5 ms·

>massage and cherry pick the data until it fits whatever narrative it wants. It has a lot of money at stake. People already do this when there's basically noth

>massage and cherry pick the data until it fits whatever narrative it wants. It has a lot of money at stake. People already do this when there's basically nothing at stake though.

vkou 6y ago
Does public research do it even remotely to the same extent as what gets us advertisements like "Four out of five dentists recommend Marlboro cigarettes"? Policy has to be based on something. Public research is being attacked because it's not perfect. Okay. If you're going to do that, you should apply the same expectations to private research, and also require that firms prove that their products are safe, to the same rigorous standards that you expect out of public researchers.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >"Four out of five dentists recommend Marlboro cigarettes"? I don't see how that's any different than when congressmen get interviewed by the talking heads and say "the research is clear, there's been study X by Y and P by Q that show that what we need to do is enact <insert some asinine extremist legislation that that congressmen supports>". They're both lying in a plausibly deniable manner in order to market something to the public. Anyone who bothers to verify either claim will find it's all crap. The problem isn't the research. It's that we blindly trust "the research" and people know this so the research gets manipulated and cherry picked and whatnot. Two hundred years ago these sorts of people and entities all invoked gods name in order to peddle crap. I have no idea what the solution is but I think whatever it is will involve the public being more disapproving of parties that behave in a slimy manner like this.
  - vkou 6y ago
    > I have no idea what the solution is but I think whatever it is will involve the public being more disapproving of parties that behave in a slimy manner like this. One of the two parties is currently seriously considering not accepting the results of an election they lost. The leader of that party is busy calling up election officials, and threatening them into magically finding thousands of votes that will give him the victory. And the rank and file of the party isn't distancing themselves from this behavior. Instead, they are turning their ire at the person who leaked it. On the order of slimy political behavior that voters don't punish politicians for, this issue we're discussing won't even register. We're currently so far down the rabbit hole, I don't think we'll ever find our way out. > I have no idea what the solution is That's because there is no perfect solution. We don't live in a perfect world. We just have to find the best solution out of a space of sub-optimal ones. And in this case, public research is a much better starting point for policy than private research, or no research (which is what would happen if we applied your standard.)

>massage and cherry pick the data until it fits whatever narrative it wants. It has a lot of money at stake. People already do this when there's basically nothing at stake though.

vkou 6y ago

Does public research do it even remotely to the same extent as what gets us advertisements like "Four out of five dentists recommend Marlboro cigarettes"? Policy has to be based on something. Public research is being attacked because it's not perfect. Okay. If you're going to do that, you should apply the same expectations to private research, and also require that firms prove that their products are safe, to the same rigorous standards that you expect out of public researchers.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>"Four out of five dentists recommend Marlboro cigarettes"? I don't see how that's any different than when congressmen get interviewed by the talking heads and say "the research is clear, there's been study X by Y and P by Q that show that what we need to do is enact <insert some asinine extremist legislation that that congressmen supports>". They're both lying in a plausibly deniable manner in order to market something to the public. Anyone who bothers to verify either claim will find it's all crap. The problem isn't the research. It's that we blindly trust "the research" and people know this so the research gets manipulated and cherry picked and whatnot. Two hundred years ago these sorts of people and entities all invoked gods name in order to peddle crap. I have no idea what the solution is but I think whatever it is will involve the public being more disapproving of parties that behave in a slimy manner like this.
- vkou 6y ago
  > I have no idea what the solution is but I think whatever it is will involve the public being more disapproving of parties that behave in a slimy manner like this. One of the two parties is currently seriously considering not accepting the results of an election they lost. The leader of that party is busy calling up election officials, and threatening them into magically finding thousands of votes that will give him the victory. And the rank and file of the party isn't distancing themselves from this behavior. Instead, they are turning their ire at the person who leaked it. On the order of slimy political behavior that voters don't punish politicians for, this issue we're discussing won't even register. We're currently so far down the rabbit hole, I don't think we'll ever find our way out. > I have no idea what the solution is That's because there is no perfect solution. We don't live in a perfect world. We just have to find the best solution out of a space of sub-optimal ones. And in this case, public research is a much better starting point for policy than private research, or no research (which is what would happen if we applied your standard.)