4 ms·

What is the alternative to following the science? Following people who are not scientists and who are explicitly making things up? This sounds a lot like "most

What is the alternative to following the science? Following people who are not scientists and who are explicitly making things up? This sounds a lot like "most plane crashes are due to pilot error, so maybe we should give non-pilots control of the planes."

caddemon 5y ago
I think it depends on the risk/reward of not following the science - as an example, there was debate about whether ibuprofen worsened the effects of COVID early in the pandemic. MGH basically came out and said that while the research was leaning towards ibuprofen being okay (and the WHO at that point had announced it was), they had plenty of acetaminophen available and no reason to doubt its safety for COVID patients. So they were going to stick with acetaminophen only for most patients. Another COVID-related example is masks. At one point early in the pandemic there was messaging that masks were not useful in preventing the spread of COVID in the general public. There were supply chain reasons that probably motivated that message, but I also know virology PhD students that were insistent it was the truth, with papers in hand. At the time there were also papers to suggest the opposite, so one could have a healthy debate on the subject - but at the end of the day I gave my grandparents a small box of masks, because wearing a mask is so low effort I don't see why you wouldn't unless you are truly extremely certain that it's useless.
- Niksko 5y ago
  Unfortunately, the risk/reward equation is confounded by people who interpret any kind of public health measures as a slippery slope towards fascism.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    Bad take. People are rightly wary of public health when public health openly discredits itself--you'd have to be an absolute imbecile to believe, e.g., covid was a huge risk during anti-lockdown protests, but was not at all a concern during BLM protests.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      When did “public health openly discredit itself” in such a way?
      - zepto 5y ago
        Seems like the comment you are replying to contains an example.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        Yes, I am asking for an example of when that happened.
        zepto 5y ago
        It was very public news. Even the controversy was widely reported. I’m surprised you don’t know about it. In any case it should be easy to Google.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        I think you are remembering incorrectly.
        sjwalter 5y ago
        This kind of gaslighting is why nobody trusts authority any more. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protests-and-trump-rallies-both-carry-covid-19-risks-but-theres-a-reason-trumps-rallies-are-worse/2020/09/15/a677ddde-f791-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protests-and-trump-r... Just one of MANY stories why BLM protests are so much less risky than, e.g., Trump rallies. When it was widely rebuked as hypocritical bullshit, they even came up with a crazy way of explaining it away: Now racism was a "public health crisis", all of a sudden. See the google trends: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=racism%20public%20health https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r... Just like how January 6 was an insurrection worthy of months of security state theatrics and proclamations that "white supremacy" is the biggest threat to the USA domestically, whereas an entire summer of burning buildings and riots was "mostly peaceful protests". This is why nobody trusts authority and the media anymore--they have given up on even a pretense of seeming trustworthy.
Sophistifunk 5y ago
Most of the time the computer flies the plane, and we're all safer for it.
sjwalter 5y ago
The alternative that I choose is to have a fucking identity and constantly build up strength along every axis possible, yes even physical. Be a rock. This doesn't mean be hard-headed and unpersuadable, but it also means not being lead around by statistics and citations and "studies". Know who you are, trust your instincts, and do what is right for you. The fact is, unless you're actually the scientist doing the science, almost all the papers and publishing and Science The Meme! that happens and is constantly and endlessly touted, has zero bearing on your own personal life. Ignore it all. In particular, when it comes to health science, you can literally ignore every little bit of it--none of that garbage gets in front of a wide audience unless it's got some profit for some concern at the other end. Know how to feed yourself and stay fit and healthy. Sure, you could use the NYTimes to determine whether a pescetarian diet is superior to a carnivore diet, or whether you should be eating highly-processed factory-produced fake meat and in what quantities, or you could just use your own common sense and your own body to do your own individual science--try carnivorous eating for a month, then vegan, see how you feel. Be confident and ever-increasingly capable. Become more dangerous every day. Have an anchor that's ties your core values to who you are, however you define that, and let the rest of the masses get socially engineered into believing whatever the hell they want.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > Know how to feed yourself and stay fit and healthy. Well, okay. I was kinda with you when you were saying you can ignore most health science headlines, but then you seem to change your mind and hint that there must be some way of gaining knowledge about one’s health without science. So how then? Common sense and personal experimentation are only going to get you so far.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    Eat well. Sleep well. Exercise daily. Are you seriously saying you can't figure out how to do these things without bullshit "studies"? Get some weights. Ear high-quality meat. Sleep 8 hours. Tweak as necessary. That gets 90% of people to ever-increasingly healthy. You've been totally neutered if you think you need more than that.
forcry 5y ago
>What is the alternative to following the science? Actually it is not the science that is causing this issue. But research in various forms is. Trusting science is fundamentally different from trusting "scientists". Trusting science is essentially trusting nature to behave in a regular fashion. But trusting research, done and proclaimed by a bunch of humans is well, trusting human beings. Nothing could be more fundamentally different. I think adding a "repeatability factor" to researches could help. So if anyone on the planet can replicate a research method, it should have a repeatability factor value of 1. If only a single entity can replicate it, then it should have a value of 0. If some entities can validate it, then it should have a value somewhere in between. This does not mean that research that have low RF cannot be applied widely. It just that it will have to do additional work to gain the trust of the people. It only follows common sense that trust in something cannot be mandated. So, measures that are based on low RF value research should NEVER be mandated. No matter what that cost. And thus I think this can save the corruption and manipulation in the name of science.
lmm 5y ago
Have a higher evidentiary threshold when it comes to results that contradict common-sense, or that suggest changing your current behaviour? Of course sometimes counterintuitive results turn out to be real, but most the time the "follow the science" people are getting prematurely excited.
- kaba0 5y ago
  I think the reverse direction is much worse, like anti-vaxx, and the general anti-intellectualism of the common.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Having lived a few years and witnessed "the science" change a number of times, I'd say that in my social circles (which are by no means representative of everyone) disproportionate trust in supposed scientific conclusions (particularly those that go against common sense) is a bigger problem than the reverse. E.g. official diet advice over the last few decades, or relative damage done by diesel vs petrol cars.

caddemon 5y ago

I think it depends on the risk/reward of not following the science - as an example, there was debate about whether ibuprofen worsened the effects of COVID early in the pandemic. MGH basically came out and said that while the research was leaning towards ibuprofen being okay (and the WHO at that point had announced it was), they had plenty of acetaminophen available and no reason to doubt its safety for COVID patients. So they were going to stick with acetaminophen only for most patients. Another COVID-related example is masks. At one point early in the pandemic there was messaging that masks were not useful in preventing the spread of COVID in the general public. There were supply chain reasons that probably motivated that message, but I also know virology PhD students that were insistent it was the truth, with papers in hand. At the time there were also papers to suggest the opposite, so one could have a healthy debate on the subject - but at the end of the day I gave my grandparents a small box of masks, because wearing a mask is so low effort I don't see why you wouldn't unless you are truly extremely certain that it's useless.

Niksko 5y ago
Unfortunately, the risk/reward equation is confounded by people who interpret any kind of public health measures as a slippery slope towards fascism.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  Bad take. People are rightly wary of public health when public health openly discredits itself--you'd have to be an absolute imbecile to believe, e.g., covid was a huge risk during anti-lockdown protests, but was not at all a concern during BLM protests.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    When did “public health openly discredit itself” in such a way?
    - zepto 5y ago
      Seems like the comment you are replying to contains an example.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Yes, I am asking for an example of when that happened.
        zepto 5y ago
        It was very public news. Even the controversy was widely reported. I’m surprised you don’t know about it. In any case it should be easy to Google.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        I think you are remembering incorrectly.
        sjwalter 5y ago
        This kind of gaslighting is why nobody trusts authority any more. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protests-and-trump-rallies-both-carry-covid-19-risks-but-theres-a-reason-trumps-rallies-are-worse/2020/09/15/a677ddde-f791-11ea-89e3-4b9efa36dc64_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protests-and-trump-r... Just one of MANY stories why BLM protests are so much less risky than, e.g., Trump rallies. When it was widely rebuked as hypocritical bullshit, they even came up with a crazy way of explaining it away: Now racism was a "public health crisis", all of a sudden. See the google trends: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=racism%20public%20health https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r... Just like how January 6 was an insurrection worthy of months of security state theatrics and proclamations that "white supremacy" is the biggest threat to the USA domestically, whereas an entire summer of burning buildings and riots was "mostly peaceful protests". This is why nobody trusts authority and the media anymore--they have given up on even a pretense of seeming trustworthy.

Sophistifunk 5y ago

Most of the time the computer flies the plane, and we're all safer for it.

sjwalter 5y ago

The alternative that I choose is to have a fucking identity and constantly build up strength along every axis possible, yes even physical. Be a rock. This doesn't mean be hard-headed and unpersuadable, but it also means not being lead around by statistics and citations and "studies". Know who you are, trust your instincts, and do what is right for you. The fact is, unless you're actually the scientist doing the science, almost all the papers and publishing and Science The Meme! that happens and is constantly and endlessly touted, has zero bearing on your own personal life. Ignore it all. In particular, when it comes to health science, you can literally ignore every little bit of it--none of that garbage gets in front of a wide audience unless it's got some profit for some concern at the other end. Know how to feed yourself and stay fit and healthy. Sure, you could use the NYTimes to determine whether a pescetarian diet is superior to a carnivore diet, or whether you should be eating highly-processed factory-produced fake meat and in what quantities, or you could just use your own common sense and your own body to do your own individual science--try carnivorous eating for a month, then vegan, see how you feel. Be confident and ever-increasingly capable. Become more dangerous every day. Have an anchor that's ties your core values to who you are, however you define that, and let the rest of the masses get socially engineered into believing whatever the hell they want.

tshaddox 5y ago
> Know how to feed yourself and stay fit and healthy. Well, okay. I was kinda with you when you were saying you can ignore most health science headlines, but then you seem to change your mind and hint that there must be some way of gaining knowledge about one’s health without science. So how then? Common sense and personal experimentation are only going to get you so far.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  Eat well. Sleep well. Exercise daily. Are you seriously saying you can't figure out how to do these things without bullshit "studies"? Get some weights. Ear high-quality meat. Sleep 8 hours. Tweak as necessary. That gets 90% of people to ever-increasingly healthy. You've been totally neutered if you think you need more than that.

forcry 5y ago

>What is the alternative to following the science? Actually it is not the science that is causing this issue. But research in various forms is. Trusting science is fundamentally different from trusting "scientists". Trusting science is essentially trusting nature to behave in a regular fashion. But trusting research, done and proclaimed by a bunch of humans is well, trusting human beings. Nothing could be more fundamentally different. I think adding a "repeatability factor" to researches could help. So if anyone on the planet can replicate a research method, it should have a repeatability factor value of 1. If only a single entity can replicate it, then it should have a value of 0. If some entities can validate it, then it should have a value somewhere in between. This does not mean that research that have low RF cannot be applied widely. It just that it will have to do additional work to gain the trust of the people. It only follows common sense that trust in something cannot be mandated. So, measures that are based on low RF value research should NEVER be mandated. No matter what that cost. And thus I think this can save the corruption and manipulation in the name of science.

lmm 5y ago

Have a higher evidentiary threshold when it comes to results that contradict common-sense, or that suggest changing your current behaviour? Of course sometimes counterintuitive results turn out to be real, but most the time the "follow the science" people are getting prematurely excited.

kaba0 5y ago
I think the reverse direction is much worse, like anti-vaxx, and the general anti-intellectualism of the common.
- lmm 5y ago
  Having lived a few years and witnessed "the science" change a number of times, I'd say that in my social circles (which are by no means representative of everyone) disproportionate trust in supposed scientific conclusions (particularly those that go against common sense) is a bigger problem than the reverse. E.g. official diet advice over the last few decades, or relative damage done by diesel vs petrol cars.