4 ms·

I think unfortunately we also need to protect science from idiots making very bad conclusions based on not understanding a paper... That's how we end up with 'b

by rob_c 5y ago

I think unfortunately we also need to protect science from idiots making very bad conclusions based on not understanding a paper... That's how we end up with 'bacon cures cancer' headlines in the daily fail...

rgrieselhuber 5y ago
How do you protect science from idiots? Is science going to stop working if some people think that bacon cures cancer?
- 1270018080 5y ago
  No, but science won't have the opportunity to work when people are passing up vaccines for invermectin.
  - rgrieselhuber 5y ago
    Science is a tool for falsifying hypotheses, not dictating policies or individual choices.
  - rob_c 5y ago
    And wearing a mask in the same confined space with no air circulation for about 20min is pointless but still enforced by idiotic govt policies... Unfortunately "bad science" cuts both ways when it comes to miscommunication.
- rob_c 5y ago
  OK so to counter, Do you think 'scientific research' is in a great position from a funding perspective right now? Have you looked at the press or out the window as to how "science" is portrayed due to covid? The lack of sanity in both political directions is alarming and depressing all at the same. Both sides of the public on this are both, equally, damagingly, wrong. However, they pick up and throw around scientific papers as though it gives them the right to be the next pope... If science is paraded around like nonsense in the press there's a matter of time until we end up with politicians who make the decisions sit there and say "I don't see any public benefit in researching this". That day will only come sooner if things carry on as we head into a recession. Edit: My proposal to fix, as I've suggested elsewhere, keep scientific papers behind some (non-for-profit) walled access, obviously that has damaging impacts when you say X from country Y can't read paper on Z, but frankly maybe the public isn't grown up enough for completely open discourse when they can't understand the material.
richk449 5y ago
The dailymail writes “bacon cures cancer” because that headline gets clicks and shares, so it makes them money. I’m not sure that has anything to do with “science”.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  This brings up an interesting point I was thinking about but didn't feel like typing until now. I think the problem could be "science communication", not bad communication or anything like that, but the existence of it in general. There's a casual interest in scientific stuff in the public, there's an entertainment market for it, and so now we have a scenario where people that publish research have to weigh this impact when publishing, including it's benefits. But most people interested are only casually interested (and most vendors of the entertainment have incentives not necessarily aligned with presenting fact, but that's not my point, only a secondary problem). I think it's possible that it might be better if, when someone was interested in something, they had to dig it up online. If we get rid of the whole "science communication" thing, truthful or not you get rid of all these problems. I know it's impossible to do that, but it's interesting to consider that the problem isn't bad communication, but this drive to communicate everything all the time skewing the incentives and public perception.

by rob_c 5y ago

rgrieselhuber 5y ago

How do you protect science from idiots? Is science going to stop working if some people think that bacon cures cancer?

1270018080 5y ago
No, but science won't have the opportunity to work when people are passing up vaccines for invermectin.
- rgrieselhuber 5y ago
  Science is a tool for falsifying hypotheses, not dictating policies or individual choices.
- rob_c 5y ago
  And wearing a mask in the same confined space with no air circulation for about 20min is pointless but still enforced by idiotic govt policies... Unfortunately "bad science" cuts both ways when it comes to miscommunication.
rob_c 5y ago
OK so to counter, Do you think 'scientific research' is in a great position from a funding perspective right now? Have you looked at the press or out the window as to how "science" is portrayed due to covid? The lack of sanity in both political directions is alarming and depressing all at the same. Both sides of the public on this are both, equally, damagingly, wrong. However, they pick up and throw around scientific papers as though it gives them the right to be the next pope... If science is paraded around like nonsense in the press there's a matter of time until we end up with politicians who make the decisions sit there and say "I don't see any public benefit in researching this". That day will only come sooner if things carry on as we head into a recession. Edit: My proposal to fix, as I've suggested elsewhere, keep scientific papers behind some (non-for-profit) walled access, obviously that has damaging impacts when you say X from country Y can't read paper on Z, but frankly maybe the public isn't grown up enough for completely open discourse when they can't understand the material.

richk449 5y ago

The dailymail writes “bacon cures cancer” because that headline gets clicks and shares, so it makes them money. I’m not sure that has anything to do with “science”.

betwixthewires 5y ago
This brings up an interesting point I was thinking about but didn't feel like typing until now. I think the problem could be "science communication", not bad communication or anything like that, but the existence of it in general. There's a casual interest in scientific stuff in the public, there's an entertainment market for it, and so now we have a scenario where people that publish research have to weigh this impact when publishing, including it's benefits. But most people interested are only casually interested (and most vendors of the entertainment have incentives not necessarily aligned with presenting fact, but that's not my point, only a secondary problem). I think it's possible that it might be better if, when someone was interested in something, they had to dig it up online. If we get rid of the whole "science communication" thing, truthful or not you get rid of all these problems. I know it's impossible to do that, but it's interesting to consider that the problem isn't bad communication, but this drive to communicate everything all the time skewing the incentives and public perception.