4 ms·

They expected to replicate the findings. They fail to do so. Just because this contradicts your personal politics isn't a reason to ignore or suppress the infor

by mentat 7y ago

They expected to replicate the findings. They fail to do so. Just because this contradicts your personal politics isn't a reason to ignore or suppress the information. They promoted it, they need to set the record straight.

ajross 7y ago
"The information" is literally plastered all over a giant article on Slate and we're yelling about it as we speak. That's not very effective suppression. The demand seems to be that "If Science ran an article they're obligated to publish anyone's refutation of that article". And that's insane. It only seems sane to you because your political outrage glands demand justice for someone using the previous study as spin, but that's not Science's problem, and it shouldn't be. Go run the outrage pieces on Slate, that's what it's for.
- kadoban 7y ago
  I would say that if Science ran an article they are morally obligated to seriously consider a refutation of that article, and if no problems can be found, publish it. I did not get the sense that the refutation was seriously considered, and my impression is that the original article has not been retracted in any way, correct? So Science's public stance could be seen as the original article is still the best truth they've published on the topic, which feels wrong. Wiggle room may be appropriate if the article is already retracted or has already been refuted.
  - ajross 7y ago
    No, that's wrong. The purpose of Science is to publish new and interesting results. Some of those will be wrong. It happens. That's science. Sometimes the fact that existing consensus is wrong is notable, and if so, sure: publish the refutation. But what is up with this "moral obligation" nonsense? Being wrong isn't "immoral", it's just a mistake. You're trying to apply ideas of politics and rhetoric to argue that Science somehow "advocated" for a result that made democrats look good and republicans look bad, and that they're now "obligated" to make democrats look bad too. And that's wrong. Like I said if you want political argument fodder go to Slate (or, sadly, HN). That's not what Science does.
    - kadoban 7y ago
      I don't actually care at all what the subject of the study is, so the Democrat/Republican thing is just a total nothing to me personally. Being wrong is not immoral. Being wrong, telling bunches of people the wrong information, and then making no effort to fix your mistake once you have the chance is at least dubious on my personal moral spectrum.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by mentat 7y ago

ajross 7y ago

"The information" is literally plastered all over a giant article on Slate and we're yelling about it as we speak. That's not very effective suppression. The demand seems to be that "If Science ran an article they're obligated to publish anyone's refutation of that article". And that's insane. It only seems sane to you because your political outrage glands demand justice for someone using the previous study as spin, but that's not Science's problem, and it shouldn't be. Go run the outrage pieces on Slate, that's what it's for.

kadoban 7y ago
I would say that if Science ran an article they are morally obligated to seriously consider a refutation of that article, and if no problems can be found, publish it. I did not get the sense that the refutation was seriously considered, and my impression is that the original article has not been retracted in any way, correct? So Science's public stance could be seen as the original article is still the best truth they've published on the topic, which feels wrong. Wiggle room may be appropriate if the article is already retracted or has already been refuted.
- ajross 7y ago
  No, that's wrong. The purpose of Science is to publish new and interesting results. Some of those will be wrong. It happens. That's science. Sometimes the fact that existing consensus is wrong is notable, and if so, sure: publish the refutation. But what is up with this "moral obligation" nonsense? Being wrong isn't "immoral", it's just a mistake. You're trying to apply ideas of politics and rhetoric to argue that Science somehow "advocated" for a result that made democrats look good and republicans look bad, and that they're now "obligated" to make democrats look bad too. And that's wrong. Like I said if you want political argument fodder go to Slate (or, sadly, HN). That's not what Science does.
  - kadoban 7y ago
    I don't actually care at all what the subject of the study is, so the Democrat/Republican thing is just a total nothing to me personally. Being wrong is not immoral. Being wrong, telling bunches of people the wrong information, and then making no effort to fix your mistake once you have the chance is at least dubious on my personal moral spectrum.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]