5 ms·

Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually s

Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication and makes its way on TV channels and then into law to « curb this unprecedented situation that disenfranchises [place this politician’s favorite group here] ». Politicians have very well understood that modern civilization is governed by scientific beliefs rather than religious beliefs, and masquerading science for political gain will give you power for a very efficient cost. The problem is not Facebook, but that our science is as vulnerable to 51% attacks as Bitcoin.

Avicebron 6y ago
And if Facebook reduces the friction to those attacks? Isn't it then back to being the problem? I think the friction was part of the design/major benefits of older forms of media
- laurent92 6y ago
  The friction of those media prevents people from criticizing blatantly false scientific studies which have made their way to television and into laws. For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables. Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit. What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables. It's worse than that, because the media keeps saying "73 cents per dollar for the same work" when, first, the current number is 79 cents (73 cents is out of date), and second, it's not for the same work, it's overall across all jobs. For the same work it's around 95 cents, which is within the margin of error. Basically, the "wage gap" doesn't even exist.
nickthemagicman 6y ago
Why can't we have both problems! I think you're completely right. Science is not cut and dry or black and white. Highly qualified experts disagree ALL THE TIME and the scientific industry is very competetive. Look at Copernicus or Galileo or Barry Marshall or Semmelweis. These scientists bucked all mainstream scientific beliefs even after almost roundly being ostrasized and ended up being correct in the long run. Many science experiments are measured terms of varying levels of statistical significance not in terms of correct/incorrect. You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'. Science changes constantly and is an ongoing process to discover truth not a static set of true facts. Science is as open to interpretations, best guesses, and political agendas and all kinds of human frailtys as any other industry. But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.
- deckard1 6y ago
  > You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'. The layperson should trust science. Because the alternative is some QAnon cult bullshit. Don't confuse the scientific process with concrete scientific results. No one is out there refuting Newton or Einstein. Nuclear bombs still work as good as they did in the 1940s. Every time you use your smartphone you're "trusting" that the capacitive screen still works. It's rather silly to not trust science when the products of science are all around us. Whether it's GPS or the airbags in your car. The problem is with bullshitters and those (such as the media) that use early scientific papers as final scientific truth. With Gell-Mann amnesia effect, the bullshitters have the upper hand. Twitter is particularly bad about this, where people with high follower count toss out "hot takes" all day in hopes of something sticking. You might follow, say, a Paul Graham type of person that knows their VC stuff. But in between their VC messages they start talking about gravitational wells or something entirely unrelated to their core competence. Twitter is an endlessly flowing vortex of this type of bullshit. It's sort of a trust arbitrage marketplace, where influencers in one market try to gain entry into other markets by relying on their expert status in one field. As for the media, they have deadlines and revenue targets to meet. They want fresh new stories, and Einstein isn't saying much these days. So they'll reach into the scientific paper wastebasket and pull out some trash and present it as some recent scientific discovery. > But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true. The crux of this problem is that many years ago we decided that experts shouldn't exist. America, at the very least, has a particularly strong anti-intellectual sentiment running throughout its history. So we decided to do away with experts. Just look at Dr. Drew or Dr. Oz. or Dr. Phil. These are people playing the role of expert but are just the same bullshitters that are on Twitter. With the internet, everyone can be an expert.
raarts 6y ago
About the Mein Kampf thing. Were you referring to the grievance studies affair [1]? There is a documentary on it on YouTube [2]. Definitely recommend the watch. Funny too. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7ClMEKe9WkXt5GO https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7Cl...
- specialist 6y ago
  Jay Leno did it better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_pw8duzGUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_pw8duzGUg
raxxorrax 6y ago
Very true, especially on side topics science is extremely vulnerable. You have no counter study and peer review is a lot of work, so some works might just stay uncontested for a very long time. Meanwhile, a lot of proved studies are dismissed for political reasons. Sometimes that is good, sometimes not. But it is safe to say that it would indeed not be prudent to derive policy impetus from a lot of sciences without a public debate. And I mean public, not just academic circles.

Avicebron 6y ago

And if Facebook reduces the friction to those attacks? Isn't it then back to being the problem? I think the friction was part of the design/major benefits of older forms of media

laurent92 6y ago
The friction of those media prevents people from criticizing blatantly false scientific studies which have made their way to television and into laws. For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables. Having entire sewers of points of views pouring in Facebook is a then great scientific education that there is no one truth, which _some_ people believe a bit too much. And sewers are immensely better than downright falsehoods taught on TV at wide scale with a confident voice and a suit. What’s next, do people believe Biden is president?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > For example the layman has been told women are paid 73 cents for a dollar for the same work, and people constantly vote to raise women’s salaries based on the assumption it is true, because TV said so. Yet programmers who use spaces instead of tabs are paid 20% more, showing that even the slimmest external variable can double one’s salary, not even talking about internal variables. It's worse than that, because the media keeps saying "73 cents per dollar for the same work" when, first, the current number is 79 cents (73 cents is out of date), and second, it's not for the same work, it's overall across all jobs. For the same work it's around 95 cents, which is within the margin of error. Basically, the "wage gap" doesn't even exist.

nickthemagicman 6y ago

Why can't we have both problems! I think you're completely right. Science is not cut and dry or black and white. Highly qualified experts disagree ALL THE TIME and the scientific industry is very competetive. Look at Copernicus or Galileo or Barry Marshall or Semmelweis. These scientists bucked all mainstream scientific beliefs even after almost roundly being ostrasized and ended up being correct in the long run. Many science experiments are measured terms of varying levels of statistical significance not in terms of correct/incorrect. You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'. Science changes constantly and is an ongoing process to discover truth not a static set of true facts. Science is as open to interpretations, best guesses, and political agendas and all kinds of human frailtys as any other industry. But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.

deckard1 6y ago
> You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'. The layperson should trust science. Because the alternative is some QAnon cult bullshit. Don't confuse the scientific process with concrete scientific results. No one is out there refuting Newton or Einstein. Nuclear bombs still work as good as they did in the 1940s. Every time you use your smartphone you're "trusting" that the capacitive screen still works. It's rather silly to not trust science when the products of science are all around us. Whether it's GPS or the airbags in your car. The problem is with bullshitters and those (such as the media) that use early scientific papers as final scientific truth. With Gell-Mann amnesia effect, the bullshitters have the upper hand. Twitter is particularly bad about this, where people with high follower count toss out "hot takes" all day in hopes of something sticking. You might follow, say, a Paul Graham type of person that knows their VC stuff. But in between their VC messages they start talking about gravitational wells or something entirely unrelated to their core competence. Twitter is an endlessly flowing vortex of this type of bullshit. It's sort of a trust arbitrage marketplace, where influencers in one market try to gain entry into other markets by relying on their expert status in one field. As for the media, they have deadlines and revenue targets to meet. They want fresh new stories, and Einstein isn't saying much these days. So they'll reach into the scientific paper wastebasket and pull out some trash and present it as some recent scientific discovery. > But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true. The crux of this problem is that many years ago we decided that experts shouldn't exist. America, at the very least, has a particularly strong anti-intellectual sentiment running throughout its history. So we decided to do away with experts. Just look at Dr. Drew or Dr. Oz. or Dr. Phil. These are people playing the role of expert but are just the same bullshitters that are on Twitter. With the internet, everyone can be an expert.

raarts 6y ago

About the Mein Kampf thing. Were you referring to the grievance studies affair [1]? There is a documentary on it on YouTube [2]. Definitely recommend the watch. Funny too. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7ClMEKe9WkXt5GO https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7Cl...

specialist 6y ago
Jay Leno did it better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_pw8duzGUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_pw8duzGUg

raxxorrax 6y ago

Very true, especially on side topics science is extremely vulnerable. You have no counter study and peer review is a lot of work, so some works might just stay uncontested for a very long time. Meanwhile, a lot of proved studies are dismissed for political reasons. Sometimes that is good, sometimes not. But it is safe to say that it would indeed not be prudent to derive policy impetus from a lot of sciences without a public debate. And I mean public, not just academic circles.