4 ms·

If we don't figure out a way to get past the anti-science types it will be the death of us all one or the other. We need to develop anti-memetic technology. Bad

by ericb 7y ago

If we don't figure out a way to get past the anti-science types it will be the death of us all one or the other. We need to develop anti-memetic technology. Bad memes are killing us.

EverydayBalloon 7y ago
Interesting how all these self-proclaimed "pro-science types" are easily impressed with minuscule data sets. So science-y!!!
bfieidhbrjr 7y ago
Speaking as someone who did physics in college: Science, whatever that means, has become sclerotic and harmful to the public. It's held up as a paradigm of reason and hope but if anything it's full of politics and lies and has been for a long while. Let's talk evidence: * It's looking like the last 40 years of string theory has been a boondoggle. * Pretty clear that most of medicine is based on fraud and regulatory capture - we know that most chronic treatments and even public health advice is just plain wrong. If this is new to you, any book by Gary Taubes is a reasonable introduction. * Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. If however we do believe the models (which is reasonable to do!) then things are going to be so dire that we can't tell the public or they'll freak out. Buying an electric car or not flying isn't going to do anything - we need to be massively carbon negative to have any impact at all. You should assume the absolute worst climate predictions are a reasonable picture of the future. * The reproducability crisis. We know most science journals are now full of BS. My proposed solution is that we have the death penalty for anyone who conducts experiments that aren't triple-blind. It's the only way to get any real evidence. So, you know, science is wonderful. But science-as-done-by-humans is a morass of sewage and it's not entirely surprising the public don't believe in it any more, there are plenty of "hard" scientists that don't either.
- caiobegotti 7y ago
  You finally lost me at "death penalty", sorry.
- emj 7y ago
  I do not think mixing up the practice of science with how ideas and policys are being spread is productive. We are beings who care a lot about what other people do and about our own turf, that will have a greater effect on science even if we get perfect reproducible results. Over all I think we make progress, even if it's needs to be backwards at times.
- ericb 7y ago
  In places, you're conflating the very bad meme problem, to which science itself is susceptible, with science itself. For example, the whole "fat is bad, carbs are good" meme was never backed up by solid science, it itself was a bad meme. > Pretty clear that most of medicine is based on fraud and regulatory capture I can't speak for you, but if I have a heart attack or cancer, I'll still go to the hospital, so it isn't as bad as you're stating. > Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. Ok, death penalty for non-triple blind is crazy. But if we're thinking of tough ideas: * Imprisonment for corporate lobbying. * Corporate dissolution for political donations or influence * Corporate dissolution for attempts to "influence science" * Corporate dissolution for PR campaigns that lied * No corporate-funded "scientific" studies should be published * The reproducibility crisis is a bad incentives problem in science and publishing. We need to change the incentives. The system needs to change to reward something like "points" where points come from publishing failure to reproduce as opposed to just the notoriety of "first to find some interesting result"
  - bfieidhbrjr 7y ago
    > For example, the whole "fat is bad, carbs are good" meme was never backed up by solid science, it itself was a bad meme. And yet, here we are. How were the public supposed to figure that out? Public health advice was, and is, pretty clear: eat carbs. > I can't speak for you, but if I have a heart attack or cancer, I'll still go to the hospital, so it isn't as bad as you're stating. You just haven't done your research. :-) https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/placebo-effect-of-the-heart/545012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/placebo-e... https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920 https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-P...
    - chupasaurus 7y ago
      I'd like to invite all the proposers for carbonate-dominant diet to live above 55°N for a few days in January while eating minimum amount of fats.
- kpennell 7y ago
  I wish I could get back the 3-4 min wasted on reading this
- scythe 7y ago
  >Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. If however we do believe the models (which is reasonable to do!) then things are going to be so dire that we can't tell the public or they'll freak out. Buying an electric car or not flying isn't going to do anything - we need to be massively carbon negative to have any impact at all. You should assume the absolute worst climate predictions are a reasonable picture of the future. Climate models are broadly quadratic: CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere determines the rate of heat accumulation in the Earth's atmosphere, so we integrate CO2 emissions twice to get warming estimates. This is massively oversimplified, but suggestive. But progress is exponential. The long-term benefit of buying an electric car isn't that you emit less carbon dioxide. It's that market trends move towards emitting less carbon dioxide. More investment goes to battery development, less to oil extraction. (Some futurists argue that exponential progress can't last forever, but we only need a few decades.) For example, one of the major challenges in battery development is the reliance on cobalt. But currently, cobalt is too cheap to motivate serious development of alternatives like V2(PO4)3 or sulfur cathodes. Iron phosphate, a cheaper choice for grid batteries (where energy density is less critical), is likewise undercapitalized due to low demand from grid operators. Even with widespread nuclear power, grid storage is necessary to manage varying loads. This is why I'm dubious of the ascetic approaches like just avoiding meat or airplanes. We need new technology -- the kind that allows us to live well without carbon emissions. Heat pumps are a major (IMHO the biggest) open problem -- commercially available air-source models run only at intake temperatures above -20 C, and ground-source heat pumps might not work well when they're used at a high areal density. (Electric joule-heaters meanwhile consume so much electricity that we'd need to double electricity production in northern areas!) It's much easier to give up beef/dairy or airplanes than heating, but heating residences alone (in the US) generates more carbon emissions than both put together (home heating: ~440 Mt; airplanes: ~150 Mt; cattle: 190 M; industrial heating: ~500 Mt). I am a physicist, not an economist. I am not qualified to say what climate policy should be w.r.t. economic impacts. But if messaging were my job, I'd spend a lot more time discussing new technology R&D spending than villainizing the fuel industry. China's status as a leader in green tech is conspicuous, while we are busy watching teenagers yell at legislators. https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-ren...

by ericb 7y ago

If we don't figure out a way to get past the anti-science types it will be the death of us all one or the other. We need to develop anti-memetic technology. Bad memes are killing us.

EverydayBalloon 7y ago

Interesting how all these self-proclaimed "pro-science types" are easily impressed with minuscule data sets. So science-y!!!

bfieidhbrjr 7y ago

Speaking as someone who did physics in college: Science, whatever that means, has become sclerotic and harmful to the public. It's held up as a paradigm of reason and hope but if anything it's full of politics and lies and has been for a long while. Let's talk evidence: * It's looking like the last 40 years of string theory has been a boondoggle. * Pretty clear that most of medicine is based on fraud and regulatory capture - we know that most chronic treatments and even public health advice is just plain wrong. If this is new to you, any book by Gary Taubes is a reasonable introduction. * Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. If however we do believe the models (which is reasonable to do!) then things are going to be so dire that we can't tell the public or they'll freak out. Buying an electric car or not flying isn't going to do anything - we need to be massively carbon negative to have any impact at all. You should assume the absolute worst climate predictions are a reasonable picture of the future. * The reproducability crisis. We know most science journals are now full of BS. My proposed solution is that we have the death penalty for anyone who conducts experiments that aren't triple-blind. It's the only way to get any real evidence. So, you know, science is wonderful. But science-as-done-by-humans is a morass of sewage and it's not entirely surprising the public don't believe in it any more, there are plenty of "hard" scientists that don't either.

caiobegotti 7y ago
You finally lost me at "death penalty", sorry.
emj 7y ago
I do not think mixing up the practice of science with how ideas and policys are being spread is productive. We are beings who care a lot about what other people do and about our own turf, that will have a greater effect on science even if we get perfect reproducible results. Over all I think we make progress, even if it's needs to be backwards at times.
ericb 7y ago
In places, you're conflating the very bad meme problem, to which science itself is susceptible, with science itself. For example, the whole "fat is bad, carbs are good" meme was never backed up by solid science, it itself was a bad meme. > Pretty clear that most of medicine is based on fraud and regulatory capture I can't speak for you, but if I have a heart attack or cancer, I'll still go to the hospital, so it isn't as bad as you're stating. > Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. Ok, death penalty for non-triple blind is crazy. But if we're thinking of tough ideas: * Imprisonment for corporate lobbying. * Corporate dissolution for political donations or influence * Corporate dissolution for attempts to "influence science" * Corporate dissolution for PR campaigns that lied * No corporate-funded "scientific" studies should be published * The reproducibility crisis is a bad incentives problem in science and publishing. We need to change the incentives. The system needs to change to reward something like "points" where points come from publishing failure to reproduce as opposed to just the notoriety of "first to find some interesting result"
- bfieidhbrjr 7y ago
  > For example, the whole "fat is bad, carbs are good" meme was never backed up by solid science, it itself was a bad meme. And yet, here we are. How were the public supposed to figure that out? Public health advice was, and is, pretty clear: eat carbs. > I can't speak for you, but if I have a heart attack or cancer, I'll still go to the hospital, so it isn't as bad as you're stating. You just haven't done your research. :-) https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/placebo-effect-of-the-heart/545012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/placebo-e... https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920 https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-P...
  - chupasaurus 7y ago
    I'd like to invite all the proposers for carbonate-dominant diet to live above 55°N for a few days in January while eating minimum amount of fats.
kpennell 7y ago
I wish I could get back the 3-4 min wasted on reading this
scythe 7y ago
>Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. If however we do believe the models (which is reasonable to do!) then things are going to be so dire that we can't tell the public or they'll freak out. Buying an electric car or not flying isn't going to do anything - we need to be massively carbon negative to have any impact at all. You should assume the absolute worst climate predictions are a reasonable picture of the future. Climate models are broadly quadratic: CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere determines the rate of heat accumulation in the Earth's atmosphere, so we integrate CO2 emissions twice to get warming estimates. This is massively oversimplified, but suggestive. But progress is exponential. The long-term benefit of buying an electric car isn't that you emit less carbon dioxide. It's that market trends move towards emitting less carbon dioxide. More investment goes to battery development, less to oil extraction. (Some futurists argue that exponential progress can't last forever, but we only need a few decades.) For example, one of the major challenges in battery development is the reliance on cobalt. But currently, cobalt is too cheap to motivate serious development of alternatives like V2(PO4)3 or sulfur cathodes. Iron phosphate, a cheaper choice for grid batteries (where energy density is less critical), is likewise undercapitalized due to low demand from grid operators. Even with widespread nuclear power, grid storage is necessary to manage varying loads. This is why I'm dubious of the ascetic approaches like just avoiding meat or airplanes. We need new technology -- the kind that allows us to live well without carbon emissions. Heat pumps are a major (IMHO the biggest) open problem -- commercially available air-source models run only at intake temperatures above -20 C, and ground-source heat pumps might not work well when they're used at a high areal density. (Electric joule-heaters meanwhile consume so much electricity that we'd need to double electricity production in northern areas!) It's much easier to give up beef/dairy or airplanes than heating, but heating residences alone (in the US) generates more carbon emissions than both put together (home heating: ~440 Mt; airplanes: ~150 Mt; cattle: 190 M; industrial heating: ~500 Mt). I am a physicist, not an economist. I am not qualified to say what climate policy should be w.r.t. economic impacts. But if messaging were my job, I'd spend a lot more time discussing new technology R&D spending than villainizing the fuel industry. China's status as a leader in green tech is conspicuous, while we are busy watching teenagers yell at legislators. https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-ren...