12 ms·

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thou

Science and economic journalism are both pretty bad. My favorite thing (ok, one of my favorite things) about blogging/internet is that I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media.

mc32 10y ago
Social science is quite bad. Reporters on, KQED for example, will cite a single study to bolster their opinion on something. It'll go along the lines of, "UC Davis ran a study which concluded giving money directly to the homeless with no strings attached had the best results". But they won't say how many people were involved, what other studies this was compared to, how it was conducted, were there studies with opposite conclusions, etc., etc.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  My favorite is when there is a legitimate controversy in the field, and outsiders cherry pick which side to listen to. Person A references a study that just so happens to support his existing opinion. Person B searches and finds a study that contradicts it. Person A finds some criticism of that study and claims it's been "debunked". And so on, back and forth. You end up with 2 sides that believe their opinions have been absolutely confirmed by science, and have impressive sounding statistics and studies to reference. When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus. IIRC something like this happened with minimum wage debates. With some studies showing the effect of a higher minimum wage was positive, and others showing it was negative. Almost any political issue will have some of this.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Those are good points about the whole thing. People who have little contextual understanding and take one thing, as you mention, and use that to prove their point. Another thing some people miss is the tradeoffs involved. higher minimum wages as well as lower minimum wages have consequences --some contrary to what the proponents would like. For example, while I am for higher minimum wages, I understand that while this will help many people, it has the potential to have negative effects on people at the periphery. More things getting automated could result functionally illiterate people who have little besides manual labor to offer to be sidelined even more. Who does a poultry farmer hire, now that the rate is $15, a local worker or an illegal worker now that a local is attracted by the $15/hr?
  - yodsanklai 10y ago
    > When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus. And sometimes there is a consensus and it still doesn't prevent people from finding studies to back up their point of view. Take climate change for instance. When people aren't intellectual honest or have an agenda (e.g. politician), it's not even worth arguing. That being said, I noticed that while it's pretty easy to find studies about anything, it's more difficult to assess the pertinence of those studies or to know what the current scientific consensus is.
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      Well there was a time when the climate change debate wasn't a consensus. That's when this started. There were legitimate criticisms and contrary studies. One side cherry picked those and came to believe that science had proved global warming wasn't real. So even long after a consensus has formed, they still believe that.
jsprogrammer 10y ago
I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?
- smt88 10y ago
  > scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact. A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones marketing their work. There's someone else (a layperson) at the university paid to do that, and they will often make claims that aren't substantiated by the original research.
  - jlarocco 10y ago
    > While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. That's in published, peer reviewed papers. The OP was talking about their blogs, which don't have any requirements like that.
  - WillPostForFood 10y ago
    But better not to confuse economists and scientists.
    - chestervonwinch 10y ago
      Don't economists empirically test mathematical models of the economy? How is this not science?
      - luckluckgoosed 10y ago
        Economists work with data about people's behaviors. Their results don't remain constant, and vary depending on social or cultural trends. So they do social sciences (which is not actually science). It used to be called "social studies" in your grade school.
lhnz 10y ago
> I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media. Who do you read, and have you seen this? https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  Too many to list easily, but I've found over time that I read fewer and fewer professional pundits, opiners, and journalists.
  - j2kun 10y ago
    Yes, please, contributions are welcome!
jdietrich 10y ago
All journalism is pretty bad. Non-experts are producing content under severe time constraints. Most newspapers barely have a budget for copy editing, let alone fact checking. Take journalism for what it is - disposable content written in a hurry. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...

mc32 10y ago

Social science is quite bad. Reporters on, KQED for example, will cite a single study to bolster their opinion on something. It'll go along the lines of, "UC Davis ran a study which concluded giving money directly to the homeless with no strings attached had the best results". But they won't say how many people were involved, what other studies this was compared to, how it was conducted, were there studies with opposite conclusions, etc., etc.

Houshalter 10y ago
My favorite is when there is a legitimate controversy in the field, and outsiders cherry pick which side to listen to. Person A references a study that just so happens to support his existing opinion. Person B searches and finds a study that contradicts it. Person A finds some criticism of that study and claims it's been "debunked". And so on, back and forth. You end up with 2 sides that believe their opinions have been absolutely confirmed by science, and have impressive sounding statistics and studies to reference. When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus. IIRC something like this happened with minimum wage debates. With some studies showing the effect of a higher minimum wage was positive, and others showing it was negative. Almost any political issue will have some of this.
- mc32 10y ago
  Those are good points about the whole thing. People who have little contextual understanding and take one thing, as you mention, and use that to prove their point. Another thing some people miss is the tradeoffs involved. higher minimum wages as well as lower minimum wages have consequences --some contrary to what the proponents would like. For example, while I am for higher minimum wages, I understand that while this will help many people, it has the potential to have negative effects on people at the periphery. More things getting automated could result functionally illiterate people who have little besides manual labor to offer to be sidelined even more. Who does a poultry farmer hire, now that the rate is $15, a local worker or an illegal worker now that a local is attracted by the $15/hr?
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  > When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus. And sometimes there is a consensus and it still doesn't prevent people from finding studies to back up their point of view. Take climate change for instance. When people aren't intellectual honest or have an agenda (e.g. politician), it's not even worth arguing. That being said, I noticed that while it's pretty easy to find studies about anything, it's more difficult to assess the pertinence of those studies or to know what the current scientific consensus is.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Well there was a time when the climate change debate wasn't a consensus. That's when this started. There were legitimate criticisms and contrary studies. One side cherry picked those and came to believe that science had proved global warming wasn't real. So even long after a consensus has formed, they still believe that.

jsprogrammer 10y ago

I've heard that actual scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer, as they must "publish or perish". I've even heard that in those publications, there is a push towards constructing narratives and telling stories. Do you know of scientists or economists who aren't paid to write that I can read from?

smt88 10y ago
> scientists and economists are just a type of professional writer While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. If they have to layer narratives on top of their work to get people to care, I don't see any harm in that as long as it doesn't stray outside of the lines of fact. A problem I've seen myself is that the original scientists aren't always the ones marketing their work. There's someone else (a layperson) at the university paid to do that, and they will often make claims that aren't substantiated by the original research.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  > While true, they're only supposed to write things that can be independently reproduced and verified. That's in published, peer reviewed papers. The OP was talking about their blogs, which don't have any requirements like that.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  But better not to confuse economists and scientists.
  - chestervonwinch 10y ago
    Don't economists empirically test mathematical models of the economy? How is this not science?
    - luckluckgoosed 10y ago
      Economists work with data about people's behaviors. Their results don't remain constant, and vary depending on social or cultural trends. So they do social sciences (which is not actually science). It used to be called "social studies" in your grade school.

lhnz 10y ago

> I can read real-time thoughts/opinions from actual scientists and economists now instead of having to rely on professional writers and media. Who do you read, and have you seen this? https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts https://github.com/j2kun/blogs-by-experts

elgabogringo 10y ago
Too many to list easily, but I've found over time that I read fewer and fewer professional pundits, opiners, and journalists.
- j2kun 10y ago
  Yes, please, contributions are welcome!

jdietrich 10y ago

All journalism is pretty bad. Non-experts are producing content under severe time constraints. Most newspapers barely have a budget for copy editing, let alone fact checking. Take journalism for what it is - disposable content written in a hurry. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...