7 ms·

The easiest way to undermine good science is to demand that it be made “sound”

55 points by rectang 9y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
When you have to judge papers/findings by the motives and qualifications of the authors rather than by the data, you no longer have science you have opinion. When the theory of relativity was introduced by Einstein, it did not matter what you thought about Einstein's qualifications or motivations. Einstein himself gave several ways the theory could be tested independently. Because of the prestige that science garnered - it gave us airplanes, radio, tv, internet, landed a person on the moon, etc, many knowledge disciplines branded themselves as "x science". Thus, has the word "science" become devalued.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > When you have to judge papers/findings by the motives and qualifications of the authors rather than by the data, you no longer have science you have opinion. To a significant degree, that is exactly how the scientific community operates. Amount of funding, prestige of journal (in which the research is published), and acceptance of results depend highly on reputation. I'm not a scientist, but I've heard that from many scientists and I believe there is research and journalism that support it. As in any industry, the ideal is not the reality. Think of programming; how much code actually follows the norms, ideals, and theories of how it should be done? Very, very little; OpenSSL comes to mind as an obvious example; OpenBSD tries to do it 'right', at least to a degree, but they make significant sacrifices in functionality and productivity, and many people think they are over-the-top, self-indulgent obsessives. The reality is that getting things done requires a lot of hacks; few people review any code, even open source; and if Linus Torvalds and I submit competing code to something, his will be accepted regardless of the quality - probably,
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    Mods / @dang / @sctb: I can't seem to edit the parent comment. When I made an edit, it cut off the end (about 1 sentence + 1 short paragraph). Now, no matter what I append in the edit, when I click submit it returns to the state above. I'm telling you so that you are aware of a bug. This one comment isn't a big deal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 9y ago
  Yeah. If someone claims data, reproduce their experiment. If someone makes a point, check their math. If it's beyond the realm of repoducing experiments and checking math it's beyond the realm of human knowledge. Sorry, but time and time again our kind have proven to be liars; and worse, self-decievers. Nothing else is left in ourselves to trust.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  This is true and it would be ideal if all lawmakers were well-versed in the process of science, as well as the subject matter relevant to their decisions. Unfortunately, that's an unrealistic assumption in the messy real world. In fact, I doubt even the most genius of researchers could be reasonably expected to verify the veracity of all the scientific claims that are advanced in defense of various policies that lawmakers must form opinions on. > Because of the prestige that science garnered - it gave us airplanes, radio, tv, internet, landed a person on the moon, etc, many knowledge disciplines branded themselves as "x science". Thus, has the word "science" become devalued. This is perhaps a bit off topic, but I'll just note that this includes Computer Science [1]. Also, you can replace "science" with "engineering" in that quote ("Software Engineering"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Etymology
- rayiner 9y ago
  Do you understand the math of climate modeling? Have you checked the equations, data, and made your own measurements? If not, why do you believe climate change is happening? And why do you believe the scientists that say it is happening versus the ones that say it is not happening?
  - fleitz 9y ago
    I understand the math, they have a bunch of simulations that produce wildly different results, they average these and make predictions based on a number of models running a number of simulations. The predictions have so far yet to have come true. (Although temp is rising, it's not to the degree predicted by the average of the models, despite there being more CO2 than the models were given input for, obviously the average of models are inaccurate. ) I believe it's not happening to the degree the IPCC said it was in 1992 which is why in the 2000s they observed a warming 'hiatus'. This is why people talk about consensus rather than data, or falsifications of the null hypothesis.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      What were the predictions in 1992 and what level of confidence was assigned to them (the IPCC reports are very careful to assign confidence levels)? Also, there have been many generations of reports since then; why focus on 1992, 25 years ago? As far as I know, their predictions have been pretty good - though not perfectly accurate, of course. There is so much nonsense posted about climate science; it would be great if someone could back up claims, perhaps by citing the IPCC reports or some serious analysis of them (i.e., in a prominent journal).
      - fleitz 9y ago
        1992 because it's the first report. Here's a decent summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus 'climate is classically averaged over 30-year periods.[5]' 'Publicity has surrounded claims of a global warming hiatus during the period 1998–2013. The exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 was an outlier from the continuing temperature trend, and so subsequent annual temperatures gave the appearance of a hiatus: by January 2006, it appeared to some that global warming had stopped or paused.[2] A 2009 study showed that decades without warming were not exceptional,[6] and in 2011 a study showed that if allowances were made for known variability, the rising temperature trend continued unabated.' Essentially in 5 years we'll have enough data to confirm / deny the 1992 predictions, currently it's an unproven theory because of a lack of forward data. We're essentially using consensus as a proxy for a falsification of the null hypo
- goialoq 9y ago
  If you ban opinions, it's impossible to get anything done that isn't very basic physics and chemistry.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Not only is spurious doubt manufactured for commercial gain, as in the tobacco example, it's also dragging us down a path of environmental ruin, which is now widely acknowledged to be killing off the majority of other species on the planet, and yet the climate skepticism industry keeps churning out sunny articles offering various reasons not to worry about it. Take for example this gem, which admits we're ruining the environment but says it's cool because it's natural: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-... There's a soberly-worded climbdown on his own page at the university where he teaches, but guess which of these articles is going to be more useful for climate sleptics to cite: https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron This is the problem with the much-vaunted 'free market of ideas' - as scientific endeavor moves outside the boundaries of scientific community into a subject of general interest, peer review and professional integrity are easily corrupted by marketing, to the severe detriment of the general public.
eanzenberg 9y ago
Openness in science is a good thing that scientist should be striving toward. It's hard not to sympathize with "(o)nly studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration" from the EPA. It's easier in some fields than others, but I believe it's a truly noble goal.
AcerbicZero 9y ago
The easiest way to dismiss most nuanced discussions is to relabel one or both positions with broad emotionally appealing words. Some good examples would be the "death" tax, the "Patriot" act, "Common sense" gun control, etc.
gordaco 9y ago
Just yesterday I finished Merchants of Doubt (the book; I didn't know there was also a documentary). It's a really good book, and very informative. Side effects include uncontrollable anger and hate towards certain industries.
rndmize 9y ago
> Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Master of darkness, we meet again. > He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act (PCIP). > As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers, and receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8] I can only hope that next year after he retires, his district manages to pick someone who isn't even worse.
- evo_9 9y ago
  Unfortunately this is a losing battle because no matter what is said a laymen will latch on to any uncertainty presented to them regarding scientific discussion(s), be that evolution or climate change. They don't understand that scientist by nature prefer to never say something is 100% one way or another. This is because we all know over a long enough timeline just about every conceivable outcome will occur and so scientists, rightly, try to be accurate when they talk about this stuff. Politics isn't about presenting honest clear facts but rather wordplay meant to serve their donors.
  - fleitz 9y ago
    Or GMO's... or Colony Collapse... beliefs unsupported by science exist everywhere...
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, and so on. These inherent difficulties make it very easy to spread confusion and mislead the layman.
    - evo_9 9y ago
ghostcluster 9y ago
> These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science. Because social scientists continue to make giant claims that fail to be supported by the evidence, and those claims are used to enact sweeping policies based on quackery. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-pr... Stereotype Threat. The Implicit Association Test. The Bystander Effect. Power Posing. These are examples of "science" that is based more on rhetoric and emotion than reality. But it is having real effects on policy. If your claims are made up and based on shoddy principles, they deserve scrutiny. > objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. This article is literally trying to build a case of "feels" over "reals". Transparent objective facts should guide the debate, not twisted political rhetoric masquerading as "science". If your position is incorrect and does not match reality, it must be dropped, even if you would prefer it to be true to push a point. I can't believe this kind of garbage is coming out of 538
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  You fundamentally mischaracterize the article's central thesis; you're attacking a straw-man. The article goes on, immediately following your quoted sentence, to draw an important distinction: > But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. > What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. And goes on to discuss how the term "sound science" was invented (or at least popularized) as FUD by Phillip Morris to discredit medical science on the health effects of second-hand smoke.
whatshisface 9y ago
> For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. If the data had been open from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem. Also, why don't we just sow an equal measure of uncertainty in the studies showing that these drugs/chemicals/externalities are safe? I bet if you demanded that the pro-industry studies should be "sound," you would discover a lot.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  >> including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential > If the data had been open from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem. I mean, it sounds like there were serious legal obstacles going beyond "shit what did I do with that .csv file". And maybe the science wouldn't have existed at all if you demanded open access a priori.
sampo 9y ago
> in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. And after Fukushima, Germany decided to abandon nuclear power, although tsunamis are not really a thing in Germany. This has made Germany resort to burning more coal for energy and caused Germany's carbon dioxide emissions to increase. These are cases where sticking to the precautionary principle has caused way more harm than good.
- vorotato 9y ago
  Coal ash spills have caused big problems in my state, and the nuclear plant has caused none that I'm aware of. I'd imagine part of that is because people are more reckless with something that they view as safe, and vice versa but yeah dumb move for germany.
  - mrguyorama 9y ago
    Nuclear is also more heavily regulated, meaning that the nuclear plant is required to follow very specific rules when handling the dangerous material
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    North Carolina with the Duke Energy spills?
- gioele 9y ago
  > Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. I seriously would like to see that majority of scientists live patching binaries in a networked environment (say, microservices) with ossified protocols and see how well their _improved_ applications run. Hint: they will crash within seconds or create unexpected problems to the network much later. (That is the software analogue to GMO.)
  - psychometry 9y ago
skadamat 9y ago
Some good ideas here, but we have to aim much higher than this. I like some of the ideas Bret suggested in his call for climate change: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#media http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#media
nlperguiy 9y ago
I've always wondered why data for some huge meta-analysis studies isn't availabe. If you're not a researcher you can practically never verify the result that there's no link between vaccines and autism, or any other similar studies. Most of these are just number crunching (increased risk of diet influencing disease, intervention experiments in psychology, medicine etc.), yet the number crunching is concealed and the numbers are the only thing presented, and I should trust the researchers that they didn't play with the numbers.
oconnor663 9y ago
Relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...

55 points by rectang 9y ago

When you have to judge papers/findings by the motives and qualifications of the authors rather than by the data, you no longer have science you have opinion. When the theory of relativity was introduced by Einstein, it did not matter what you thought about Einstein's qualifications or motivations. Einstein himself gave several ways the theory could be tested independently. Because of the prestige that science garnered - it gave us airplanes, radio, tv, internet, landed a person on the moon, etc, many knowledge disciplines branded themselves as "x science". Thus, has the word "science" become devalued.

forapurpose 9y ago
> When you have to judge papers/findings by the motives and qualifications of the authors rather than by the data, you no longer have science you have opinion. To a significant degree, that is exactly how the scientific community operates. Amount of funding, prestige of journal (in which the research is published), and acceptance of results depend highly on reputation. I'm not a scientist, but I've heard that from many scientists and I believe there is research and journalism that support it. As in any industry, the ideal is not the reality. Think of programming; how much code actually follows the norms, ideals, and theories of how it should be done? Very, very little; OpenSSL comes to mind as an obvious example; OpenBSD tries to do it 'right', at least to a degree, but they make significant sacrifices in functionality and productivity, and many people think they are over-the-top, self-indulgent obsessives. The reality is that getting things done requires a lot of hacks; few people review any code, even open source; and if Linus Torvalds and I submit competing code to something, his will be accepted regardless of the quality - probably,
- forapurpose 9y ago
  Mods / @dang / @sctb: I can't seem to edit the parent comment. When I made an edit, it cut off the end (about 1 sentence + 1 short paragraph). Now, no matter what I append in the edit, when I click submit it returns to the state above. I'm telling you so that you are aware of a bug. This one comment isn't a big deal.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 9y ago
Yeah. If someone claims data, reproduce their experiment. If someone makes a point, check their math. If it's beyond the realm of repoducing experiments and checking math it's beyond the realm of human knowledge. Sorry, but time and time again our kind have proven to be liars; and worse, self-decievers. Nothing else is left in ourselves to trust.
throwawayjava 9y ago
This is true and it would be ideal if all lawmakers were well-versed in the process of science, as well as the subject matter relevant to their decisions. Unfortunately, that's an unrealistic assumption in the messy real world. In fact, I doubt even the most genius of researchers could be reasonably expected to verify the veracity of all the scientific claims that are advanced in defense of various policies that lawmakers must form opinions on. > Because of the prestige that science garnered - it gave us airplanes, radio, tv, internet, landed a person on the moon, etc, many knowledge disciplines branded themselves as "x science". Thus, has the word "science" become devalued. This is perhaps a bit off topic, but I'll just note that this includes Computer Science [1]. Also, you can replace "science" with "engineering" in that quote ("Software Engineering"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Etymology
rayiner 9y ago
Do you understand the math of climate modeling? Have you checked the equations, data, and made your own measurements? If not, why do you believe climate change is happening? And why do you believe the scientists that say it is happening versus the ones that say it is not happening?
- fleitz 9y ago
  I understand the math, they have a bunch of simulations that produce wildly different results, they average these and make predictions based on a number of models running a number of simulations. The predictions have so far yet to have come true. (Although temp is rising, it's not to the degree predicted by the average of the models, despite there being more CO2 than the models were given input for, obviously the average of models are inaccurate. ) I believe it's not happening to the degree the IPCC said it was in 1992 which is why in the 2000s they observed a warming 'hiatus'. This is why people talk about consensus rather than data, or falsifications of the null hypothesis.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    What were the predictions in 1992 and what level of confidence was assigned to them (the IPCC reports are very careful to assign confidence levels)? Also, there have been many generations of reports since then; why focus on 1992, 25 years ago? As far as I know, their predictions have been pretty good - though not perfectly accurate, of course. There is so much nonsense posted about climate science; it would be great if someone could back up claims, perhaps by citing the IPCC reports or some serious analysis of them (i.e., in a prominent journal).
    - fleitz 9y ago
      1992 because it's the first report. Here's a decent summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus 'climate is classically averaged over 30-year periods.[5]' 'Publicity has surrounded claims of a global warming hiatus during the period 1998–2013. The exceptionally warm El Niño year of 1998 was an outlier from the continuing temperature trend, and so subsequent annual temperatures gave the appearance of a hiatus: by January 2006, it appeared to some that global warming had stopped or paused.[2] A 2009 study showed that decades without warming were not exceptional,[6] and in 2011 a study showed that if allowances were made for known variability, the rising temperature trend continued unabated.' Essentially in 5 years we'll have enough data to confirm / deny the 1992 predictions, currently it's an unproven theory because of a lack of forward data. We're essentially using consensus as a proxy for a falsification of the null hypo
goialoq 9y ago
If you ban opinions, it's impossible to get anything done that isn't very basic physics and chemistry.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Not only is spurious doubt manufactured for commercial gain, as in the tobacco example, it's also dragging us down a path of environmental ruin, which is now widely acknowledged to be killing off the majority of other species on the planet, and yet the climate skepticism industry keeps churning out sunny articles offering various reasons not to worry about it. Take for example this gem, which admits we're ruining the environment but says it's cool because it's natural: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-... There's a soberly-worded climbdown on his own page at the university where he teaches, but guess which of these articles is going to be more useful for climate sleptics to cite: https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron https://biology.columbian.gwu.edu/r-alexander-pyron This is the problem with the much-vaunted 'free market of ideas' - as scientific endeavor moves outside the boundaries of scientific community into a subject of general interest, peer review and professional integrity are easily corrupted by marketing, to the severe detriment of the general public.

eanzenberg 9y ago

Openness in science is a good thing that scientist should be striving toward. It's hard not to sympathize with "(o)nly studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration" from the EPA. It's easier in some fields than others, but I believe it's a truly noble goal.

AcerbicZero 9y ago

The easiest way to dismiss most nuanced discussions is to relabel one or both positions with broad emotionally appealing words. Some good examples would be the "death" tax, the "Patriot" act, "Common sense" gun control, etc.

gordaco 9y ago

Just yesterday I finished Merchants of Doubt (the book; I didn't know there was also a documentary). It's a really good book, and very informative. Side effects include uncontrollable anger and hate towards certain industries.

rndmize 9y ago

> Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Master of darkness, we meet again. > He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act (PCIP). > As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers, and receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8] I can only hope that next year after he retires, his district manages to pick someone who isn't even worse.

evo_9 9y ago
Unfortunately this is a losing battle because no matter what is said a laymen will latch on to any uncertainty presented to them regarding scientific discussion(s), be that evolution or climate change. They don't understand that scientist by nature prefer to never say something is 100% one way or another. This is because we all know over a long enough timeline just about every conceivable outcome will occur and so scientists, rightly, try to be accurate when they talk about this stuff. Politics isn't about presenting honest clear facts but rather wordplay meant to serve their donors.
- fleitz 9y ago
  Or GMO's... or Colony Collapse... beliefs unsupported by science exist everywhere...
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  To add to your point, one way to view this is that it reflects the immense difficulty of deeply understanding and discerning the difference between 90%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.99%, and so on. These inherent difficulties make it very easy to spread confusion and mislead the layman.
  - evo_9 9y ago

ghostcluster 9y ago

> These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science. Because social scientists continue to make giant claims that fail to be supported by the evidence, and those claims are used to enact sweeping policies based on quackery. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-pr... Stereotype Threat. The Implicit Association Test. The Bystander Effect. Power Posing. These are examples of "science" that is based more on rhetoric and emotion than reality. But it is having real effects on policy. If your claims are made up and based on shoddy principles, they deserve scrutiny. > objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. This article is literally trying to build a case of "feels" over "reals". Transparent objective facts should guide the debate, not twisted political rhetoric masquerading as "science". If your position is incorrect and does not match reality, it must be dropped, even if you would prefer it to be true to push a point. I can't believe this kind of garbage is coming out of 538

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwawayjava 9y ago
You fundamentally mischaracterize the article's central thesis; you're attacking a straw-man. The article goes on, immediately following your quoted sentence, to draw an important distinction: > But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. > What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. And goes on to discuss how the term "sound science" was invented (or at least popularized) as FUD by Phillip Morris to discredit medical science on the health effects of second-hand smoke.

whatshisface 9y ago

> For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. If the data had been open from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem. Also, why don't we just sow an equal measure of uncertainty in the studies showing that these drugs/chemicals/externalities are safe? I bet if you demanded that the pro-industry studies should be "sound," you would discover a lot.

throwawayjava 9y ago
>> including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential > If the data had been open from the start, this wouldn't have been a problem. I mean, it sounds like there were serious legal obstacles going beyond "shit what did I do with that .csv file". And maybe the science wouldn't have existed at all if you demanded open access a priori.

sampo 9y ago

> in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. And after Fukushima, Germany decided to abandon nuclear power, although tsunamis are not really a thing in Germany. This has made Germany resort to burning more coal for energy and caused Germany's carbon dioxide emissions to increase. These are cases where sticking to the precautionary principle has caused way more harm than good.

vorotato 9y ago
Coal ash spills have caused big problems in my state, and the nuclear plant has caused none that I'm aware of. I'd imagine part of that is because people are more reckless with something that they view as safe, and vice versa but yeah dumb move for germany.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  Nuclear is also more heavily regulated, meaning that the nuclear plant is required to follow very specific rules when handling the dangerous material
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  North Carolina with the Duke Energy spills?
gioele 9y ago
> Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. I seriously would like to see that majority of scientists live patching binaries in a networked environment (say, microservices) with ossified protocols and see how well their _improved_ applications run. Hint: they will crash within seconds or create unexpected problems to the network much later. (That is the software analogue to GMO.)
- psychometry 9y ago

skadamat 9y ago

Some good ideas here, but we have to aim much higher than this. I like some of the ideas Bret suggested in his call for climate change: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#media http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/#media

nlperguiy 9y ago

I've always wondered why data for some huge meta-analysis studies isn't availabe. If you're not a researcher you can practically never verify the result that there's no link between vaccines and autism, or any other similar studies. Most of these are just number crunching (increased risk of diet influencing disease, intervention experiments in psychology, medicine etc.), yet the number crunching is concealed and the numbers are the only thing presented, and I should trust the researchers that they didn't play with the numbers.

oconnor663 9y ago

Relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...