4 ms·

As usual, the title's description is wrong, and the real news is buried and overlooked in the story: "People assume that the numbers are manipulated and dislik

by cjslep 7y ago

As usual, the title's description is wrong, and the real news is buried and overlooked in the story: "People assume that the numbers are manipulated and dislike the elitism of resorting to quantitative evidence." If people don't believe that something is useful, it doesn't matter what that "something" is, it will start to have a diminishing affect our society. It goes for statistics and liberal democracies just as much as ancient gods and ancient languages of yore.

traderjane 7y ago
That's like saying if people don't like military drones, then military drones will start to have less relevance; but some technologies are sufficiently powerful in their own right that it needs only a few people to recognize their power. Then the stress of competition can do the rest. I doubt statistics or mathematics gained its influence because various cultures were fond of symbolic play. We study these things because we expect concrete payoff, not because of cultural affection. So is social science lame? Or is Google insight scary? At some point a deliberate posture of mis-devaluation will come to terms with reality.
- cjslep 7y ago
  > That's like saying if people don't like military drones, then military drones will start to have less relevance; Sure I'll back that up. Thought experiment: if everyone, including all the drone pilots, suddenly magically stand up all at once, walk away, and never talk about it again, then yeah it won't impact humanity. Is this particular scenario realistic? No. Has mathematic or chemical knowledge been collectively lost before in human history, and been eliminated from society? Yes. > but some technologies are sufficiently powerful in their own right that it needs only a few people to recognize their power. Then the stress of competition can do the rest. Sure, those few power can recognize its power, but if it's anything short of immortality, never underestimate the power of every other human being being a Luddite wielding a pitchfork ready to kill over progress, because it violates a cultural norm. Doesn't matter if your statistics can find a cure, societies and collective humans' irrationalities are expert suppressors of technology as both a mean and an end. Look no further than the US stance on nuclear waste reprocessing. The science and power are there. The will of people, is not. Or, look at South Africa and Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. Power? Yes. Popular will to hold onto this power? No. > We study these things because we expect concrete payoff, not because of cultural affection. Exactly, because society values concrete payoff, things like "derivations from first principles" and "following the scientific method". But if society as a whole pressures people to never pursue ideologies along these lines, or turn actively hostile against it (book burning, HDD erasing). I take this article as an alarming warning. Scientific progress is itself not an end. And it is not an inevitability. I like scientific progress and statistical tools, this article just goes to show how careful -- ethically responsible -- those of us wielding them must be when living in our society. And call out bad actors. This is why engineering professions have ethics boards. If engineers build bridges and bad actors build bad bridges, people won't trust bridges anymore. And if people don't trust bridges, they don't get used, so more don't get built. The greatest failure of the "modern" education has precisely been the removal of religious ethics without an equivalent amount of time working to help students develop their sense of personal ethics.
aeternum 7y ago
I see this as a good thing. Many 'scientific' studies are manipulated and paid for by special interests. Our existing peer review & journal system hides the actual experimental setup behind paywalls, there is often no repeatability. The scientific system needs to be opened up or replaced. Distributing information and experimental results no longer requires expensive printing. People are right not to trust it, scientific journals are now the gatekeepers rather than the gateways they once were.

by cjslep 7y ago

traderjane 7y ago

That's like saying if people don't like military drones, then military drones will start to have less relevance; but some technologies are sufficiently powerful in their own right that it needs only a few people to recognize their power. Then the stress of competition can do the rest. I doubt statistics or mathematics gained its influence because various cultures were fond of symbolic play. We study these things because we expect concrete payoff, not because of cultural affection. So is social science lame? Or is Google insight scary? At some point a deliberate posture of mis-devaluation will come to terms with reality.

cjslep 7y ago
> That's like saying if people don't like military drones, then military drones will start to have less relevance; Sure I'll back that up. Thought experiment: if everyone, including all the drone pilots, suddenly magically stand up all at once, walk away, and never talk about it again, then yeah it won't impact humanity. Is this particular scenario realistic? No. Has mathematic or chemical knowledge been collectively lost before in human history, and been eliminated from society? Yes. > but some technologies are sufficiently powerful in their own right that it needs only a few people to recognize their power. Then the stress of competition can do the rest. Sure, those few power can recognize its power, but if it's anything short of immortality, never underestimate the power of every other human being being a Luddite wielding a pitchfork ready to kill over progress, because it violates a cultural norm. Doesn't matter if your statistics can find a cure, societies and collective humans' irrationalities are expert suppressors of technology as both a mean and an end. Look no further than the US stance on nuclear waste reprocessing. The science and power are there. The will of people, is not. Or, look at South Africa and Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. Power? Yes. Popular will to hold onto this power? No. > We study these things because we expect concrete payoff, not because of cultural affection. Exactly, because society values concrete payoff, things like "derivations from first principles" and "following the scientific method". But if society as a whole pressures people to never pursue ideologies along these lines, or turn actively hostile against it (book burning, HDD erasing). I take this article as an alarming warning. Scientific progress is itself not an end. And it is not an inevitability. I like scientific progress and statistical tools, this article just goes to show how careful -- ethically responsible -- those of us wielding them must be when living in our society. And call out bad actors. This is why engineering professions have ethics boards. If engineers build bridges and bad actors build bad bridges, people won't trust bridges anymore. And if people don't trust bridges, they don't get used, so more don't get built. The greatest failure of the "modern" education has precisely been the removal of religious ethics without an equivalent amount of time working to help students develop their sense of personal ethics.

aeternum 7y ago

I see this as a good thing. Many 'scientific' studies are manipulated and paid for by special interests. Our existing peer review & journal system hides the actual experimental setup behind paywalls, there is often no repeatability. The scientific system needs to be opened up or replaced. Distributing information and experimental results no longer requires expensive printing. People are right not to trust it, scientific journals are now the gatekeepers rather than the gateways they once were.