3 ms·

My gut reaction is to agree with you. After a little thought, I'm not so sure. Could such a system prevent scientists and doctors claiming, on behalf of their

My gut reaction is to agree with you. After a little thought, I'm not so sure. Could such a system prevent scientists and doctors claiming, on behalf of their employer, that there's no connection between smoking and health, or that there's no anthropogenic climate change, or that there's no asbestos in the baby powder? Then there's the countless pseudo scientific cures and remedies. Could it do better than the system we have? Clearly, it could be abused, but so can the system we have and it is being, heavily. Which produces the more honest result?

dgzl 8y ago
What if the government decides to force certain "facts" about whatever, and punishes truly honest scientists for getting too close to the truth?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  What if the sugar industry lobby successfully moves blame from sugar to fat for 40 years? Which had the effect of punishing truly honest scientists who published the first links between sugar and obesity. Who might be more honest - a government funded body, or a commercial entity making profit off one particular answer?
  - dgzl 8y ago
    In your case, the scientists were likely punished by wasted time, disqualifying otherwise correct science work, maybe even lost their jobs. How do you think they'd be punished in China under this system? Maybe they can't ride a train anymore, or forced into dingy second rate establishments, or refused certain services. I wonder how that will work when facial recognition hits big. And to answer your question, trusting the government is always foolish.
    - Farradfahren 8y ago
      Trusting the private sector is too. You can at least vote the public sector to change. Its your government, it will never be your company.
      - __blockcipher__ 8y ago
        Ironically, a (public) company can totally be my company. Wheress the government will never belong to me. Always cracks me up when people think corporations are full of evil people but noble government would never be similarly evil.
      - dgzl 8y ago
        You actually can't just 'vote' to change the public sector at your will. In fact very few things are Democratic in American government. The closest you could get would be voting for politicians who pinky-promise to try approving plans to try implementing something that's probably not even what you want but will cost twice as much. The government very much works like a business does: there are worker-bees, managers, committees, higher people in charge, crooks and thieves, power-abusers and criminals. On the other hand, the private sector is literally made up of competing groups and individuals who are looking for success when the market is fair. The same problems above exist in some businesses as well. The benefit with the private sector is, when we find corruption we can destroy contract, sue, and find a competitor. You can't do that with the government.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Trusting the government to set up an independent oversight body, such as gave us trading standards, food safety, and the bodies that became the BSI (British Standards, the first national standards body) or various regulators etc. It's perfectly possible to trust an independent body set up, and funded, by government whilst entirely distrusting party politics and the government of the day. I have yet to lose trust of, for example, the BSI Kitemark. Nor trading standards despite governments occasionally limiting their funding, and thus their effectiveness. Despite being funded by the state they are not the government. (Actually I think BSI is self-funded these days, but the point stands) Professional bodies, such as those for lawyers, doctors etc, frequently attract criticism for being to lenient. The market clearly heavily weights where the money is. Government action is one of very few opportunities to balance that. Now, I don't know enough from the article about how this will be set up, or which government agencies are being granted this role. Nor do we know how it will work - Party Members punishing errant scientists is clearly very wrong, an independent body of scientists "striking off" an errant scientist may be a very good thing. Little different to a doctor being struck off, but perhaps freer from commercial influence. We can assume, but we don't know. Hence my original question. Harsher, further reaching penalties for faking peer review, falsifying data or CVs seems a reasonable goal, that might just work. The devil, as mentioned above, is in the unknown details.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    You think either one is more honest than the other? Powerful people will manipulate public opinion that's what they do. They only thing that keeps things relatively moderate is competition among powerful entities. In the case of the Chinese, their government IS big business and big business is government. Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This Chinese social credit system is among the highest forms of absolute power I've ever seen.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      I get the feeling we're going to have to reteach people about these kinds of problems, every so often. It seems like people just kind of forget that sweeping authoritative power and control isn't a good thing.
abstractbeliefs 8y ago
But on the flip side, how much was considered inappropriate, wrong, or irresponsible in the past and became accepted in the end? I'd rather a situation where scientists are given freedom to publish what they produce, than fear excommunication for challenging the current theories and conventional science. If you want a system where scientists aren't bought as mouthpieces by industry, instead find a way where they can get paid and fund their research without commercial interference.
justicezyx 8y ago
Why is this down voted? This comment raised a reasonable, and frankly, quite meaningful, question about the prospect of this new system.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  I downvoted it. I also downvoted you for whining about it. To be honest, I downvoted because I disagree, yes. But more to the point, I find it so dangerously ridiculous AND the same sad “whataboutism” that always gets commented in response to whatever China’s latest human rights atrocity is. It annoys me. Yes, I could post a long substantive comment explaining why I think this is the road to civilization’s ruin, but I don’t always have the time :) Also, if you think that HN doesn’t downvote based on agreement, you must not post anything controversial often. I can almost always predict how my comments are going to perform within a few points.
- abstractbeliefs 8y ago
  I'm likewise disappointed. I don't agree with the proposal, but it is absolutely a worthwhile one to discuss, even if only to practice opposition to it and find out what others think, for and against. I can't help but feel this is some reddit-grade "downvote because I don't agree" voting.
- marcosdumay 8y ago
  I didn't downvote it, but it is probably because it is a system that can be used to punish honest research as easily as it can be used to punish the dishonest kind.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  To quote the Guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Votes tend to improve a lot over time as more users visit, so just wait.
gus_massa 8y ago
What about someone that publish a study that says that below a very small threshold asbesto is safe? (Not good, but at least lees dangerous that eating a banana?) What about someone that publish a study that says that second hand smoke is not dangerous (except at ridicule high levels)? IIRC the evidence against second hand smoke is not conclusive. What about third hand smoke? That is just ridiculous. What about pronuclear research, that compares the danger of nuclear contamination and the reduction of CO2 emission? The real question is who is in charge of deciding what is good science and what is bad science. The president? The Nobel committee? The UN? The consensus? Who organize the pools to decide what is the consensus? Do they use secret ballots or everyone vote is published for enabling public shamming? If someone publish article against homeopathy who will vote? The homeopathy specialists or the corporate allopathy drones payed by big pharma?
majormajor 8y ago
Large organizations aren't the ones who are going to lose here. They're the ones who already have the government's ear. This is just another lever they could pull to discourage research that goes against their interests.

dgzl 8y ago

What if the government decides to force certain "facts" about whatever, and punishes truly honest scientists for getting too close to the truth?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
What if the sugar industry lobby successfully moves blame from sugar to fat for 40 years? Which had the effect of punishing truly honest scientists who published the first links between sugar and obesity. Who might be more honest - a government funded body, or a commercial entity making profit off one particular answer?
- dgzl 8y ago
  In your case, the scientists were likely punished by wasted time, disqualifying otherwise correct science work, maybe even lost their jobs. How do you think they'd be punished in China under this system? Maybe they can't ride a train anymore, or forced into dingy second rate establishments, or refused certain services. I wonder how that will work when facial recognition hits big. And to answer your question, trusting the government is always foolish.
  - Farradfahren 8y ago
    Trusting the private sector is too. You can at least vote the public sector to change. Its your government, it will never be your company.
    - __blockcipher__ 8y ago
      Ironically, a (public) company can totally be my company. Wheress the government will never belong to me. Always cracks me up when people think corporations are full of evil people but noble government would never be similarly evil.
    - dgzl 8y ago
      You actually can't just 'vote' to change the public sector at your will. In fact very few things are Democratic in American government. The closest you could get would be voting for politicians who pinky-promise to try approving plans to try implementing something that's probably not even what you want but will cost twice as much. The government very much works like a business does: there are worker-bees, managers, committees, higher people in charge, crooks and thieves, power-abusers and criminals. On the other hand, the private sector is literally made up of competing groups and individuals who are looking for success when the market is fair. The same problems above exist in some businesses as well. The benefit with the private sector is, when we find corruption we can destroy contract, sue, and find a competitor. You can't do that with the government.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Trusting the government to set up an independent oversight body, such as gave us trading standards, food safety, and the bodies that became the BSI (British Standards, the first national standards body) or various regulators etc. It's perfectly possible to trust an independent body set up, and funded, by government whilst entirely distrusting party politics and the government of the day. I have yet to lose trust of, for example, the BSI Kitemark. Nor trading standards despite governments occasionally limiting their funding, and thus their effectiveness. Despite being funded by the state they are not the government. (Actually I think BSI is self-funded these days, but the point stands) Professional bodies, such as those for lawyers, doctors etc, frequently attract criticism for being to lenient. The market clearly heavily weights where the money is. Government action is one of very few opportunities to balance that. Now, I don't know enough from the article about how this will be set up, or which government agencies are being granted this role. Nor do we know how it will work - Party Members punishing errant scientists is clearly very wrong, an independent body of scientists "striking off" an errant scientist may be a very good thing. Little different to a doctor being struck off, but perhaps freer from commercial influence. We can assume, but we don't know. Hence my original question. Harsher, further reaching penalties for faking peer review, falsifying data or CVs seems a reasonable goal, that might just work. The devil, as mentioned above, is in the unknown details.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  You think either one is more honest than the other? Powerful people will manipulate public opinion that's what they do. They only thing that keeps things relatively moderate is competition among powerful entities. In the case of the Chinese, their government IS big business and big business is government. Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This Chinese social credit system is among the highest forms of absolute power I've ever seen.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    I get the feeling we're going to have to reteach people about these kinds of problems, every so often. It seems like people just kind of forget that sweeping authoritative power and control isn't a good thing.

abstractbeliefs 8y ago

But on the flip side, how much was considered inappropriate, wrong, or irresponsible in the past and became accepted in the end? I'd rather a situation where scientists are given freedom to publish what they produce, than fear excommunication for challenging the current theories and conventional science. If you want a system where scientists aren't bought as mouthpieces by industry, instead find a way where they can get paid and fund their research without commercial interference.

justicezyx 8y ago

Why is this down voted? This comment raised a reasonable, and frankly, quite meaningful, question about the prospect of this new system.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
I downvoted it. I also downvoted you for whining about it. To be honest, I downvoted because I disagree, yes. But more to the point, I find it so dangerously ridiculous AND the same sad “whataboutism” that always gets commented in response to whatever China’s latest human rights atrocity is. It annoys me. Yes, I could post a long substantive comment explaining why I think this is the road to civilization’s ruin, but I don’t always have the time :) Also, if you think that HN doesn’t downvote based on agreement, you must not post anything controversial often. I can almost always predict how my comments are going to perform within a few points.
abstractbeliefs 8y ago
I'm likewise disappointed. I don't agree with the proposal, but it is absolutely a worthwhile one to discuss, even if only to practice opposition to it and find out what others think, for and against. I can't help but feel this is some reddit-grade "downvote because I don't agree" voting.
marcosdumay 8y ago
I didn't downvote it, but it is probably because it is a system that can be used to punish honest research as easily as it can be used to punish the dishonest kind.
zozbot123 8y ago
To quote the Guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Votes tend to improve a lot over time as more users visit, so just wait.

gus_massa 8y ago

What about someone that publish a study that says that below a very small threshold asbesto is safe? (Not good, but at least lees dangerous that eating a banana?) What about someone that publish a study that says that second hand smoke is not dangerous (except at ridicule high levels)? IIRC the evidence against second hand smoke is not conclusive. What about third hand smoke? That is just ridiculous. What about pronuclear research, that compares the danger of nuclear contamination and the reduction of CO2 emission? The real question is who is in charge of deciding what is good science and what is bad science. The president? The Nobel committee? The UN? The consensus? Who organize the pools to decide what is the consensus? Do they use secret ballots or everyone vote is published for enabling public shamming? If someone publish article against homeopathy who will vote? The homeopathy specialists or the corporate allopathy drones payed by big pharma?

majormajor 8y ago

Large organizations aren't the ones who are going to lose here. They're the ones who already have the government's ear. This is just another lever they could pull to discourage research that goes against their interests.