3 ms·

> Welcome to science folks. There is no question that a very significant portion is wrong and some of it is fraud, but I feel like this is the wrong summary ta

by dahart 4y ago

> Welcome to science folks. There is no question that a very significant portion is wrong and some of it is fraud, but I feel like this is the wrong summary takeaway. Science isn’t the reason that science is messed up, people are the reason. All fields of human endeavor suffer from the same problems due to emotional and political and selfish people. It’s more like, welcome to humanity. Science is actually the best thing we’ve got, there is no alternative that has less BS and more truth. The 10% or so of science that’s right has transformed the earth in the last century. I worry about framing this the right way, about the subtleties of how you say it, because there is currently a war being waged on public trust in science, and to some degree that anti-science war is being won. It’s potentially damaging to say “most of science is wrong” and just stop there. That’s a misleading framing in my opinion. In order to fix the funding problems, society as a whole needs to have trust in science, to believe that the majority of people doing science are politically impartial and also not wasting money or lining their own pockets, to believe that scientific progress is human progress. It’s important to note that the incentive problems you cite mostly aren’t caused my any malicious intent. Disagreeing with someone else’s research, in my experience, isn’t often done with the primary goal of holding back good research, it’s done because the researchers actually disagree on the science, and the reviewer actually believes the proposed paper isn’t complete or correct or up to publication standards. Moreover, for science it’s very important for researchers to be critical of each other. That is part of why we need more replication study.

charlieyu1 4y ago
The current funding system needs a massive change at least. Funding should go to universities in general instead of specific projects. Get rid of most of the KPIs.
- dahart 4y ago
  I’ve never seen KPIs in academics, is that a thing now? I’ve seen KPIs in tech companies who like to model Google. There is a lot of funding going to universities, and a lot going to specific projects. I think maybe the main model for research funding generally is that funding doesn’t just appear, people have to go ask for it in the form of a grant proposal. Those grants typically once granted go 40% to the university anyway. Universities, for their part, have been absorbing money for larger and more expensive administrations for the last 30-40 years, and it’s out of hand. Most people I know practicing science feel the opposite of what you said - that less funding should go to the university and more directly toward funding research.
- stewbrew 4y ago
  So that we can reinstate the old order of eminence-based science? I think the funding system should be rather be more anonymous, more global, more detached from local elites ... like universities, organization close to government/administration etc. You mustn't forget that universities are only one player of many in the science system. And the main task of some universities rather is education and not research.
nemo44x 4y ago
I think people confuse “the process of science” for “something that is”. People think science is a thing instead of what it is - a method/process to discover objectively true things. Or at least prove what is objectively false within our shared reality. A lot of things look like science and use the word “science” in them but don’t use the process of science to make their claims to truth. This is useful because how can you argue with “the science”?
- dahart 4y ago
  > how can you argue with “the science”? Yeah, totally agreed. It doesn’t even make sense to suggest that testing to check whether things work or not is the wrong process. The scientific method is tautologically true, right? This is one of the reasons I cringe at the yard signs in my neighborhood that declare “science is real”, as if it needed an affirmation. Somehow that seems to give more credibility to the idea that science might not be real, whatever that means. Of course science is real. We don’t have modern houses or cars or computers without, sillies.
patrick451 4y ago
> It’s potentially damaging to say “most of science is wrong” and just stop there. That’s a misleading framing in my opinion. In order to fix the funding problems, society as a whole needs to have trust in science, to believe that the majority of people doing science are politically impartial and also not wasting money or lining their own pockets, to believe that scientific progress is human progress. Science is losing the battle for public trust because it wants to simultaneously be an infallible source of truth and this messy, chaotic discipline where we tumble towards an approximate answer. It gets defined as a one or the other when it's convenient. In the first breath: Oh, X% of all published papers are wrong? No big deal, that's just how science works. Can we have another 100 billion of taxpayer dollars please? In the second breath: The Science Says vaccines are safe and effective. Take it or get fired.
- dahart 4y ago
  You’re conflating science and politics and business. Science isn’t firing people, companies are. The science is right, the vaccines are relatively safe and effective. People whine about the mandatory actions, sometimes with good reason, and we could probably handle this better, but ultimately why should you be allowed to spread a disease at work that has an unfortunately high probability of killing people (or even of just causing someone else to be out sick for a week or two)? The US currently somewhat operates on the principle that companies are allowed to make and enforce their own rules, as long as they’re legal. And there’s a long list of things you must do if you don’t want to get fired, including work forty hours a week, and not be a jerk to your co-workers. Do you think companies should not be allowed to fire people who choose to do things that can hurt the company’s bottom line? Do you want the government to monitor businesses more than it does today? Science funding is complicated and political, but the high level summary of the situation is that the public funds science right now because that’s what the public wants, because a good chunk of society understands that doing science has proven to be a great investment. It would be a bummer if the public decided not to fund science or education, that sounds like the fastest way for the US to become irrelevant globally. Anyway, what is the alternative to doing science? Do you like your computer/car/cell phone? Do you want to see technological progress stop? Can you name a better approach to seeking truth than the scientific method? What has ever proven to be more effective than science?
ufmace 4y ago
I don't think you meant it this way, but I don't really like the phrasing that it's a "framing" problem and that we "need" to "trust in science" and "believe in political impartiality". It sounds like you're talking about knowing there are real problems in how we practice science, but we should manipulate the public into believing in it and trusting it anyways. Trying to manipulate people like this is guaranteed to backfire long term. People will realize that it's being done and trust things coming from the world of science even less. Instead we need to acknowledge that there are real problems in how we practice and communicate about science and take visible steps to fix them.
- dahart 4y ago
  I didn’t suggest people should be manipulated, you ignored my qualifying clause in order to interpret what I said negatively. What I said is that trust is required in order to fix the funding problem. Our funding process by and large does not fund things that have no public support. I did not say or even imply that we should attempt to manufacture trust. If anything, the whole problem is that right now the distrust is being actively manufactured, and we need to stop that. I agree completely we should fix the problems, and I have no problem openly discussing what those problems are. In order to do that there needs to be hope that fixing the problems is a viable and likely-to-succeed activity. Summarizing all of science activity as broken is neither accurate nor helpful in terms of fixing the problems, right? That really is a framing problem because it is not broadly true, the parent poster implied that the practice of science is the problem, when it isn’t the problem. The problem is that people are involved, and science is actually one of the least problematic things we do. It’s incorrect to call out science as broken without comparing it to all other fields. If everyone is convinced that science is a complete and total waste, and people are opposed to spending tax money to fund it, we will not be able to fix the existing problems. If we believe something about science specifically is broken, and not with the rest of the world, then we will come to the wrong conclusion about what is broken and be unable to fix the existing problems.

by dahart 4y ago

charlieyu1 4y ago

The current funding system needs a massive change at least. Funding should go to universities in general instead of specific projects. Get rid of most of the KPIs.

dahart 4y ago
I’ve never seen KPIs in academics, is that a thing now? I’ve seen KPIs in tech companies who like to model Google. There is a lot of funding going to universities, and a lot going to specific projects. I think maybe the main model for research funding generally is that funding doesn’t just appear, people have to go ask for it in the form of a grant proposal. Those grants typically once granted go 40% to the university anyway. Universities, for their part, have been absorbing money for larger and more expensive administrations for the last 30-40 years, and it’s out of hand. Most people I know practicing science feel the opposite of what you said - that less funding should go to the university and more directly toward funding research.
stewbrew 4y ago
So that we can reinstate the old order of eminence-based science? I think the funding system should be rather be more anonymous, more global, more detached from local elites ... like universities, organization close to government/administration etc. You mustn't forget that universities are only one player of many in the science system. And the main task of some universities rather is education and not research.

nemo44x 4y ago

I think people confuse “the process of science” for “something that is”. People think science is a thing instead of what it is - a method/process to discover objectively true things. Or at least prove what is objectively false within our shared reality. A lot of things look like science and use the word “science” in them but don’t use the process of science to make their claims to truth. This is useful because how can you argue with “the science”?

dahart 4y ago
> how can you argue with “the science”? Yeah, totally agreed. It doesn’t even make sense to suggest that testing to check whether things work or not is the wrong process. The scientific method is tautologically true, right? This is one of the reasons I cringe at the yard signs in my neighborhood that declare “science is real”, as if it needed an affirmation. Somehow that seems to give more credibility to the idea that science might not be real, whatever that means. Of course science is real. We don’t have modern houses or cars or computers without, sillies.

patrick451 4y ago

> It’s potentially damaging to say “most of science is wrong” and just stop there. That’s a misleading framing in my opinion. In order to fix the funding problems, society as a whole needs to have trust in science, to believe that the majority of people doing science are politically impartial and also not wasting money or lining their own pockets, to believe that scientific progress is human progress. Science is losing the battle for public trust because it wants to simultaneously be an infallible source of truth and this messy, chaotic discipline where we tumble towards an approximate answer. It gets defined as a one or the other when it's convenient. In the first breath: Oh, X% of all published papers are wrong? No big deal, that's just how science works. Can we have another 100 billion of taxpayer dollars please? In the second breath: The Science Says vaccines are safe and effective. Take it or get fired.

dahart 4y ago
You’re conflating science and politics and business. Science isn’t firing people, companies are. The science is right, the vaccines are relatively safe and effective. People whine about the mandatory actions, sometimes with good reason, and we could probably handle this better, but ultimately why should you be allowed to spread a disease at work that has an unfortunately high probability of killing people (or even of just causing someone else to be out sick for a week or two)? The US currently somewhat operates on the principle that companies are allowed to make and enforce their own rules, as long as they’re legal. And there’s a long list of things you must do if you don’t want to get fired, including work forty hours a week, and not be a jerk to your co-workers. Do you think companies should not be allowed to fire people who choose to do things that can hurt the company’s bottom line? Do you want the government to monitor businesses more than it does today? Science funding is complicated and political, but the high level summary of the situation is that the public funds science right now because that’s what the public wants, because a good chunk of society understands that doing science has proven to be a great investment. It would be a bummer if the public decided not to fund science or education, that sounds like the fastest way for the US to become irrelevant globally. Anyway, what is the alternative to doing science? Do you like your computer/car/cell phone? Do you want to see technological progress stop? Can you name a better approach to seeking truth than the scientific method? What has ever proven to be more effective than science?

ufmace 4y ago

I don't think you meant it this way, but I don't really like the phrasing that it's a "framing" problem and that we "need" to "trust in science" and "believe in political impartiality". It sounds like you're talking about knowing there are real problems in how we practice science, but we should manipulate the public into believing in it and trusting it anyways. Trying to manipulate people like this is guaranteed to backfire long term. People will realize that it's being done and trust things coming from the world of science even less. Instead we need to acknowledge that there are real problems in how we practice and communicate about science and take visible steps to fix them.

dahart 4y ago
I didn’t suggest people should be manipulated, you ignored my qualifying clause in order to interpret what I said negatively. What I said is that trust is required in order to fix the funding problem. Our funding process by and large does not fund things that have no public support. I did not say or even imply that we should attempt to manufacture trust. If anything, the whole problem is that right now the distrust is being actively manufactured, and we need to stop that. I agree completely we should fix the problems, and I have no problem openly discussing what those problems are. In order to do that there needs to be hope that fixing the problems is a viable and likely-to-succeed activity. Summarizing all of science activity as broken is neither accurate nor helpful in terms of fixing the problems, right? That really is a framing problem because it is not broadly true, the parent poster implied that the practice of science is the problem, when it isn’t the problem. The problem is that people are involved, and science is actually one of the least problematic things we do. It’s incorrect to call out science as broken without comparing it to all other fields. If everyone is convinced that science is a complete and total waste, and people are opposed to spending tax money to fund it, we will not be able to fix the existing problems. If we believe something about science specifically is broken, and not with the rest of the world, then we will come to the wrong conclusion about what is broken and be unable to fix the existing problems.