5 ms·
The article mentions Brandolini’s Law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.” It's the first tim
by Johnny555 6y ago
The article mentions Brandolini’s Law:
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.”
It's the first time I've heard it, but it's a very appropriate observation in today's world where misinformation travels faster and wider than correct information. If you're just making stuff up, it's much faster than looking up sources.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y agoIts no wonder there is a trend now of just outright rejecting information presented when our "trusted" sources of information are very susceptible to malice and error without any real tools to combat it. My current view is that academic research should not be used as proof of anything and only as the starting point for your own research. And by your own research I mean your own actual tests. The papers can point you in the right direction but their findings should not be taken as fact.
- obscura 6y agoI don't see how this is practical. You could spend a lifetime testing the work of others and still not get through it all, let alone get to working on anything original. Progress is made by building on the work of others.
- canofbars 6y agoThe point is not to test everything ever published, its that when you want to do X, you look for papers on X understanding that they are likely flawed but better than starting from scratch.
- kenjackson 6y agoThis still don’t make sense. For example, I want to paint my house with a less toxic paint. I can’t trust any academic research. I have to now research what is toxic in paint? Then I have to find ways to measure various chemicals and gases? Etc... This seems like a complete utter waste of time. In real life most life impacting academic research is much more right than wrong. You are far better served assuming so. Unless you want to waste your time going back to basic science and rebuilding all the academic knowledge in most things you wish to do.
- peytn 6y agoI think what you’re missing is that academic research focuses on novelty, not basic facts. Ultimately not trusting novelty can save time. Basic facts can be found in reference material. So it’s more like suppose you want to paint your house green, and you read that somebody says you can mix red and blue paint to make a really cool green paint. Instead of immediately going out and buying enough red and blue paint to cover your whole house, first buy a small amount of red and blue paint, mix them together, and see if you get that neat green paint. It’s common sense, but the window dressings of academia can lead you to burn time and money on things that are totally silly because somebody important-sounding said they did it once. Where people get burned is that there’s an enormous power imbalance—-junior scientists can end up stuck trying and failing to make green paint out of red and blue paint because nobody senior is going to take them seriously if they can’t make green paint. This presents a serious ethical challenge if making green paint is impossible.
- obscura 6y agoWhat are "basic facts"? Surely the point of most research is to uncover new facts? And what is "reference material" if not other research - research that you're using as a foundation for your own? It's fair to question things, especially if they don't make sense to you and even if acknowledged authorities are behind them. However, (1) something that you may question is not necessarily something I may question, and (2) questioning may be a waste of time. If a paper that says mixing red and blue paint makes green paint has a thousand citations, perhaps you don't need to question it because others already have. If you can't reproduce it, the simplest thing to do is ask an expert who says it is possible to do it.
- kenjackson 6y agoIt’s not as simple as buying paint. You’re not going to use any treatment where research came from a medical school or associated institute without personally proving it works first? Good luck! If making green paint is impossible I think that it will eventually self correct, or is simply inconsequential. In some instances it may take a while, but if the alternative is to reprove a result before using it — that seems like something only a fool would do or someone with infinite time.
- rkagerer 6y agoReminds me of "a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on". That precise quote is from Pratchett but there are similar, earlier citations https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
- tolbish 6y agoAren't these all variations on well known aphorisms such as "publish or perish"?
- tsimionescu 6y agoI think the ones above are much more general than 'publish or perish'.
- soulofmischief 6y agoThat aphorism applies to publishing within the scientific community and the need for grants, tenure, results, etc.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- toxik 6y agoPublish or perish is the opposite of "silence is golden" more than a statement on the speed of lies and truths.
- m12k 6y agoYou're absolutely right - the big question of the day is not just "how do we counter disinformation?" but "how do we counter it at scale?" The bad-faith actors of the world have realized how incredibly cost effective disinformation is in an online world that can massively amplify messages, and which algorithmically selects for divisiveness and "engagement" rather than factually and utility. We need a CAPTCHA for truth - but I'm not sure such a thing is even possible without AGI. So what does that leave us with - making algorithmic message amplification illegal? Putting that genie back in the bottle isn't going to be easy, so we'd need to be damn sure it's the right thing to do, to ever drum up enough support to get legislation like that passed.
- hobofan 6y agoIsn't the answer well know (improving education and encouraging critical thinking), but unsatisfying because it is hard to implement and changes only crystalize slowly? If everyone were to e.g. request sources for claims instead of taking them at face value that would act similar to a CAPTCHA and prevent the spread of misinformation.
- m12k 6y agoSure, but again, we need a solution that scales, and there's no empirical evidence that this is a scalable solution. We also wouldn't need this if everyone would just be nice to each other and not spread disinformation in the first place, but that's not really much of a realistic solution either, just wishful thinking.
- TeaDrunk 6y agoI don't know if improving education and encouraging critical thinking is actually the silver bullet one may hope it is. HN considers itself a cohort with significantly more critical thinking ability, but it will make wide and unsubstantiated, highly upvoted comments whenever a political subject comes up involving censorship, hallucinogens, systemic oppression, or unions. Of course, HN is also an invaluable resource when it comes to tech and sometimes other STEM subjects. It's just significantly less valuable for areas completely outside of it. I wouldn't trust HN as a neutral or critically thinking source for, say, the usefulness (or lack of usefulness) of gender studies.
- mxcrossb 6y agoI read retraction watch every day, so I’m used to seeing stories like this. But I’m always surprised the effort people go through over articles published in garbage journals. You’re never going to even make a dent.
- obscura 6y agoThe garbage journals are a plague. You publish one article in a legitimate journal and in next to no time these worthless journals (and conferences) start spamming you, even if what you wrote has nothing to do with what they're supposedly publishing.
- Yizahi 6y agoAlso related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop I see this widely used by antivaxxers now.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoInformation travels very quickly through a medium that wishes it to be true. You will find that the ability of the human mind to be critical, to refute with very salient arguments is suddenly acute when the mind doesn't wish it to be true, and this definitely also applies to H.N. comments. That H.N. in this case is so accepting to this one side of the story suggests to me that this is the side it seems to want to be true, notwithstanding it might entirely be, or not be, true.
- remram 6y agoIn your mind, is that "one side" that misconduct happens? Do you think the opposite side "it never happens" is reasonable? No one here is trying to argue that it happens all the time or more often than not, I'm wondering if that's what you think we're reading.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoI find that rarely when a side has an “opposing side” that either side is reasonable In this case, “misconduct happens” is not opposite to “it never happens” and I do not find the comments to echo the former sentiment as much as “Academia has become so ripe with either outright malice, or an inability to catch earnest mistakes, that virtually no research can be trusted.” > No one here is trying to argue that it happens all the time or more often than not, I'm wondering if that's what you think we're reading. No one is indeed arguing that, but what many, including me, are arguing is that nothing can really be trusted any more because it's a coinflip whether data is even reproducible.
- remram 6y agoThere are definitely two sides to your story then :) Not necessarily to the top comments I have read. It might be a more important story though.
- jiofih 6y ago#bothsides
- 6y ago
- m463 6y agoThis goes double for privacy.