4 ms·

We’ve been searching for a rigorous way to determine scientific consensus on claims but I don’t think we realized the answer was YouTube’s management.

garbagetime 6y ago
Science doesn't work by consensus, anyway.
- gruez 6y ago
  It doesn't, but practically speaking for the average joe, what better option is there?
  - tux1968 6y ago
    For policy makers to earn the respect and attention of the average Joe, to impart important and scientifically sound information. If they're so bad at the job that they can't refute the ideas of Covid flat-earthers, maybe nobody should be listening to what they have to say anyway. The real issue is that the media and many authorities have squandered their trust and political capital. And now instead of building that up they want to substitute authoritarianism and censorship.
    - drcross 6y ago
      >they can't refute the ideas of Covid flat-earthers What is a covid flat-earther? If you are trying to lump flat earthers in with a group of people who are lockdown sceptics you're doing yourself a disservice.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Trusting their intuition.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    I think the best option is to go to the same doctor for many years, and build a relationship of trust, and then ask them for their opinion.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Perhaps to remember that every average Joe is equipped with their own brain and ability to think for themselves. The role of science is to study topics empirically. It is not to establish sacred truths that need to be protected from scrutiny. A few years ago if you said the big tech firms were each working on establishing their own ministry of truth, most people would have told you to take your tinfoil hat off. But this is exactly what we are seeing now. Independent thought is not a problem that needs to be solved. The only reason we are in this situation to begin with is because these institutions have done so much to tarnish their own credibility, that they now think the best solution is to limit people’s ability to think for themselves. It’s horribly dystopic.
  - slowmotiony 6y ago
    How about let me read what I want and mind your own business? What makes you think you're smarter than the average joe and in position to dictate anything to him at all?
- refurb 6y ago
  Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not. Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    >Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not. The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus. >Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus. On the one hand you speak of scientific truth, on the other hand you speak of what we say we know. It's important to consider these things separately. While what we say we know is often based on what we perceive as a consensus view, scientific truth is not. Yes, a person might be pretty sure that the speed of light is three hundred million meters per second because that is what he perceives to be the consensus among physicists. But the "scientific truth", to whatever extent it is an actual thing, is determined by other factors. Of course, consensus plays a part in the scientific process. When doing research scientists take into consideration scientific consensus. But when it comes to the strength of a scientific theory, consensus is irrelevant. That is determined by things like how much empirical evidence is there that the theory is correct? Are there simpler explanations? etc.
    - refurb 6y ago
      The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus. But the data is not always unambiguous. There can be, and often is, two competing theories. It is often consensus as to which one is accepted as mainstream. I got back to my Alzheimer’s example. It’s the general consensus that the amyloid hypothesis is wrong. However, there are those that hold onto it and it’s not because they don’t grasp the data. There are still enough unknowns to firmly put it to rest. The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”. It was wrong. Consensus is nothing more than “what is the best interpretation of the data based on our current understanding”. Current understanding being defined by “what do most scientists think?”.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It actually does. Something is called scientific consensus if a large group of independent! researchers come the same conclusion. A far more common problem science faces are the people that claim to know the truth.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    Scientific consensus isn't a factor in the scientific strength of a theory. But I'm not denying that there is such a thing as a scientific consensus.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      That is true, but it increases the probability of a theory being valid. The exception to that are most notable, but I think it is nevertheless the rule.
      - ibejoeb 6y ago
        Only if repeated experimentation affirms it. Simply being "I'm a scientist and I like this" is not the implication here, but this is what youtube and other major players are trying to legitamize.
      - nostrebored 6y ago
        The exceptions to that are not notable, they're commonplace and spread across every discipline. They are littered through all of modern history. Thinking we've cracked the code of rational thought and avoiding groupthink is silly.
threatofrain 6y ago
Who knew YT was the place to develop scientific consensus.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

garbagetime 6y ago

Science doesn't work by consensus, anyway.

gruez 6y ago
It doesn't, but practically speaking for the average joe, what better option is there?
- tux1968 6y ago
  For policy makers to earn the respect and attention of the average Joe, to impart important and scientifically sound information. If they're so bad at the job that they can't refute the ideas of Covid flat-earthers, maybe nobody should be listening to what they have to say anyway. The real issue is that the media and many authorities have squandered their trust and political capital. And now instead of building that up they want to substitute authoritarianism and censorship.
  - drcross 6y ago
    >they can't refute the ideas of Covid flat-earthers What is a covid flat-earther? If you are trying to lump flat earthers in with a group of people who are lockdown sceptics you're doing yourself a disservice.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  Trusting their intuition.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  I think the best option is to go to the same doctor for many years, and build a relationship of trust, and then ask them for their opinion.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Perhaps to remember that every average Joe is equipped with their own brain and ability to think for themselves. The role of science is to study topics empirically. It is not to establish sacred truths that need to be protected from scrutiny. A few years ago if you said the big tech firms were each working on establishing their own ministry of truth, most people would have told you to take your tinfoil hat off. But this is exactly what we are seeing now. Independent thought is not a problem that needs to be solved. The only reason we are in this situation to begin with is because these institutions have done so much to tarnish their own credibility, that they now think the best solution is to limit people’s ability to think for themselves. It’s horribly dystopic.
- slowmotiony 6y ago
  How about let me read what I want and mind your own business? What makes you think you're smarter than the average joe and in position to dictate anything to him at all?
refurb 6y ago
Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not. Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  >Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not. The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus. >Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus. On the one hand you speak of scientific truth, on the other hand you speak of what we say we know. It's important to consider these things separately. While what we say we know is often based on what we perceive as a consensus view, scientific truth is not. Yes, a person might be pretty sure that the speed of light is three hundred million meters per second because that is what he perceives to be the consensus among physicists. But the "scientific truth", to whatever extent it is an actual thing, is determined by other factors. Of course, consensus plays a part in the scientific process. When doing research scientists take into consideration scientific consensus. But when it comes to the strength of a scientific theory, consensus is irrelevant. That is determined by things like how much empirical evidence is there that the theory is correct? Are there simpler explanations? etc.
  - refurb 6y ago
    The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus. But the data is not always unambiguous. There can be, and often is, two competing theories. It is often consensus as to which one is accepted as mainstream. I got back to my Alzheimer’s example. It’s the general consensus that the amyloid hypothesis is wrong. However, there are those that hold onto it and it’s not because they don’t grasp the data. There are still enough unknowns to firmly put it to rest. The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”. It was wrong. Consensus is nothing more than “what is the best interpretation of the data based on our current understanding”. Current understanding being defined by “what do most scientists think?”.
raxxorrax 6y ago
It actually does. Something is called scientific consensus if a large group of independent! researchers come the same conclusion. A far more common problem science faces are the people that claim to know the truth.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  Scientific consensus isn't a factor in the scientific strength of a theory. But I'm not denying that there is such a thing as a scientific consensus.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    That is true, but it increases the probability of a theory being valid. The exception to that are most notable, but I think it is nevertheless the rule.
    - ibejoeb 6y ago
      Only if repeated experimentation affirms it. Simply being "I'm a scientist and I like this" is not the implication here, but this is what youtube and other major players are trying to legitamize.
    - nostrebored 6y ago
      The exceptions to that are not notable, they're commonplace and spread across every discipline. They are littered through all of modern history. Thinking we've cracked the code of rational thought and avoiding groupthink is silly.

threatofrain 6y ago

Who knew YT was the place to develop scientific consensus.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]