4 ms·

Scientists who "express different views" are listened to, when they have convincing data to support those "views." Ioannidis is the only real example provided

Scientists who "express different views" are listened to, when they have convincing data to support those "views." Ioannidis is the only real example provided in the article, and his opinion piece (and the related Stanford study) was criticized, not because he's an iconoclast, but because it was bad science (and especially bad policy). Not only that, but then, instead of engaging with the scientific community, his "expertise" was co-opted by the conservative media and its agenda.

nogabebop23 6y ago
>> but because it was bad science (and especially bad policy). is this not exactly what the original article cautions against? if it's bad science (which should be debatable) it's value as policy follows directly and doesn't need to be stated or discussed seperately.
- bsder 6y ago
  > it's value as policy follows directly and doesn't need to be stated or discussed seperately. The problem is that if, as a scientist, I know that people are likely to convert my findings into policy, then I have an extra duty to be especially diligent and extra thorough so that my findings are valid. Ioannidis knew exactly what he was doing when he put this pile of garbage out there. The fact that it was shoddy methodology means that he should get ESPECIALLY torched for it as an object lesson to other "scientists".
- ravitation 6y ago
  Uh, no. First, the original article is actually about the exact opposite. It says nothing about attacking an opinion based on its merit, it talks about attacking an opinion based on dogma. When I say it's bad science, I'm saying it's bad science because of glaring problems with its methodology; I thought that was obvious (the term "bad science" being fairly common). Second, I'm talking about the social policy argued for in Ioannidis' opinion piece. Social policy absolutely does not just directly follow the science; they are very different things and absolutely should be discussed separately. I find it a bit absurd to think that science inherently dictates a certain social policy.
sjg007 6y ago
He’s a Stanford professor and should know better... Same with the Nobel Prize winner in Israel.
aantthony 6y ago
There's a very strong aversion towards anyone with different views on this subject. I'm not convinced its solely due to a lack of data. Low sample size studies have been around for a while, but the aversion on this is so much stronger, and has an effect. In China, it's explicit. If you say there's human-to-human transmission, the police will arrest you. If you research the origins of the virus, it's illegal to publish that. In the rest of the world you're allowed to express such views, but there's a very strong chilling effect (and on social media its banned if it contradicts the W.H.O.). An example of the chilling effect would be when scientists arguing for masks had to do their work in secret: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1244038605078757376 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1244038605078757376
- ravitation 6y ago
  The WHO's stance on a subject is not equivalent to scientific consensus... This is actually a very common criticism of it.

nogabebop23 6y ago

>> but because it was bad science (and especially bad policy). is this not exactly what the original article cautions against? if it's bad science (which should be debatable) it's value as policy follows directly and doesn't need to be stated or discussed seperately.

bsder 6y ago
> it's value as policy follows directly and doesn't need to be stated or discussed seperately. The problem is that if, as a scientist, I know that people are likely to convert my findings into policy, then I have an extra duty to be especially diligent and extra thorough so that my findings are valid. Ioannidis knew exactly what he was doing when he put this pile of garbage out there. The fact that it was shoddy methodology means that he should get ESPECIALLY torched for it as an object lesson to other "scientists".
ravitation 6y ago
Uh, no. First, the original article is actually about the exact opposite. It says nothing about attacking an opinion based on its merit, it talks about attacking an opinion based on dogma. When I say it's bad science, I'm saying it's bad science because of glaring problems with its methodology; I thought that was obvious (the term "bad science" being fairly common). Second, I'm talking about the social policy argued for in Ioannidis' opinion piece. Social policy absolutely does not just directly follow the science; they are very different things and absolutely should be discussed separately. I find it a bit absurd to think that science inherently dictates a certain social policy.

sjg007 6y ago

He’s a Stanford professor and should know better... Same with the Nobel Prize winner in Israel.

aantthony 6y ago

There's a very strong aversion towards anyone with different views on this subject. I'm not convinced its solely due to a lack of data. Low sample size studies have been around for a while, but the aversion on this is so much stronger, and has an effect. In China, it's explicit. If you say there's human-to-human transmission, the police will arrest you. If you research the origins of the virus, it's illegal to publish that. In the rest of the world you're allowed to express such views, but there's a very strong chilling effect (and on social media its banned if it contradicts the W.H.O.). An example of the chilling effect would be when scientists arguing for masks had to do their work in secret: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1244038605078757376 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1244038605078757376

ravitation 6y ago
The WHO's stance on a subject is not equivalent to scientific consensus... This is actually a very common criticism of it.