4 ms·

To the extent that epidemiology is an applied science, it does not on its own “herald the end of science.” But even in that field, ludicrously simple and narro

To the extent that epidemiology is an applied science, it does not on its own “herald the end of science.” But even in that field, ludicrously simple and narrow-minded theories that are “tested” by running computer games, and then memory-holed as soon as they are no longer politically useful, are a big part of the problem.

edmundsauto 6y ago
I agree that this is problematic. Can you point to instances where this was found to be true? Or, better yet, evidence this is widespread? tbh I'm not clear what you mean by a lot of the terms like "memory holed" - do you mean like the work of Bayes or Boole? I love learning about stuff that we learned, then forgot (scurvy, comes to mind).
- rrss 6y ago
  "memory holed" is a reference to 1984. 'guscost appears to believe that epidemiologists eradicate evidence of their theories and simulation results in a manner comparable to the Ministry of Truth's purging of evidence and rewriting of history.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Instead of active malice to rewrite the truth, can't this just be explained by "people forget over time as new information overwrites old"? Maybe one model for our attention spans is a FIFO queue, organized per topic. That model can't always work, however - we also know that people's first impressions will continue to be strongly held for quite a bit of time. EG, once a news story is published, retractions lack the same impact. What other possible explanations are there? I think it's worth considering alternatives, as it seems clear there are multiple relevant ways of looking at the problem.
    - guscost 6y ago
      > What other possible explanations are there? Corruption. Individual journalists may not have the active intent to do harm with every editorial decision, but there is no way the pattern of things that are “amplified” or “remembered” vs “forgotten” is an accident.

edmundsauto 6y ago

I agree that this is problematic. Can you point to instances where this was found to be true? Or, better yet, evidence this is widespread? tbh I'm not clear what you mean by a lot of the terms like "memory holed" - do you mean like the work of Bayes or Boole? I love learning about stuff that we learned, then forgot (scurvy, comes to mind).

rrss 6y ago
"memory holed" is a reference to 1984. 'guscost appears to believe that epidemiologists eradicate evidence of their theories and simulation results in a manner comparable to the Ministry of Truth's purging of evidence and rewriting of history.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Instead of active malice to rewrite the truth, can't this just be explained by "people forget over time as new information overwrites old"? Maybe one model for our attention spans is a FIFO queue, organized per topic. That model can't always work, however - we also know that people's first impressions will continue to be strongly held for quite a bit of time. EG, once a news story is published, retractions lack the same impact. What other possible explanations are there? I think it's worth considering alternatives, as it seems clear there are multiple relevant ways of looking at the problem.
  - guscost 6y ago
    > What other possible explanations are there? Corruption. Individual journalists may not have the active intent to do harm with every editorial decision, but there is no way the pattern of things that are “amplified” or “remembered” vs “forgotten” is an accident.