4 ms·

And this is why I'm increasingly suspicious of "consensus" in the scientific establishment. With careers, egos, reputations, and grant money at stake, it's tem

And this is why I'm increasingly suspicious of "consensus" in the scientific establishment. With careers, egos, reputations, and grant money at stake, it's tempting to use one's power to entrench this consensus. Scientific consensus has value, but science also requires that people be open to having their pet theories be validated through replication.

epgui 4y ago
I'm a scientist, and I don't think things so easily become consensus. In order to get to consensus, a model needs to have been tested from many different angles. It's never enough to get to statistical significance, things either get replicated or, more often, triangulated. Consensus is an extremely time-consuming thing to build, and it's extremely important to be aware of when there exists a consensus, where there isn't one, and what the consensus is. It isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, it's a form of deferral to expertise, and it's one of the most important heuristics we have.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  Absolutely not true. I’ve seen things become consensus because of one single questionable image in one paper from a “trusted” lab. In my alma matter field the question was whether her2 receptor recycles (has implication of all breast cancer antibody therapies that target her2) and a paper from a Genentech lab had ONE FIGURE (where different data points from different experiments) as proof. An entire sub field including projects in my own lab were spawned assuming this. Whenever I point out this flaw in lab meetings I’d be shut down by my professors as “they know the authors they trust them”.
  - epgui 4y ago
    I think I'm going to continue disagreeing with you on this point, but I will point out that our difference of opinion is a semantic one. To say that everyone "believes in" a model could mean that everyone accepts it as plausible (and thus worthy of further exploration), or it could mean that everyone is justifiably certain that it maps properly to a real phenomenon. I never say that something is "consensus" in the first case: IMO, the term should be reserved for the latter case, or appropriately qualified. In any case, the situation you describe appears to lack meaningful triangulation. [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3
  - hcknwscommenter 4y ago
    There is also the fact that anti-her2 is now know to be a very effective cancer treatment.
rmatt2000 4y ago
This is why I grit my teeth whenever I hear a politician say something like "the science is settled". Anyone who understands the scientific method knows to say "the science is settled, except if <some specific thing> happens".
c3534l 4y ago
Its fair to be skeptical and to use your critical thinking abilities, but I worry that people go "oh, this generally credible source isn't perfectly reliable, I guess I'll go listening to crackpots and charlatans." Almost as bad is when you become convinced you have the answers, despite not being remotely qualified to speak on the subject. This is how you get flat earthers and 5G conspiracy theorists.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  I've begun to tune out societal criticism that doesn't come from someone with a better idea, who isn't willing to stand in one place and defend a proposal. The experience of saying how you would do it better and getting it torn to shreds really brings you back down to earth.
telchior 4y ago
What does consensus mean, exactly? It doesn't sound like Aβ-56 had full buy-in; the article mentions people complaining about an "amyloid mafia" and half of all funding still going to alternate research, so clearly there were a lot of people who weren't part of whatever the "consensus" was. What's really interesting to me is that such vast sums can be spent, a number of people apparently did not like the Aβ*56 hypothesis and had substantial reason to oppose it or try to find holes in it with substantial rewards for doing so, yet the ones to find problems were some dudes (without any funding at all) just poking around.

epgui 4y ago

I'm a scientist, and I don't think things so easily become consensus. In order to get to consensus, a model needs to have been tested from many different angles. It's never enough to get to statistical significance, things either get replicated or, more often, triangulated. Consensus is an extremely time-consuming thing to build, and it's extremely important to be aware of when there exists a consensus, where there isn't one, and what the consensus is. It isn't an appeal to authority fallacy, it's a form of deferral to expertise, and it's one of the most important heuristics we have.

ramraj07 4y ago
Absolutely not true. I’ve seen things become consensus because of one single questionable image in one paper from a “trusted” lab. In my alma matter field the question was whether her2 receptor recycles (has implication of all breast cancer antibody therapies that target her2) and a paper from a Genentech lab had ONE FIGURE (where different data points from different experiments) as proof. An entire sub field including projects in my own lab were spawned assuming this. Whenever I point out this flaw in lab meetings I’d be shut down by my professors as “they know the authors they trust them”.
- epgui 4y ago
  I think I'm going to continue disagreeing with you on this point, but I will point out that our difference of opinion is a semantic one. To say that everyone "believes in" a model could mean that everyone accepts it as plausible (and thus worthy of further exploration), or it could mean that everyone is justifiably certain that it maps properly to a real phenomenon. I never say that something is "consensus" in the first case: IMO, the term should be reserved for the latter case, or appropriately qualified. In any case, the situation you describe appears to lack meaningful triangulation. [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3
- hcknwscommenter 4y ago
  There is also the fact that anti-her2 is now know to be a very effective cancer treatment.

rmatt2000 4y ago

This is why I grit my teeth whenever I hear a politician say something like "the science is settled". Anyone who understands the scientific method knows to say "the science is settled, except if <some specific thing> happens".

c3534l 4y ago

Its fair to be skeptical and to use your critical thinking abilities, but I worry that people go "oh, this generally credible source isn't perfectly reliable, I guess I'll go listening to crackpots and charlatans." Almost as bad is when you become convinced you have the answers, despite not being remotely qualified to speak on the subject. This is how you get flat earthers and 5G conspiracy theorists.

jrumbut 4y ago
I've begun to tune out societal criticism that doesn't come from someone with a better idea, who isn't willing to stand in one place and defend a proposal. The experience of saying how you would do it better and getting it torn to shreds really brings you back down to earth.

telchior 4y ago

What does consensus mean, exactly? It doesn't sound like Aβ-56 had full buy-in; the article mentions people complaining about an "amyloid mafia" and half of all funding still going to alternate research, so clearly there were a lot of people who weren't part of whatever the "consensus" was. What's really interesting to me is that such vast sums can be spent, a number of people apparently did not like the Aβ*56 hypothesis and had substantial reason to oppose it or try to find holes in it with substantial rewards for doing so, yet the ones to find problems were some dudes (without any funding at all) just poking around.