3 ms·

Science is a process. HN isn't anti-science. The scientific establishment is a group of people in various organizational structures and alliances. I'm part of

Science is a process. HN isn't anti-science. The scientific establishment is a group of people in various organizational structures and alliances. I'm part of that establishment, and I can say that it lies, exaggerates, and has become increasingly untrustworthy in the past decade or two: - The easiest way to get ahead in the scientific establishment is to fabricate politically-motivated results. - Competition is intense, and the "hard" way is becoming impossible. My general advice is to read source data -- even there with a large grain of salt -- but to definitely not trust "expert" conclusions. One of the easiest ways to have "impact" is to write newsworthy conclusions weakly supported by evidence. It's not technically academic fraud, and gives you the visibility you need for academic job offers. Science isn't about authority or expertise. It's about evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific process. If you believe science is "opinion of experts," you're doing it wrong.

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
People lie. People who care more about getting their PhD and less about the actual research. Cause they don't have the integrity to not cheat. If you care about the actual research, why cheat. And still if researchers would only care about getting funding, they'd all "prove" that them fucking democrats eat children cause man, would they get donations by them QAnon people. And of course if you have a distinguished researcher in a field voicing a clear and educated guess/opinion, its worth much more then any random person commenting here ...
- j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
  For which part of that commend did I get the downvotes? Seriously interested to know so I can write more of that.
SantalBlush 5y ago
>HN isn't anti-science. Oh yes it is. We're not just talking about criticisms of individual papers here; this site often has comments disparaging science as a whole, calling it a "new religion", etc. If that isn't anti-science, then there isn't such a thing. Moreover, typical commenters here do not apply evidence, critical thinking, and scientific process appropriately. They usually find something easy to nitpick that gives them the appearance of thinking critically, then they conclude that the research is trash. See: the recent article on caffeine. It's one giant fallacy fallacy masquerading as deep conversation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Can you please show me where in my comment above I say that "science is "opinion of experts"? If I haven't said that in my comment, would you say I'm obliged to reply to your comment and explain why I'm not, in fact, "doing it wrong"? Do you agree that when having a conversation one should reply to what one's interlocutor has actually said, and not what one thinks has been said? >> Science isn't about authority or expertise. It's about evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific process. I disagree. "Science" means knowledge. What we call science is a process, like you say, but it is the process of accumulating and organising the collective knowledge of our civilisation. "Evidence, critical thinking and the scientific process" are not the essence of science, but tools to acquire knowledge, and this knowledge is the essence of science. The people who have deep knowledge of a subject of scientific inquiry, we call "experts". At least I do and that's what I mean by "expert" in my comment above. To become an expert -to acquire deep knowledge in a subject- takes long years of study and familiarity with the work of other experts. "Evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific process" don't make anyone an expert. Hard work and applying oneself to the task of learning is what does. Yet, what I see on HN, time and again, is that it is the opinions of non-experts that are supported by the majority of users. I say that because every time I see a post like the one above, where some researchers announce the results of their work, someone will always, always, jump in and dismiss the work of the researchers, and that someone usually has no idea what they're talking about, has spent a minimal amount of time thinking about or learning about what they're talking about, and their comment will rise to the top of the conversation, like a flag waving in the wind proclaiming "we do not care what you know, we can do better with a quick google and some bungled logic". That such comments rise to the top of conversations means that they are the ones most other users agree with. This, the preponderance of inexpert opinion found as the first comment in posts about researchers' work, dismissing the researchers' work and supported by a majority of HN readers, is what I think of as "anti-science".
- woofie11 5y ago
  > Can you please show me where in my comment above I say that "science is "opinion of experts"? Right here: "What's hasty is the easy dismissal of the *opinion of experts* on a subject ... When did HN become so anti-science?" > The people who have deep knowledge of a subject of scientific inquiry, we call "experts". Those "experts" said that Jews, Slavs, and African Americans were stupid and inferior to Anglo-Saxons, and ought to be enslaved or killed. Science is not a blind deference to "experts." > Hard work and applying oneself to the task of learning is what does. I have not found this to be the case. The harder work required is combing through evidence. People who apply hard work to learning generally come out as ideologues who can regurgitate opinions, from similar ideologues who came before. The way to become an expert involves looking at primary sources and understanding the evidence which went into a conclusion. In my domain, it involves working through a lot of math too. A lot of the scientific establishment is a game of telephone where Bob cites Sue who cites Jill who cites Jim, and by the time you get to the end, there is no trace of evidence left. Good science involves recognizing when that's the case. > This, the preponderance of inexpert opinion found as the first comment in posts about researchers' work, dismissing the researchers' work and supported by a majority of HN readers, is what I think of as "anti-science". Then you're wrong in your thinking. This is anti-scientific-establishment. I am a recognized "expert" in one domain of research. That's why I am anti-scientific-establishment. I see how the sausage gets made. I am pro-science. I think the scientific establishment would benefit from more diversity -- in all dimensions (liberals talk about race and socioeconomics, conservatives about ideology, and no one talks about culture), more transparency, broader engagement, and more, to be blunt, audits to make sure people didn't fabricate results.

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago

People lie. People who care more about getting their PhD and less about the actual research. Cause they don't have the integrity to not cheat. If you care about the actual research, why cheat. And still if researchers would only care about getting funding, they'd all "prove" that them fucking democrats eat children cause man, would they get donations by them QAnon people. And of course if you have a distinguished researcher in a field voicing a clear and educated guess/opinion, its worth much more then any random person commenting here ...

j_wtf_all_taken 5y ago
For which part of that commend did I get the downvotes? Seriously interested to know so I can write more of that.

SantalBlush 5y ago

>HN isn't anti-science. Oh yes it is. We're not just talking about criticisms of individual papers here; this site often has comments disparaging science as a whole, calling it a "new religion", etc. If that isn't anti-science, then there isn't such a thing. Moreover, typical commenters here do not apply evidence, critical thinking, and scientific process appropriately. They usually find something easy to nitpick that gives them the appearance of thinking critically, then they conclude that the research is trash. See: the recent article on caffeine. It's one giant fallacy fallacy masquerading as deep conversation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

Can you please show me where in my comment above I say that "science is "opinion of experts"? If I haven't said that in my comment, would you say I'm obliged to reply to your comment and explain why I'm not, in fact, "doing it wrong"? Do you agree that when having a conversation one should reply to what one's interlocutor has actually said, and not what one thinks has been said? >> Science isn't about authority or expertise. It's about evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific process. I disagree. "Science" means knowledge. What we call science is a process, like you say, but it is the process of accumulating and organising the collective knowledge of our civilisation. "Evidence, critical thinking and the scientific process" are not the essence of science, but tools to acquire knowledge, and this knowledge is the essence of science. The people who have deep knowledge of a subject of scientific inquiry, we call "experts". At least I do and that's what I mean by "expert" in my comment above. To become an expert -to acquire deep knowledge in a subject- takes long years of study and familiarity with the work of other experts. "Evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific process" don't make anyone an expert. Hard work and applying oneself to the task of learning is what does. Yet, what I see on HN, time and again, is that it is the opinions of non-experts that are supported by the majority of users. I say that because every time I see a post like the one above, where some researchers announce the results of their work, someone will always, always, jump in and dismiss the work of the researchers, and that someone usually has no idea what they're talking about, has spent a minimal amount of time thinking about or learning about what they're talking about, and their comment will rise to the top of the conversation, like a flag waving in the wind proclaiming "we do not care what you know, we can do better with a quick google and some bungled logic". That such comments rise to the top of conversations means that they are the ones most other users agree with. This, the preponderance of inexpert opinion found as the first comment in posts about researchers' work, dismissing the researchers' work and supported by a majority of HN readers, is what I think of as "anti-science".

woofie11 5y ago
> Can you please show me where in my comment above I say that "science is "opinion of experts"? Right here: "What's hasty is the easy dismissal of the *opinion of experts* on a subject ... When did HN become so anti-science?" > The people who have deep knowledge of a subject of scientific inquiry, we call "experts". Those "experts" said that Jews, Slavs, and African Americans were stupid and inferior to Anglo-Saxons, and ought to be enslaved or killed. Science is not a blind deference to "experts." > Hard work and applying oneself to the task of learning is what does. I have not found this to be the case. The harder work required is combing through evidence. People who apply hard work to learning generally come out as ideologues who can regurgitate opinions, from similar ideologues who came before. The way to become an expert involves looking at primary sources and understanding the evidence which went into a conclusion. In my domain, it involves working through a lot of math too. A lot of the scientific establishment is a game of telephone where Bob cites Sue who cites Jill who cites Jim, and by the time you get to the end, there is no trace of evidence left. Good science involves recognizing when that's the case. > This, the preponderance of inexpert opinion found as the first comment in posts about researchers' work, dismissing the researchers' work and supported by a majority of HN readers, is what I think of as "anti-science". Then you're wrong in your thinking. This is anti-scientific-establishment. I am a recognized "expert" in one domain of research. That's why I am anti-scientific-establishment. I see how the sausage gets made. I am pro-science. I think the scientific establishment would benefit from more diversity -- in all dimensions (liberals talk about race and socioeconomics, conservatives about ideology, and no one talks about culture), more transparency, broader engagement, and more, to be blunt, audits to make sure people didn't fabricate results.