4 ms·

This is one of my favorite pet peeves: a smart person comes out wearing a lab coat[1] and holding a clipboard. They make a claim, and one of two things happen.

This is one of my favorite pet peeves: a smart person comes out wearing a lab coat[1] and holding a clipboard. They make a claim, and one of two things happen. Firstly, news reporters with little understanding of the subject matter try to explain it to the masses, and the results are disastrous. (Not to mention, the drive for academia to publish papers that prove the hypothesis.) Little needs to be said here. The second is that I frequently see my peers latch onto any PDF they can download that supports their position. "Look, look! The data shows I'm right! And this man with a PhD supports my conclusion! (Of course I haven't read the report, but that's not important. What is important is my pet issue!)" Prosecutors using sloppy lab work to get convictions and computer algorithms deciding bail bonds are just end results. We need to put the brakes on the empiricism train. It's useful, but only to a certain point. Reason eventually needs to take over. If your argument lives and dies by the next PDF or Machine Learning model, you need to find a new argument, or bolster your argument with reason. 1 - https://xkcd.com/699 https://xkcd.com/699 (Meta argument: I'm reading a report about a paper someone published, and latching onto the report because it supports my conclusion that people will believe anything a "scientist" says! I'm victim to my own problems!)

394549 8y ago
> Firstly, news reporters with little understanding of the subject matter try to explain it to the masses, and the results are disastrous. Do you have a better alternative?
- godelski 8y ago
  That's why people like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson exist. Science communicators. They are the better alternative.
  - heyyyouu 8y ago
    Who exactly do you think communicates what they say to the masses? Reporters. Without them it would never reach a wide audience.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      When a random reporter is told to check out a scientific paper and tries to summarize it they take a complex topic and attempt to express it as best as they're able. Those scientific emissaries who are skilled at their scientific expertise and public speaking are able to express those complex topics more correctly and more approachably... If a report then copy-paste's their speech and publishes it in a newspaper or reads through the speech and tries to pull out things they consider important, they're working from a better starting point, the important information has already been distilled and expressed by an expert.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      Science communication is a really specific skill. There are some very good ones out there but it's not the same as journalism in general.
  - bjt2n3904 8y ago
    Neil Tyson was calling for a branch of the government to declare what truth is [1]. He's part of the problem I'm describing above. 1 - https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561?lang=en https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561?lan...
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Yeah, I would not put him in the same category as Carl Sagan. They had very different takes on policies.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      That's a twisty comment and unrelated to the core information communication you described above. People have opinions and everyone needs to correct for their opinions. I prefer it when people are open about their opinionated because everyone omits or rewords statements to suit their purpose.
    - godelski 8y ago
      There's a lot of context that needs to be added to understand that tweet. I do not believe Tyson is calling for a Ministry of Truth.
whatshisface 8y ago
Cherrypicking and confirmation bias aren't problems with empiricism, they're well-known flaws in people's practice of empiricism. In fact, the "book of empiricism" says not to do them. You just have to apply the same standards when collecting studies for meta-analysis as you do when collecting data for studies.
dwaltrip 8y ago
> We need to put the brakes on the empiricism train. It's useful, but only to a certain point. We need to foster a deeper understanding of how empiricism actually works, what its limitations are, and the difficult and often lengthy process through which varying degrees of certainty are obtained and adjusted over time. I also think it is important to spread the value of grounded skepticism (including of one's own knowledge) and the power of freely admitting mistakes. Obviously, none of this is easy. But it is worthwhile and I think small improvements will have a large impact through ripple effects over time. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, in regards to empiricism.
- karmelapple 8y ago
  Few people who haven’t done a variety of masters or PhD level research really understand how there are only degrees of “knowing” something. Teaching the scientific method early on, and really getting to the heart of what it means to stay unsure about things, is something the education system could do a better job of, but it’s no small task.
karmelapple 8y ago
Your experience seems to involve hanging out with people who regularly cite academic articles. Is that accurate? There are many people outside of that world who either downplay, or reflexively reject, any claim that comes from peer reviewed research, if they personally disagree with the outcome. These folks won’t even consider academic peer reviewed articles as a legitimate source of information. This viewpoint is disturbingly far reaching in my experience, in part due to poor reporting of science. I’ve had friends and family question if researchers of any discipline know much of anything because of frustration with dietary research reporting: “one month eggs are good for you, one month eggs are bad. Which one is it?!” They end up rejecting researchers and scientists of all types simply because of a paper here or there which got traction in mainstream media but was perhaps reported in a misleading fashion... and that does get to your point of how important quality journalism is. I feel far more distressed by the attitude of “my ignorance is equal to their experience” than people pointing to a PDF of research and saying, “here’s the data,” which seems to be a piece of what you are criticizing. Am I understanding that correctly? If people can read the study, they can question specific methodologies, rather than coming up with fun straw men such as, “well these researchers in this field need this to be the case, because otherwise they wouldn’t have a job.” I’ve heard that argument used on climate researchers and dietary researchers at a minimum, but those trends can extend to people’s thoughts where they start to think, “well those researchers are up to no good. I bet they have the cure for cancer and they just don’t want to release it.” I’m all for ensuring people appeal to reason and not just take the hottest headline (be it in popular press or academic papers), but there is a problem with a large portion of the population that outright rejects many research papers altogether.

394549 8y ago

> Firstly, news reporters with little understanding of the subject matter try to explain it to the masses, and the results are disastrous. Do you have a better alternative?

godelski 8y ago
That's why people like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson exist. Science communicators. They are the better alternative.
- heyyyouu 8y ago
  Who exactly do you think communicates what they say to the masses? Reporters. Without them it would never reach a wide audience.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    When a random reporter is told to check out a scientific paper and tries to summarize it they take a complex topic and attempt to express it as best as they're able. Those scientific emissaries who are skilled at their scientific expertise and public speaking are able to express those complex topics more correctly and more approachably... If a report then copy-paste's their speech and publishes it in a newspaper or reads through the speech and tries to pull out things they consider important, they're working from a better starting point, the important information has already been distilled and expressed by an expert.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    Science communication is a really specific skill. There are some very good ones out there but it's not the same as journalism in general.
- bjt2n3904 8y ago
  Neil Tyson was calling for a branch of the government to declare what truth is [1]. He's part of the problem I'm describing above. 1 - https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561?lang=en https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561?lan...
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Yeah, I would not put him in the same category as Carl Sagan. They had very different takes on policies.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    That's a twisty comment and unrelated to the core information communication you described above. People have opinions and everyone needs to correct for their opinions. I prefer it when people are open about their opinionated because everyone omits or rewords statements to suit their purpose.
  - godelski 8y ago
    There's a lot of context that needs to be added to understand that tweet. I do not believe Tyson is calling for a Ministry of Truth.

whatshisface 8y ago

Cherrypicking and confirmation bias aren't problems with empiricism, they're well-known flaws in people's practice of empiricism. In fact, the "book of empiricism" says not to do them. You just have to apply the same standards when collecting studies for meta-analysis as you do when collecting data for studies.

dwaltrip 8y ago

> We need to put the brakes on the empiricism train. It's useful, but only to a certain point. We need to foster a deeper understanding of how empiricism actually works, what its limitations are, and the difficult and often lengthy process through which varying degrees of certainty are obtained and adjusted over time. I also think it is important to spread the value of grounded skepticism (including of one's own knowledge) and the power of freely admitting mistakes. Obviously, none of this is easy. But it is worthwhile and I think small improvements will have a large impact through ripple effects over time. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, in regards to empiricism.

karmelapple 8y ago
Few people who haven’t done a variety of masters or PhD level research really understand how there are only degrees of “knowing” something. Teaching the scientific method early on, and really getting to the heart of what it means to stay unsure about things, is something the education system could do a better job of, but it’s no small task.

karmelapple 8y ago

Your experience seems to involve hanging out with people who regularly cite academic articles. Is that accurate? There are many people outside of that world who either downplay, or reflexively reject, any claim that comes from peer reviewed research, if they personally disagree with the outcome. These folks won’t even consider academic peer reviewed articles as a legitimate source of information. This viewpoint is disturbingly far reaching in my experience, in part due to poor reporting of science. I’ve had friends and family question if researchers of any discipline know much of anything because of frustration with dietary research reporting: “one month eggs are good for you, one month eggs are bad. Which one is it?!” They end up rejecting researchers and scientists of all types simply because of a paper here or there which got traction in mainstream media but was perhaps reported in a misleading fashion... and that does get to your point of how important quality journalism is. I feel far more distressed by the attitude of “my ignorance is equal to their experience” than people pointing to a PDF of research and saying, “here’s the data,” which seems to be a piece of what you are criticizing. Am I understanding that correctly? If people can read the study, they can question specific methodologies, rather than coming up with fun straw men such as, “well these researchers in this field need this to be the case, because otherwise they wouldn’t have a job.” I’ve heard that argument used on climate researchers and dietary researchers at a minimum, but those trends can extend to people’s thoughts where they start to think, “well those researchers are up to no good. I bet they have the cure for cancer and they just don’t want to release it.” I’m all for ensuring people appeal to reason and not just take the hottest headline (be it in popular press or academic papers), but there is a problem with a large portion of the population that outright rejects many research papers altogether.