4 ms·

> people only remember the few predictions that have come true, and forget everything else, such as "Florida will be underwater" from the 00s or "we're all gonn

> people only remember the few predictions that have come true, and forget everything else, such as "Florida will be underwater" from the 00s or "we're all gonna freeze to death" from the 70s. I deny your premise. These two predictions are two of the most remembered, precisely because they were mistaken and thus politically useful to the party in power in the US today. > There is perverse incentive to come out with these outlandish claims...since the timeline is often decades in the future Your aggregator proposal would do little to change the incentives. The reckoning would still be decades away, it would just be more convenient for the future fact-checkers.

0xbear 9y ago
There were literally hundreds of outlandish predictions and most people only remember a few, and the one from the 70s has no names tied to it. For all we know those same people might still be getting grants and making insane predictions, some of which could have multi trillion dollar policy consequences . On the flip side the proposed aggregator would also help to identify the scientists who are mostly right about things, even if their predictions might stray from the prevalent political dogma of the time. That said, you're right that accountability is a hard problem. Case in point is Al Gore, a dude who was about as right in his predictions as a random number generator, yet continues to be considered as some sort of preeminent authority on the topic of global warming.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Do you have some evidence that grants go to the scientists who make the most outlandish predictions? That sounds like claiming physics is rotten because cold fusion turned out to be unverifiable. "Those frauds, just trying to get grants to build their phony particle accelerators that don't actually do anything. Who ever saw a boson?"
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    It's common sense, no? Who do you think will get more grants, the "we're definitely all gonna die of heat, drought, and hurricanes" group, or "there is 40% probability that the temperature might rise by 1C in a hundred years" group? For the record, the latter hypothesis is made up to illustrate the point, but the former is in wide circulation.
    - yongjik 9y ago
      You seem to have this weird notion that NSF and friends weigh grant proposals based on clickbaity-ness of the titles. Have you ever read a grant proposal?
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        And you seem to have this weird notion that whether or not a team has a high profile does not impact its chances of getting a grant. In the absence of a feedback loop this largely turns into a popularity contest, and dire predictions are helpful to that end. All I'm proposing is to create a stronger feedback loop. I don't see why anyone, including the scientists, would be against that.
        yongjik 9y ago
        A scientist becomes "high profile" by writing many papers that are highly regarded by fellow scientists, not by being quoted by CNN. If anything, unless you are already a highly respected scholar, being frequently quoted by mainstream media has traditionally had negative consequences for your career. Google "sagan effect".
    - pavlov 9y ago
      What does wide circulation mean? Is there an IPCC report that makes the claim that "we're definitely all gonna die of heat, drought, and hurricanes"?

0xbear 9y ago

There were literally hundreds of outlandish predictions and most people only remember a few, and the one from the 70s has no names tied to it. For all we know those same people might still be getting grants and making insane predictions, some of which could have multi trillion dollar policy consequences . On the flip side the proposed aggregator would also help to identify the scientists who are mostly right about things, even if their predictions might stray from the prevalent political dogma of the time. That said, you're right that accountability is a hard problem. Case in point is Al Gore, a dude who was about as right in his predictions as a random number generator, yet continues to be considered as some sort of preeminent authority on the topic of global warming.

pavlov 9y ago
Do you have some evidence that grants go to the scientists who make the most outlandish predictions? That sounds like claiming physics is rotten because cold fusion turned out to be unverifiable. "Those frauds, just trying to get grants to build their phony particle accelerators that don't actually do anything. Who ever saw a boson?"
- 0xbear 9y ago
  It's common sense, no? Who do you think will get more grants, the "we're definitely all gonna die of heat, drought, and hurricanes" group, or "there is 40% probability that the temperature might rise by 1C in a hundred years" group? For the record, the latter hypothesis is made up to illustrate the point, but the former is in wide circulation.
  - yongjik 9y ago
    You seem to have this weird notion that NSF and friends weigh grant proposals based on clickbaity-ness of the titles. Have you ever read a grant proposal?
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      And you seem to have this weird notion that whether or not a team has a high profile does not impact its chances of getting a grant. In the absence of a feedback loop this largely turns into a popularity contest, and dire predictions are helpful to that end. All I'm proposing is to create a stronger feedback loop. I don't see why anyone, including the scientists, would be against that.
      - yongjik 9y ago
        A scientist becomes "high profile" by writing many papers that are highly regarded by fellow scientists, not by being quoted by CNN. If anything, unless you are already a highly respected scholar, being frequently quoted by mainstream media has traditionally had negative consequences for your career. Google "sagan effect".
  - pavlov 9y ago
    What does wide circulation mean? Is there an IPCC report that makes the claim that "we're definitely all gonna die of heat, drought, and hurricanes"?