8 ms·

Although it may help us locate underlying weaknesses in the scientific method, this level of self-consciousness displayed in the public eye is hurting society,

Although it may help us locate underlying weaknesses in the scientific method, this level of self-consciousness displayed in the public eye is hurting society, ignoring the value of rigor and letting nutjobs get away with their ridiculous claims for a quick buck.

naasking 4y ago
I disagree 100%. Science journalism and unreproducible results of the last few decades is what has hurt science's credibility. These public conversations of science's failings and how to fix it are the only thing that can restore its reputation.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  From my perspective as a scientist, a lot of the discussions here about "how to fix science" and "what's wrong with science" suffer from the same problem as science journalism; namely, people who are not experts in a subject trying to act as experts for others who are even less informed. For instance, the author of this TFA is a blogger and a journalist on "various topics". Don't you imagine he suffers the same problem as science journalists, which you call out as hurting science's credibility?
  - naasking 4y ago
    Science journalists have hurt science's credibility not only because they reported poorly on preliminary results, but because they reported on results before they survived replication. As we know from the replication crisis, well over 50% of positive results averaged across all scientific disciplines fail replication. This has led to people seeing articles claiming one thing is true, then seeing an article claiming the contrary the very next week. This clearly erodes public trust in science over time, irrespective of the quality of reporting itself. You can only partly solve this by improving the scientific process. While expertise in science is a valuable perspective to have when discussing the philosophy of science and how to improve the public's trust in science, it's not strictly necessary. We're reimagining how to fund science to achieve multiple objectives, not just scientific objectives. For instance, there's a misleading impression that scientists are only after grant money and that biases them. I say "misleading" and not "wrong", because I think you know the skewed incentives in this process all too well, and this has resulted in some kinds of bias. Some of the proposals discussed here, like grant lotteries, would entirely eliminate that argument against scientists while also solving a few other problems with the grant process itself. I expect many scientists haven't even considered the public view of their incentives when evaluating lottery grants though, and instead focus on whether it's effective in funding good science. Public trust in science is a serious issue though, so if a slightly suboptimal funding process can make scientist's motives unassailable, that could be a justifiable trade-off.
- nurettin 4y ago
  Congratulations on being super strict, but this doesn't address half the problems. So you can only disagree 50%.

naasking 4y ago

I disagree 100%. Science journalism and unreproducible results of the last few decades is what has hurt science's credibility. These public conversations of science's failings and how to fix it are the only thing that can restore its reputation.

ModernMech 4y ago
From my perspective as a scientist, a lot of the discussions here about "how to fix science" and "what's wrong with science" suffer from the same problem as science journalism; namely, people who are not experts in a subject trying to act as experts for others who are even less informed. For instance, the author of this TFA is a blogger and a journalist on "various topics". Don't you imagine he suffers the same problem as science journalists, which you call out as hurting science's credibility?
- naasking 4y ago
  Science journalists have hurt science's credibility not only because they reported poorly on preliminary results, but because they reported on results before they survived replication. As we know from the replication crisis, well over 50% of positive results averaged across all scientific disciplines fail replication. This has led to people seeing articles claiming one thing is true, then seeing an article claiming the contrary the very next week. This clearly erodes public trust in science over time, irrespective of the quality of reporting itself. You can only partly solve this by improving the scientific process. While expertise in science is a valuable perspective to have when discussing the philosophy of science and how to improve the public's trust in science, it's not strictly necessary. We're reimagining how to fund science to achieve multiple objectives, not just scientific objectives. For instance, there's a misleading impression that scientists are only after grant money and that biases them. I say "misleading" and not "wrong", because I think you know the skewed incentives in this process all too well, and this has resulted in some kinds of bias. Some of the proposals discussed here, like grant lotteries, would entirely eliminate that argument against scientists while also solving a few other problems with the grant process itself. I expect many scientists haven't even considered the public view of their incentives when evaluating lottery grants though, and instead focus on whether it's effective in funding good science. Public trust in science is a serious issue though, so if a slightly suboptimal funding process can make scientist's motives unassailable, that could be a justifiable trade-off.
nurettin 4y ago
Congratulations on being super strict, but this doesn't address half the problems. So you can only disagree 50%.