3 ms·

You're showing a fundamental misconception and outright ignorance of what research papers are, and more importantly what science is. For example, you're somehow

by rualca 6y ago

You're showing a fundamental misconception and outright ignorance of what research papers are, and more importantly what science is. For example, you're somehow assuming that academic papers about to be subjected to peer review are somehow milestones which write in stone the truth instead of what they actually are and always have been: a way to share data, observations, theories, hypothesis, and even assumptions on research topics. Researchers share their work not because it's bullet-proof but because it's food for thought that can be used to drive our understanding a bit further. And a paper is retracted only in extreme cases such as gross scientific malpractice such as fraud. Unless you have some info that you refused to share, I see no coherent and rational reason to indicate any of these papers should be retracted. Having strong emotionally-driven positions on a subject is not a reason to demand a paper should be retracted.

incrudible 6y ago
> You're showing a fundamental misconception and outright ignorance of what research papers are, and more importantly what science is. For example, you're somehow assuming that academic papers about to be subjected to peer review are somehow milestones which write in stone the truth instead of what they actually are and always have been: a way to share data, observations, theories, hypothesis, and even assumptions on research topics. This is an ivory tower view on what research papers should be, not what they actually are. I'll quote you the paper in question: "Our estimates suggest that control measures of a similar stringency to the national lockdown implemented in England in November 2020 are unlikely to reduce the effective reproduction number R t to less than 1, unless primary schools, secondary schools,and universities are also closed. We project that large resurgences of the virus are likely to occur following easing of control measures." This is de-facto a lockdown propaganda tool. The doomsday predictions based on naive models have greatly affected public policy, while more moderate assessments have been swept under the rug. The most dramatic piece of research tends to win over the public, even if it's junk science. That's not to say that this paper is junk science, but if it was, it wouldn't matter to the outcome, because the default right now is to be overly cautious and portray dissenting views as reckless.
- rualca 6y ago
  > This is an ivory tower view on what research papers should be (....) It really isn't, and failing to understand what a scientific paper is shows a crass and fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. You will never arrive at a correct conclusion if all your premises are fundamentally wrong. I mean, think about it. What do you think "peer review" is supposed to be? Why do you think these papers are accepted and published after being subjected to peer review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review > This is de-facto a lockdown propaganda tool. It really isn't, and it boggles the mind how easy you come up with conspiracy theories to find alternative explanations to obvious and undisputed facts. Just because you feel a finding is politically inconvenient and incompatible with your feelings and personal beliefs it doesn't mean the world is conspiring against you. In this case it just means you're talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about nor you care to learn, as is demonstrated by your use of the term "ivory tower" to try to attach your fundamental misconception of what a research paper is. In fact, you should think your assertions through. I mean, you're somehow accusing a scientific paper of being rubber-stamped facts while at the same time complaining it's propaganda? Come on. Please learn what science is and what is the role of the scientific paper in conducting research, and please stop making conspiracy theories up to fill in your knowledge gaps.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    > It really isn't, and failing to understand what a scientific paper is shows a crass and fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Again, you fail to differentiate between what things are in practice and what you think they should be. I agree with you on how things should work, but not how they actually work in practice. All the actual science in the paper doesn't matter to the outcome. When Boris Johnson goes in front of the public and claims that this virus "might be 70% more contagious" and that therefore more lockdowns and travel restrictions are needed, he's drawing on papers like these. If the paper just presented data and refrained from drawing scary conclusions like "there will likely be a huge resurgence unless...", it would be a different matter. Notice all the weasel words such as "likely" or "probably". It's easy on the conscience to make poorly supported predictions by just adding some words that make the claims technically weaker. > It really isn't, and it boggles the mind how easy you come up with conspiracy theories to find alternative explanations to obvious and undisputed facts. You're now diverting into strawmanning and baseless accusations. There is no conspiracy and I never claimed there was. There is human behavior, which is fundamentally not rational or scientific. One scary sentence in a paper has more impact than all the carefully aggregated data. Dramatic conclusions drawn from weak data make the headlines. This happens all the time and you must've noticed at some point yourself. If news headlines were based on fact, cancer would've been cured hundreds of times over, every year. It's only when you look at the details that the data doesn't hold up. Why would it be different for COVID-19, of all things? > In fact, you should think your assertions through. I mean, you're somehow accusing a scientific paper of being rubber-stamped facts while at the same time complaining it's propaganda? Come on. There's nothing mutually exclusive about something being "scientific fact" and "a (de-facto) propaganda tool". For instance, there's scientific data that shows that people of African descent have lower IQs than those of European descent. This data is being used for propaganda purposes by white supremacists. To the outcome, it just doesn't matter how weak the data is or what the intentions of the authors were.

by rualca 6y ago

incrudible 6y ago

> You're showing a fundamental misconception and outright ignorance of what research papers are, and more importantly what science is. For example, you're somehow assuming that academic papers about to be subjected to peer review are somehow milestones which write in stone the truth instead of what they actually are and always have been: a way to share data, observations, theories, hypothesis, and even assumptions on research topics. This is an ivory tower view on what research papers should be, not what they actually are. I'll quote you the paper in question: "Our estimates suggest that control measures of a similar stringency to the national lockdown implemented in England in November 2020 are unlikely to reduce the effective reproduction number R t to less than 1, unless primary schools, secondary schools,and universities are also closed. We project that large resurgences of the virus are likely to occur following easing of control measures." This is de-facto a lockdown propaganda tool. The doomsday predictions based on naive models have greatly affected public policy, while more moderate assessments have been swept under the rug. The most dramatic piece of research tends to win over the public, even if it's junk science. That's not to say that this paper is junk science, but if it was, it wouldn't matter to the outcome, because the default right now is to be overly cautious and portray dissenting views as reckless.

rualca 6y ago
> This is an ivory tower view on what research papers should be (....) It really isn't, and failing to understand what a scientific paper is shows a crass and fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. You will never arrive at a correct conclusion if all your premises are fundamentally wrong. I mean, think about it. What do you think "peer review" is supposed to be? Why do you think these papers are accepted and published after being subjected to peer review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review > This is de-facto a lockdown propaganda tool. It really isn't, and it boggles the mind how easy you come up with conspiracy theories to find alternative explanations to obvious and undisputed facts. Just because you feel a finding is politically inconvenient and incompatible with your feelings and personal beliefs it doesn't mean the world is conspiring against you. In this case it just means you're talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about nor you care to learn, as is demonstrated by your use of the term "ivory tower" to try to attach your fundamental misconception of what a research paper is. In fact, you should think your assertions through. I mean, you're somehow accusing a scientific paper of being rubber-stamped facts while at the same time complaining it's propaganda? Come on. Please learn what science is and what is the role of the scientific paper in conducting research, and please stop making conspiracy theories up to fill in your knowledge gaps.
- incrudible 6y ago
  > It really isn't, and failing to understand what a scientific paper is shows a crass and fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Again, you fail to differentiate between what things are in practice and what you think they should be. I agree with you on how things should work, but not how they actually work in practice. All the actual science in the paper doesn't matter to the outcome. When Boris Johnson goes in front of the public and claims that this virus "might be 70% more contagious" and that therefore more lockdowns and travel restrictions are needed, he's drawing on papers like these. If the paper just presented data and refrained from drawing scary conclusions like "there will likely be a huge resurgence unless...", it would be a different matter. Notice all the weasel words such as "likely" or "probably". It's easy on the conscience to make poorly supported predictions by just adding some words that make the claims technically weaker. > It really isn't, and it boggles the mind how easy you come up with conspiracy theories to find alternative explanations to obvious and undisputed facts. You're now diverting into strawmanning and baseless accusations. There is no conspiracy and I never claimed there was. There is human behavior, which is fundamentally not rational or scientific. One scary sentence in a paper has more impact than all the carefully aggregated data. Dramatic conclusions drawn from weak data make the headlines. This happens all the time and you must've noticed at some point yourself. If news headlines were based on fact, cancer would've been cured hundreds of times over, every year. It's only when you look at the details that the data doesn't hold up. Why would it be different for COVID-19, of all things? > In fact, you should think your assertions through. I mean, you're somehow accusing a scientific paper of being rubber-stamped facts while at the same time complaining it's propaganda? Come on. There's nothing mutually exclusive about something being "scientific fact" and "a (de-facto) propaganda tool". For instance, there's scientific data that shows that people of African descent have lower IQs than those of European descent. This data is being used for propaganda purposes by white supremacists. To the outcome, it just doesn't matter how weak the data is or what the intentions of the authors were.