, there's nothing I can do except throw a bunch of studies at you, which I've already argued is insane for such a basic and common sense concept I know you prob…

> Is orange juice a fruit? There, take some of your own medicine lol.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here? That it is? Orange juice is not a fruit, it's a juice derived from a fruit. Which is healthy in moderation, but definitely not enough alone to cover all the optimal ingredients you would get from a variance of different fruits.

> In all seriousness, if you're not convinced ultra processed foods are bad for you as a rule, there's nothing I can do except throw a bunch of studies at you, which I've already argued is insane for such a basic and common sense concept

I'm not convinced because it all depends on how it was exactly processed and the amounts.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#73

Post by isotypic »

efitz wrote: post #68
davisoneee wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say you do a cost:benefit...but where do those costs come from? To me, that's just voluntarily doing your own ignorant, sloppy science I was mentioning above. If you only consider the blatantly obvious costs and benefits, you are completely ignorant of any 2nd or 3rd order...or even your own blind spots. You may radically under or overstate, or even calculate in the wrong direction. I think a better position is t…

I don’t analyze the papers, I analyze the policies. Take the climate. Assuming the science is correct (storms worse, oceans rising, etc), let’s do a cost benefit analysis of the proposed policies. The proposed policies in the US all dramatically increase the cost of energy (and therefore of everything), but only slightly slow the progression of warming, AND the bigger contributing countries in the developing world, e…

But how do you analyze the policies without doing science? Nothing in the above is sound to me.

"The proposed policies in the US all dramatically increase the cost of energy" - why? How do you even begin to conclude this without looking at some sort of (economic/scientific) analysis?

"only slightly slow the progression of warming" - again, how are you concluding this?

"we as a species have gotten really good as reducing deaths" - why should this trend continue? Why should it continue in the face of more extreme weather/climate change?

All I see are things you _think_ are true, and so to you your argument seems sound. But as the comment you replied to said, all I see is ignorant, sloppy science, since any meaningful analysis of these policies is by definition science. These cost/benefits you mention are not universal apparent truths.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#74

Post by efitz »

isotypic wrote: post #73
efitz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t analyze the papers, I analyze the policies. Take the climate. Assuming the science is correct (storms worse, oceans rising, etc), let’s do a cost benefit analysis of the proposed policies. The proposed policies in the US all dramatically increase the cost of energy (and therefore of everything), but only slightly slow the progression of warming, AND the bigger contributing countries in the developing world, e…

But how do you analyze the policies without doing science? Nothing in the above is sound to me. "The proposed policies in the US all dramatically increase the cost of energy" - why? How do you even begin to conclude this without looking at some sort of (economic/scientific) analysis? "only slightly slow the progression of warming" - again, how are you concluding this? "we as a species have gotten really good as reduc…

I’m don’t need to analyze any scientific paper to form an opinion on a matter of policy; what scientific paper should I read to decide whether to support an increase on property tax in my county to support schools? The idea that I have to defer my judgment to someone in a lab coat is insulting.

As to your other questions, the answer to all (which any trivial web search would answer as I did) is “I can read”.

And I didn’t “cherry pick” some particular study or some blog that supports my preconceptions. All of the links I have provided are from sources that assume severe climate change is coming without serious interventions in greenhouse gas emissions; they are all on the “climate activist” side.

Dramatically increase the cost of energy, note that this is BY DESIGN, it’s the entire point of carbon taxes and markets: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/16/1064951646/why-the-cost-of-ca...

Only slightly slow the progression of warming: https://www.science.org/content/article/paris-climate-pact-5...

Weather related deaths down 98% in past 100 years: https://reason.org/policy-study/decline-deaths-extreme-weath...

And of course now I’m being down voted for my example.

I never challenged a single point of climate orthodoxy; I never questioned whether global warming was occurring, whether it was man-made, whether the studies and models predict warming accurately, or whether the impact will be as stated. I stipulated every single one of those points. But simply my personal conclusion that I don’t believe the policy trade-off is worth it, means that my voice is not worth hearing.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#75

Post by mike_hearn »

Muller20 wrote: post #36
efitz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that as soon as a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it can be used to justify public policy positions. Then a large number of people will points to the study, or even worse, to press characterizations of what a person thinks the study says, to support their preference on the public policy position. Immediately, anyone who has an alternate position on the public policy will be accused of b…

This is a problem with the journalism and politics, it's not really about science. No scientist would trust a result that depends on a single small sample paper. Those are just stepping stones that may justify further research for more robust evidence. This fact is quite clear to scientist and it's why most would discourage the general public (including smart engineers) from reading academic articles. But in general,…

> No scientist would trust a result that depends on a single small sample paper.

Unfortunately, they would. There are papers with thousands of citations that don't even have data samples, just models based on assumptions.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#76

Post by mike_hearn »

cptaj wrote: post #29
cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

Be careful with this default position. If we start from first principles: - Any one individual is not trained or experienced in the vast majority of scientific disciplines, regardless of his/her expertise in any one field - Even if half the studies published have flaws (where did you get that stat? was that study flawed?), their body of references is filtered by decades of replication and paper ranking of importance…

> Its more likely that a random individual's opinion about a random niche of scientific study will be wrong than that of an individual trained on that niche

Well ... this intuition should definitely be true in theory, but in practice some fields are sufficiently distorted by biases (financial, ideological) that it's possible to be more correct as a random individual than an individual trained on a niche. The random Joe Schmuck may or may not have less knowledge, but they definitely have less career-related bias and that is often decisive.

There are plenty of examples where ordinary people manage to systematically beat the experts. A good recent example was the COVID lab leak theory. The entire field of virology and public health came down on one side of that issue, even though it was obvious that a lab accident was highly plausible, and then it turned out they all knew were all lying through their teeth and did it deliberately anyway. The rando nobodies who said "yeah, well, I don't trust the experts" came out ahead and this is now widely acknowledged. In the UK both Boris Johnson and his at-the-time health secretary have admitted that it is the most likely explanation for where COVID came from.

Ultimately, training is of no use if incentives cause people to mislead.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#77

Post by mike_hearn »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #66
lapcat wrote: post #55

1) The paper defines "fake" in this first sentence: > ‘Fake’ science is either intentionally fabricated-where quantitative elements are invented-or intentionally falsified-where results are dishonestly engineered from real data. 2) The title "How much science is fake?" is clickbaity. The actual assertion of the paper: > a preliminary approximation is that 1 in 7 published papers have serious errors commensurate with…

Ironically if this paper intentionally uses an incorrect and misleading term "fake", to label and then claim that 1 in 7 are fake, would it make the paper itself "fake" according to their standards? Because they find 1 in 7 with serious errors, but their definition of "fake" requires it to be intentional. Where's the evidence it's intentional for all of these 1 in 7?

It says "serious errors commensurate with being untrustworthy", which I think is meant to be an alternative way to say commensurate with being fake.

Arguments about intentionality are a bit of a distraction. Academics routinely try and excuse obvious fakery by claiming to be incredibly incompetent. At some point you have to treat unlimited incompetence as harshly as deliberate deception.

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#79

Post by johnea »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #15

40-60% of scientific studies are not replicable, therefore fake as far as I'm concerned. That's why "show me the study" is such a midwit line of reasoning. We need to go back to thinking more with first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation. There's a place for scientific studies, but it's gone so far that many won't take an obvious point without a study behind it. There are many such examples tha…

The space lasers guiding hurricanes along the chem-trails is totally real!

Just ask anyone in the braintrust states...

Re: How Much Science Is Fake?

#80

Post by [deleted] »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #70
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you move on if I replace "not processed" with "minimally processed" and "processed" with "ultra processed"? I think it would still be better to not mention "processing", because it's not about the "processing", it's about what is there in the end foods that can cause issues. So I would say that excessive consumption of foods loaded with unhealthy fats, sugars and artificial preservatives, flavor enhancers are…

"not enough fruits, vegetables which contain ingredients that your body needs to properly function." Is orange juice a fruit? There, take some of your own medicine lol. In all seriousness, if you're not convinced ultra processed foods are bad for you as a rule, there's nothing I can do except throw a bunch of studies at you, which I've already argued is insane for such a basic and common sense concept I know you prob…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN